SlowGettingUp
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,937
- Reaction score
- 4,337
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.
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.
Last edited: