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

[XLIX]

Why would that be a total disaster?

Because once we have a play where a receiver completely loses control of the ball on the ground but maintains contact, we will see complaining that makes the James non-catch look like a picnic.

"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.

Well, a play isn’t over if a receiver is still in the process of making a catch. You’ve pretty set no time limit on how much the ball can contact that ground without being controlled.

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.

What does “some level of control” mean? A receiver either controls the ball or he doesn’t. There’s no middle ground.

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.

Well, that’s one of the things I’ve been saying: You can’t tweak the rule to do away with these types of “was it a catch?” arguments.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

So it seems like the answer is no...

The only thing I can think of dropping everything but controlling the ball. There would be a ton more fumbles, and people would likely hate this more than the current rules.

However making the rule less clear by trying to make it so that sometimes the ball hitting the ground is a completion and others it isn't is not a good idea.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Now, sometimes the ball hits the ground and it is STILL a completion, the key factor is gaining possession, which includes maintaining control.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Matt Chatham doesn't seem to like the existing rules for determining a catch:

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The rule is just right the way it is. It’s better to have a few calls that are counterintuitive (James overturned TD) than wild inconsistency that calls on the refs to subjectively interpret intent, or making the goal line an exception to the rule.

 

[Ring 6]

The rule is just right the way it is. It’s better to have a few calls that are counterintuitive (James overturned TD) than wild inconsistency that calls on the refs to subjectively interpret intent, or making the goal line an exception to the rule.

I never thought dropping the ball before you finish the catch was counterintuitive.
It seems like this is just because people don’t want to understand the rules.

 

[Ring 6]

Matt Chatham doesn't seem to like the existing rules for determining a catch:

I dont understand what he is trying to say is dumb about the rules.
Benjamin was the play replay had to slow down. Is he suggesting control with 2 feet inbounds is a dumb new rule?

 

[SlowGettingUp]

It’s better to have a few calls that are counterintuitive (James overturned TD) than wild inconsistency that calls on the refs to subjectively interpret intent, or making the goal line an exception to the rule.

Part of why this is coming to a head now is the interaction between objective rules and high-speed replays. What that means is you get receptions that to the naked eye look like clear catches, but when dissected in high-speed replay are clearly shown to be incomplete.

There are a number of possible responses:

1. Fan education explaining why these are all incompletions and leaving things as they are
2. Tweaking the definition of a catch to make it less rigorous
3. Tweaking the replay rules to make them less objective and/or raising the standard for overturning an on-the-field decision

Clearly people here want to go with 1. above; Chatham apparently appears to want to go with 2. and Mike Pereira wants to go with 3.

Let's see what the Competition Committee comes up with.