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

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

If while making a catch the ball hits the ground and you lose control of it, you did not catch it. That's just common sense. If you claim to want to make the rules more sensible, not less, then that's the last thing to do.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure it did

No, it didn't.

Your suggestion is about as silly as it gets.

 

[Deus Irae]

So here's one version (similar to that proposed earlier in the thread) that only changes the definition of "surviving the ground:"

A receiver survives the ground provided he has clear control before going to the ground, has clear control after going to the ground and is touching the football during the whole process.

So basically you ignore bobbles caused by the ground. No increase in fumbles, just some receptions are changed from incompletions to completions.

So, it's all good if we pretend something that was obviously not a catch was a catch?

 

[Deus Irae]

Simple way to explain why "surviving the ground" has to be in rules about catching, to some degree, if your philosophy is one of minimizing fumbles. You just take away the initial body contact with the field, and make it purely about control and possession:

1. Pass is made
2. Receiver jumps or dives for the pass
   
3. Receiver clearly gains control of the ball while in the air
   
4. Receiver lands in a prone position, with his arms outstretched, either because he laid out for the ball or because of contact by a defender while in the air
5. Upon hitting the ground, the receiver loses control of the ball and it squirts away
6. Ball is considered incomplete, despite the clear control initially had by the receiver

The above scenario is a pure "surviving the ground" scenario and, to any sensible person, its logic demonstrates why the suggestions for change that have been given in this thread are foolish.

 

[rochrist]

I'd like to see the rule simply be to have control with two feet in bounds and if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of making a catch, the receiver must maintain possession to the point of contact with the ground instead of through contact with the ground. I don't see why that would be difficult to incorporate. The ground can't cause a fumble and can't cause an incompletion. The league currently has separate rules for a catch while remaining upright and for going to the ground in the process of making a catch anyway.

So if while making a catch while going to the ground and the ball is knocked out, it is incomplete. If the receiver maintains control to the ground--a catch.

The difference is that when they say the ground can't cause a fumble, they're talking about somebody who already had possession. If you're going to the ground as you catch the ball, you don't have possession until the process is complete.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

No, not at all. it is really more like applying the rule that the ground can't cause a fumble to a receiver.

The ground absolutely CAN cause a fumble. Wish people would stop repeating that falsehood.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

The above scenario is a pure "surviving the ground" scenario and, to any sensible person, its logic demonstrates why the suggestions for change that have been given in this thread are foolish.

My proposed definition would say this is not a catch:

>>A receiver survives the ground provided he has clear control before going to the ground, has clear control after going to the ground and is touching the football during the whole process. <<

 

[moosekill]

So he catches it, falls to the ground, the ball falls out of his hands but he is laying on it with his body, then he reaches under his tummy and grabs the ball. It is a catch? You realize you are making this much worse rather than better right?

 

[XLIX]

I don;t understand the confusion. I'm saying the NFL treats the going to the ground while making a catch as a separate rule. If the receiver gains "control" over the ball and maintains control" until contact with ground it I say it should be a catch.

In that case, they would have given Clay a TD reception at the end of the first half, but there’s no way that should be a catch. He completely lost the ball and left it behind him on the ground.

 

[XLIX]

My proposed definition would say this is not a catch:

>>A receiver survives the ground provided he has clear control before going to the ground, has clear control after going to the ground and is touching the football during the whole process. <<

That would be a total disaster if a receiver could do that and get the catch. And what is “after going to the ground” even mean?

I don’t understand why it is so complicated for people to realize that the ball touching the ground without complete control is an incomplete pass.

 

[moosekill]

The issue I see is when there is an extended falling to the ground. Two weeks ago, only the biggest Pitt homers would argue that he was falling in the act of catching the ball, even though he kind of stretched out at the same point. Dez Bryant's catch years ago could be argued he wasn't really in the act of falling down as part of the catch. That is where I think the grey area is .

 

[moosekill]

But I can't see any way that is better or even as good as the current rule, so I am happy with what we currently have.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

...Two weeks ago, only the biggest Pitt homers would argue that he was falling in the act of catching the ball...

He was untouched by any defender and went to the ground. That is a textbook example of a throw taking you to the ground. Sure, it wasn't a dive, but very clearly there was nothing that any defender did to send him to the turf. The pass itself took him there, so he must control the ball through ground contact.

This is the most clearly defined so-called "controversial" call that I can remember. It's clear as day, and I'd be saying that if it were a Patriots player who did not complete a catch.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

That would be a total disaster if a receiver could do that and get the catch. And what is “after going to the ground” even mean?

Why would that be a total disaster? "After going to the ground" means exactly what it says - the receiver has to end up with complete control of the ball at the end of the play.

The only change here is this version would allow you to bobble the ball when it hits the ground so long as you maintain some level of control. So if you catch the ball, but when you or the ball hits the ground it comes completely free and you re-catch it, that would not be a catch.

I don’t understand why it is so complicated for people to realize that the ball touching the ground without complete control is an incomplete pass.

Yes, that is the rule as it stands now. The question is whether you can tweak the rule a bit to make it more palatable to the average fan. There is a real cost to having fans (wrongly) believe the rules are nuts or that the refs or NY is biased.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Why would that be a total disaster?

...this version would allow you to bobble the ball when it hits the ground so long as you maintain some level of control.

The question is whether you can tweak the rule a bit to make it more palatable to the average fan. There is a real cost to having fans (wrongly) believe the rules are nuts or that the refs or NY is biased.

You are making it a judgement call by a ref as to whether "some level of control" is was gained and if it was enough or not. That makes the proposal a total disaster. Total control is not a judgement and is reviewable.

The rule as it is written is palatable to the average fan when the catch occurs anywhere but near the end zone. The average fan, though, freaks out when it happens in or near the end zone because they want to treat receivers like ball carriers.

Let's educate fans rather than instituting dumb rules to match their ignorance.

 

[Deus Irae]

My proposed definition would say this is not a catch:

>>A receiver survives the ground provided he has clear control before going to the ground, has clear control after going to the ground and is touching the football during the whole process. <<

1. Your proposal allows something to be called a catch when it's clearly not a catch.
2. Your proposal requires a willing suspension of reality.
3. Your proposal is ridiculous.

 

[rochrist]

Why would that be a total disaster? "After going to the ground" means exactly what it says - the receiver has to end up with complete control of the ball at the end of the play.

The only change here is this version would allow you to bobble the ball when it hits the ground so long as you maintain some level of control. So if you catch the ball, but when you or the ball hits the ground it comes completely free and you re-catch it, that would not be a catch.



Yes, that is the rule as it stands now. The question is whether you can tweak the rule a bit to make it more palatable to the average fan. There is a real cost to having fans (wrongly) believe the rules are nuts or that the refs or NY is biased.

You can bobble the ball now. You just can't have the ground touching the ball when you do. In the case with Pitts, his left hand came off the ball entirely, and ball was resting on the ground. That should not, by any definition, be a catch.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

My proposed definition would say this is not a catch:

>>A receiver survives the ground provided he has clear control before going to the ground, has clear control after going to the ground and is touching the football during the whole process. <<

...so touching, meaning a finger tip?

See how that doesn't work?

 

[moosekill]

He was untouched by any defender and went to the ground. That is a textbook example of a throw taking you to the ground. Sure, it wasn't a dive, but very clearly there was nothing that any defender did to send him to the turf. The pass itself took him there, so he must control the ball through ground contact.

This is the most clearly defined so-called "controversial" call that I can remember. It's clear as day, and I'd be saying that if it were a Patriots player who did not complete a catch.

Just to clarify, I believe only a Pitt homer would disagree that he was falling when he made the catch. I went to their site and many were arguing there was no way he was falling through the catch.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

My best definition of a catch: