NFL Modifies 'Catch Rule'

[jmt57]

The NFL Modified The 'Catch Rule' And There May Never Be A Completed Catch Again

The NFL has made yet another amendment to its most infamous rule, and the football world has plunged even deeper down the rabbit hole of deciphering completions and may never escape. If figuring out what “makes a catch a catch” was already baffling, it’s reached David Lynch levels of confusion now.​

 

[varjao]

This part of the article says everything one needs to hear.

"This is why continually adding provisions and amendments and footnotes to the rule only makes it harder to understand and easier to screw up. Ultimately, officials may have to make judgment calls".

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Control and two feet down... It isn't difficult.

 

[signbabybrady]

This actually seems logical enough to me. It seems they are just trying to better define football move.

I think if they just let the refs use judgement we would better off but since they insist on fully defining every nuance this seems better than before.

 

[Froob]

Control and two feet down... It isn't difficult.

I don't get why it's different on the side line vs the field of play.

 

[BTTA]

Control and two feet down... It isn't difficult.

Oh, but they've made it so much more difficult.

I can't wait for Belichick to get one overturned against a rival on national TV. Just love watching those opposing fans, and Goodell, twitch.

 

[long distance]

NFL church - wants to keep the single most important question - Mystery

 

[Clonamery]

NFL church - wants to keep the single most important question - Mystery

Better known as the "Blandino effect."

 

[PatsBoy12]

And this is why any player comparison, especially between eras, is void of any statistical data anymore. The rules are being amended and changed so much that it's having an impact on the record books. I don't know if it truly all started with the early 2000s Colts or not, but they need to stop changing **** every off season. The game is becoming unrecognizable to long-time fans. The younger generation probably likes the sport because they've only known it this way. But I've been around for a bit now (gift and curse) and I know what the game used to be. I preferred it that way. I feel the same about basketball too. But alas, I guess I'm just realizing that I'm in full swing of becoming my parents. Every generation says the same ****, I suppose. LOL

 

[signbabybrady]

And this is why any player comparison, especially between eras, is void of any statistical data anymore. The rules are being amended and changed so much that it's having an impact on the record books. I don't know if it truly all started with the early 2000s Colts or not, but they need to stop changing **** every off season. The game is becoming unrecognizable to long-time fans. The younger generation probably likes the sport because they've only known it this way. But I've been around for a bit now (gift and curse) and I know what the game used to be. I preferred it that way. I feel the same about basketball too. But alas, I guess I'm just realizing that I'm in full swing of becoming my parents. Every generation says the same ****, I suppose. LOL

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I remember when I used to care about rules definitions and minutae. The NFL's arbitrary & capricious agenda driven behavior has cured me of this affliction.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Well played, Good Sir. LOL

 

[PatsBoy12]

I remember when I used to care about rules definitions and minutae. The NFL's arbitrary & capricious agenda driven behavior has cured me of this affliction.

Yup, me too. I've made up my mind that if I didn't love the Pats, BB and TB so much, I'd have stopped watching the game a long time ago. The only way that I can hurt them is just simply not buy their merchandise and to stream the games. I later download them watch them in crystal clarity. Watching every game multiple times has been my practice for years now, so it doesn't bother me if watching the stream live is a bit blurry or distorted.

 

[Kontradiction]

So how does one become a runner? Here’s how the rule describes it: “A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.”

 

[PatsBoy12]

Anyone hear from @robertweathers? This is one topic on which I'd like to know his view. Sorry to derail the thread a bit. Just a random thought as some of the others I read a lot have chimed in already.

 

[neuronet]

This isn't different from what it was. It is a clarification rather than a change or modification of existing rules.

It already was that they had to have it long enough to make a football move (without actually having to have made a football move, because they can in theory just catch it and stand there in the field to kill time or something, which I guess technically is a football move, but not in the traditional sense they mean for purposes of this rule). This is simply defining that duration a little more explicitly, to make it a little less esoteric. Of course, they don't just define the requisite duration, which would be too helpful.

So, to get the ball rolling on actually defining the duration: anything greater than pi * 100 milliseconds of control counts as a catch. Anything less doesn't. Equality will never happen because.....it is an irrational number, just keep adding digits until you have inequality eventually. That guy who liked to argue about force transducers in the concussion thread can make the infinite precision stopwatch for this.

I'm with the above poster: control and two feet touch inbounds. No nonsense about standing long enough to make a football move. Because this introduces a separate set of rules for the sidelines/endzone, where mere control and touching both feet is sufficient! Just make it simple. Same rule no matter where you are, you f-ing idiots!

 

[Koma]

This is going to give Hochuli so much more to talk about.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This actually seems logical enough to me. It seems they are just trying to better define football move.

I think if they just let the refs use judgement we would better off but since they insist on fully defining every nuance this seems better than before.

Yeah, agreed. I wouldn't say this is good, but it's at least an improvement.

 

[Galeb]

Why not just give an actual measure of time to define how long they need to possess the football instead some ******** term like a "football move", or the garbage they introduced in this "clarification"? It's all just for show. The NFL has proven time and again that it wants "gray areas" in the rules. Such gray areas give more opportunity to influence the outcome of games.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Anyone hear from @robertweathers? This is one topic on which I'd like to know his view. Sorry to derail the thread a bit. Just a random thought as some of the others I read a lot have chimed in already.

Not sure I have anything more insightful to add than what has already been said.

What I know for certain is this. To achieve consistency in anything, layering additional complexity to something already muddled creates more complexity. The whole thing is madness, IMO. Officials are scared to death of making a call on the field as the fear blowing the game, pissing players and the fans off and getting a bad grade from the Blandickhead. They try to help officials but are failing completely in the effort. They add additional verbiage which if I'm the official confuses me even more and makes me more skiddish. They need to make it simpler. Period.

IMO the additional language is useless. There is nothing that makes the catch/no catch action more finite or cut-n-dry.

IMO this what the rule needs to be and say (No big revelation here)

• Receiver catches ball.
• Receiver gets two feet down (steps sequential after each other or both simultaneously, who cares)
• In order to be a catch, ball MUST be secure and not moving around in hand after 2nd foot or both hit(s) ground.
• If 2nd foot is not down and/or ball is still unsecure and ball hits ground, its incomplete.
• Any movement of ball after that completed event is a fumble.

For catches NOT involving feet....

• Ball must be secure.
• Ground cannot aid securing football
• In either instance, if ball hits ground and become dislodged ball is ruled incomplete.

Certainly replays will still be needed. The game is so fast. This is where BB's rule which calls for every play be reviewed is brought in. Let the field determine that - not New York.

Not sure if folks agree but I think simple is better....