Is There a "Better" Definition of a "Catch?"

[SlowGettingUp]

Given the recent controversies, I've been wondering whether there is any way to improve the definition of a catch. Here is what I think some sensible criteria are:

1. Most criticisms over the past few years have been cases where the ruling has been that the receiver failed to make the catch even though the "know a catch when I see one" fans believe it should have been a catch. This suggests that any change should be in the direction of relaxation of the rules.

2. But you don't want to relax the definition of a catch in a way that increases the number of fumbles.

3. To the extent possible, you want to minimize judgement calls like "control" or "football move."

4. You want a catch in the end zone to have the same rules as one in the field of play.

First, are those reasonable criteria? Anything that should be changed or added?

Second, given those criteria, how might the definition of a catch be modified?

Third, how many believe the rules should stay just as they are?

(Please let's not be influenced by the recent controversies - try to analyze this in a neutral manner).

One possible idea would be to relax the "survives the ground" rule somewhat. For example this could become:

Player ends up with control of the ball and the ground did not aid the original catch. Thus if the ball bobbles when it hits the ground after the player caught and controlled the ball, and the player at the end of the play has control, then it's a catch.

 

[XLIX]

One possible idea would be to relax the "survives the ground" rule somewhat. For example this could become:

Player ends up with control of the ball and the ground did not aid the original catch. Thus if the ball bobbles when it hits the ground after the player caught and controlled the ball and the player at the end has control, then it's a catch.

I don’t like that rule because then today the Bills TE Clay has a catch and a TD on a ball he completely left on the ground once he hit the ground.

I can’t imagine any way to improve the current rule except maybe clarify what is a “football move.”

But no matter what they do, we live in an age of super slo-mo HD and ridiculous social media. There is simply no way to define a catch that will do away with these complaints.

 

[Deus Irae]

Get control of the ball with your hand/hands
Get your feet/body down
Don't let the ball hit the ground
Don't bobble the ball before you go out of bounds

That's what a catch is.

 

[IcyPatriot]

The rules are fine as written ...
Don't want 1 play to define your game then play harder and practice harder to be more perfect.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

The rules are fine as written ...
Don't want 1 play to define your game then play harder and practice harder to be more perfect.

Agree, I think the way it is now makes it cut and dry even if they used super slo-mo hi def replay to call it. We've been on the other end of these calls.

 

[upstater1]

Player ends up with control of the ball and the ground did not aid the original catch. Thus if the ball bobbles when it hits the ground after the player caught and controlled the ball, and the player at the end of the play has control, then it's a catch.

This is already the rule. If the player has control of the ball and it hits the ground, it's still a catch.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

This is already the rule. If the player has control of the ball and it hits the ground, it's still a catch.

I'm allowing for movement and even some loss of control when the ball hits the ground, just so long as the player ends up with the ball at the end. So control prior to going to the ground and control after going to the ground and possession all the way through the catch (so the ball coming completely free when it hits the ground and then the player regaining control would mean no catch).

 

[borg]

The current rule is perfect....no more grey areas.
I also agree with how the NFL Replay booth now assumes total responsibility once the play gets handed off to them for a review. Correct calls should not be collaborated on or negotiated. The field officials make their call...and NY assumes control of the play if they are asked to via a challenge or as the rules state.
Using the Buffalo non-catch as the reference, it impossible for an on-field official to observe two simultaneous acts, control of the ball and two toes touching , especially when the official is in such close proximity to the play.
Look at a wall in the room you are in now...both five feet up on the wall and at floor level. It is impossible to focus on both areas simultaneously let alone make correct judgements.
Swim officials face a similar predicament when judging relays....one swimmer coming into the wall while another swimmer exits the blocks. Officials are instructed to watch toes leaving the starting blocks...then shift eyes down to see if the arriving swimmer has hit the wall. A lag time is imbedded in this protocol. And these officials are two feet from the action.
There is a reason technology has replaced block officials at the upper level meets.....humans have limits. Same goes for NFL officials.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Get control of the ball with your hand/hands
Get your feet/body down
Don't let the ball hit the ground
Don't bobble the ball before you go out of bounds

That's what a catch is.

He's a dink. But, a better receiver than any of us. Chris Carter says when you hand it to the ref.

 

[SaCaCh]

People who complain never think about what the flip side of their argument is. Do you really want someone to make a decision because it feels like it should be a catch. Talk about things blowing up.

Also they want to not get so specific but what would then becomes fumbles or TD's would drive people even crazier.

For instance, they mostly on the James catch wanted the runner crossing the end zone line rule to take effect. As soon as the player has two feet or equivalent in and crosses the end zone instant TD. Well if that was the case then some one catching the ball with two feet down in the end zone for 1/10th of a second would have to be a TD.

This rule sucks but the alternatives get MUCH more crazy.

 

[Ring 6]

Get control of the ball with your hand/hands
Get your feet/body down
Don't let the ball hit the ground
Don't bobble the ball before you go out of bounds

That's what a catch is.

Why people can’t understand this surprises me. Apparently they wanted Benjamin to be awarded a “college catch” for having one foot down.

 

[Boogs]

It should be a catch when you have control and two feet down.

That would be consistent with all their other rules.

 

[lurker1965]

OK, I've had enough of the "bad rule" crap. If the ball hits the ground, moves, and even knocks your hands away it is NOT a catch. Even if playing in the back yard, the object of a pass is to AVOID the ground. I can see limiting replay to half speed, or whatever - the frame by frame stuff is a bit much - but the rule about "surviving the ground" actually makes sense. Besides if you insist the ground can not cause incomplete passes we will have an extra 6 or so fumbles a game.

I am sick and tired of the idiots saying it is a bad rule.

 

[luuked]

The more I see the new concussion protocol in action the more I think people should focus less on the catch rules and more on how vague the guidelines are to take players off the field.

It is just a question of time until a QB gets taken out of a playoff game (or even the SB) because of contact to his head even though nothing happened and it was only precautionary. And whatever team and fanbase gets to experience that will cry foul and conspiracy about it.

Just imagine a ref actually taking Brady out of the game after he hit his head on Solders knee right at the start of the final drive in regular time against Atlanta. Because that would have been totally ok under the current rules.

Sorry for the potential thread hijack but it just game to mind while reading the posts in here.

 

[supafly]

OK, I've had enough of the "bad rule" crap. If the ball hits the ground, moves, and even knocks your hands away it is NOT a catch. Even if playing in the back yard, the object of a pass is to AVOID the ground. I can see limiting replay to half speed, or whatever - the frame by frame stuff is a bit much - but the rule about "surviving the ground" actually makes sense. Besides if you insist the ground can not cause incomplete passes we will have an extra 6 or so fumbles a game.

I am sick and tired of the idiots saying it is a bad rule.

I’m totally baffled at the continued outrage, even from many of our own announcers and sports writers. It’s Wednesday and they won the game by 3 TDs but we’re still seeing stuff pop up in the newsfeed. I find it to be ridiculous.

The only time that I’ve really disagreed with this rule may have been the Dez Bryant non-catch in the 2014 postseason, and that’s simply because I feel as though he took 2-3 steps where he then becomes a receiver. Other than that one highly debatable play, I feel as though they’re just trying to stir up controversy. Benjamin did not make that catch on Sunday because he hadn’t yet established control. Once he did, he did not get both feet in bounds.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

It should be a catch when you have control and two feet down.

That would be consistent with all their other rules.

and the ball better not move if youre falling down

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I fully agree with the use of replay to enforce the catch rule on Benjamin (although it took several runs through the game tape for me to see it conclusively), but I would like to see the catch rule changed such that James catch would be a touchdown by bringing back a clarified version of the football move interpretation. To me he caught the ball with try get down and lunged for the end zone. He was in control of the ball and his body with two feet down and then bobbled the ball after turning upfield and breaking the plane. That's not the rule now, and I'm ok with that. I just think it could be improved in the off-season.

The aspect of the catch rule that I cannot stand is the awarding of forward progress and a first down or touchdown to receivers who leap to catch the ball beyond the line to gain but are pushed backwards before they get their feet down. If you can push an airborne receiver out of bounds and have it not be a catch, you should be able to push him backwards.

I think the refs are far too generous with spots in general, but that's the one that sticks in my craw. When it comes to the use of technology, I'd rather they apply an electronic sensing system to spot the ball, rather than the current one or two out of the 7 guys in a barred shirt standard.

 

[Boogs]

and the ball better not move if youre falling down

I disagree. This new definition of a catch is why the NFL is having so many problems.

I think it should be a catch when you show control of the ball and 2 feet down in bounds. That would clear up all the problems with this.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

I disagree. This new definition of a catch is why the NFL is having so many problems.

I think it should be a catch when you show control of the ball and 2 feet down in bounds. That would clear up all the problems with this.

im specifically referring to the jesse james’ play

 

[The Boston Patriot]

If the receiver is 'generally aware' of the ball, it shall be deemed a catch.

NFL Competition Committee, 2018.