Can the NFL fix the catch rule

We spoke about this some in the Thanksgiving Week Game Thread. E.g., http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/thanksgiving-week-game-thread.11969/page-19#post-1484705):

k-factory said:

The problem you have now is that camera tech and quality is so good now relative to even 10-15 years ago and you have this emphasis on objectivity validated by instant replay on certain calls. Its simply not about 'opinion' or how a ref sees it anymore.
Florio on his podcast suggested reducing the amount of refs on the field and moving them upstairs where they can send the correct call down to the field refs where anything is in dispute. That seems like a fine idea if the audience, the announcers, the NFL, the gamblers all want that objective call. The current model just seems antiquated anymore.

Click to expand...

I'll reiterate my comment back then. The problem is that super slow motion can shows things that a normal human simply can't see and that shouldn't be part of officiating. No matter how many refs there are and where they are, you can imagine a set of circumstances where it's going to be ambiguous.

If this is true, then reviews should be limited to normal speed replays on the theory that if the reviewer can't tell that a call is wrong at normal speed, then the call should stand.

I may get tarred and feathered for this but I think, very generally speaking, that the NFL refs do a pretty good job with catches at flying speed, seeing control of the ball and both feet getting in. Where they are absolutely an abomination are instances like last nights Pitt fumble recovery when fatty was clearly down, right in front of an official, yet no whistle.

They are using replay as a fail safe, and I'm not sure that such a bad thing on such plays where a bad whistle stops an otherwise legit TD run (on cases when the guy actually ain't down). Jesus this post is a rambling mess and contribute nothing. But that's a Costanza for you.

"Possession" is a tricky philosophical concept... One can be in full control of an external object even absent full physical contact (see dribbling, basketball), whereas it's also conceivable to lack fundamental control even though the object is in no way "loose"...

GeorgeCostanza said:

I may get tarred and feathered for this but I think, very generally speaking, that the NFL refs do a pretty good job with catches at flying speed, seeing control of the ball and both feet getting in. Where they are absolutely an abomination are instances like last nights Pitt fumble recovery when fatty was clearly down, right in front of an official, yet no whistle.

They are using replay as a fail safe, and I'm not sure that such a bad thing on such plays where a bad whistle stops an otherwise legit TD run (on cases when the guy actually ain't down). Jesus this post is a rambling mess and contribute nothing. But that's a Costanza for you.

Click to expand...

Regarding fatty being down - I prefer the refs let that play continue like they did. On the controversial crown of the helmet play, Pitt should have had a touchdown (with the no flag call), but they did not get a touchdown because refs blew it dead. I think they should almost always let those plays go on, and fix it in replay.

One thing the NFL could do is eliminate the "play stands" replay scapegoat, eliminate the without a doubt, and have the refs make a decision one way or another as they see it in replay. In other words, don't let the call on the field factor in to the decision in the replay booth. There may be instances where there is absolutely no good view on replay of what happened, and in those cases, the refs could quickly get together and discuss what was seen in replay in conjuction with what they saw live, and come up with a conclusion.

wade boggs chicken dinner said:

We spoke about this some in the Thanksgiving Week Game Thread. E.g., http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/thanksgiving-week-game-thread.11969/page-19#post-1484705):



I'll reiterate my comment back then. The problem is that super slow motion can shows things that a normal human simply can't see and that shouldn't be part of officiating. No matter how many refs there are and where they are, you can imagine a set of circumstances where it's going to be ambiguous.

If this is true, then reviews should be limited to normal speed replays on the theory that if the reviewer can't tell that a call is wrong at normal speed, then the call should stand.

Click to expand...

I disagree with eliminating slow-mo. The second a call goes against a team when slow mo clearly shows the correct call, there will be outrage. Don't make it harder for the refs to make a correct call.

findguapo said:

Regarding fatty being down - I prefer the refs let that play continue like they did. On the controversial crown of the helmet play, Pitt should have had a touchdown (with the no flag call), but they did not get a touchdown because refs blew it dead. I think they should almost always let those plays go on, and fix it in replay.
.

Click to expand...

I agree on letting a play unfold on a turnover and fix it in replay, however their early whistle on that particular play ended up saving them from further compounding their mistake of not throwing a flag on a clear cut and dry penalty. So while the fumble should have been negated by a flag, at least it didn't turn into a touchdown for the dirty team (on that play).

findguapo said:

One thing the NFL could do is eliminate the "play stands" replay scapegoat, eliminate the without a doubt, and have the refs make a decision one way or another as they see it in replay. In other words, don't let the call on the field factor in to the decision in the replay booth. There may be instances where there is absolutely no good view on replay of what happened, and in those cases, the refs could quickly get together and discuss what was seen in replay in conjuction with what they saw live, and come up with a conclusion.

Click to expand...

The play that just happened in Minn-Sea, Vikings challenged the 1st down and the ref came back with "play stands", is a perfect argument for getting rid of the play stands call.

BigMike said:

Reading the game thread yesterday was a big debate about the catch, and not that anyone didn't think it was a catch, but rather people who just can't understand what a catch in the NFL is.

Is there are way to fix the catch rule in the NFL?

It should be pretty obvious whether a player has possession, and if they juggle it. We shouldn't be going through replay frame by frame

Click to expand...

Is the question about
The going-to-ground rule, plus end-zone vs field-of-play catch differences (or lack of difference when difference is expected),
or
Instant replay and if it should be used?

When it comes to fixing the catch rule, I'd say instant replay is a small issue compared to the entirety of catch rule complexity.
(But it's a different story when it comes to making games smoother, faster and more entertaining)

GeorgeCostanza said:

I may get tarred and feathered for this but I think, very generally speaking, that the NFL refs do a pretty good job with catches at flying speed, seeing control of the ball and both feet getting in. Where they are absolutely an abomination are instances like last nights Pitt fumble recovery when fatty was clearly down, right in front of an official, yet no whistle.

They are using replay as a fail safe, and I'm not sure that such a bad thing on such plays where a bad whistle stops an otherwise legit TD run (on cases when the guy actually ain't down). Jesus this post is a rambling mess and contribute nothing. But that's a Costanza for you.

Click to expand...

Those plays absolutely are intentional.

The catch rule is actually pretty well written - you're never going to get a catch rule that doesn't result in some weird results. The big problem is that the flawed replay rules pollute everything.

The NFL has essentially two conflicting rules:

1) In a replay situation, deference is given to the call on the field. A call cannot be overturned without incontrovertible evidence.

2) Automatic replays only happen on turnovers and scores, and challenges are only available for specific types of plays.


The 2nd rule forces referees to err on the side of calling things touchdowns or turnovers (or in this case the reversible fumble and TD), and the 1st rule prevents them from fixing the mistakes.

This is the same thing with the catch rules. The catch rules are essentially written so that if there's any question, it should be ruled incomplete - but in many cases an incomplete can't even be challenged, as opposed to a touchdown which gets an automatic review. Many times they err on the side of calling a TD/catch, and then there's simply not enough video footage to overturn.

The refs really need the ability to call things as they see them, and then say "We want to take a look at that"

findguapo said:

I disagree with eliminating slow-mo. The second a call goes against a team when slow mo clearly shows the correct call, there will be outrage. Don't make it harder for the refs to make a correct call.

Click to expand...

While I agree the NFL is never going to get rid of slo-mo replay, the problem is - and it was mentioned by Steve Biscotti in his end of the year Ravens press conference - is that in the olden days, refs used to have the advantage over the casual fans but now the fans have the advantage over the ref.

What is meant by this is that before the advent of high-def, super slo replay, the refs had the best angles; they were closest to the action; and they knew the rules better than the fan. That's why the refs seemed better now.

Currently, the fans have it way better than the refs. They have all of the camera angles that the refs do (and sometimes more) and they have the luxury of being able to play it back and forth again for as long as they need without the pressure of a clock counting down.

Even using reply, it is often near-impossible to figure out something as simple as whether a ball broke the plane of the goal line. Adding in concepts like "possession versus juggling," "making a football move," and "whether the ground caused the ball to come out" starts bringing in judgment and to me, it doesn't do the game any good to make that reviewable.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/nfl-forms-six-member-committee-to-fix-the-catch-rule.12141/

The NFL will be looking at the rule again. This after the competition committee spent last off-season looking at it and deciding to change "football move" to establishing himself as a runner.

I don't really see where that has made any difference. I think that is where the inconsistency comes from. Different refs seem to have different opinions on this.

I don't think replay is a major factor in the rule. However, the fact the fans can watch and rewind replays before the ref can even get to the sideline is why the refs in the booth should be doing the review. They can watch, rewind and blow up multiple angles on different screens. Although, I would imagine this is likely happening behind the scenes already at least to some degree.

wade boggs chicken dinner said:

Currently, the fans have it way better than the refs. They have all of the camera angles that the refs do (and sometimes more) and they have the luxury of being able to play it back and forth again for as long as they need without the pressure of a clock counting down.

Even using reply, it is often near-impossible to figure out something as simple as whether a ball broke the plane of the goal line. Adding in concepts like "possession versus juggling," "making a football move," and "whether the ground caused the ball to come out" starts bringing in judgment and to me, it doesn't do the game any good to make that reviewable.

Click to expand...

All of these are almost trivial technological problems though - largely solved by putting more cameras in, and giving the referees better access/equipment. These problems are almost all caused by the NFL's refusal to put in goal line cameras and end line cameras and those sort of things.


I have no problem letting the referees review judgement calls - especially if you're giving them additional views/information.

bump

I don't understand how that is not a catch, regardless of the intricacies of the rule book. Middle of the field, ball never touches the ground. Rewriting the rule book has no impact when the referees are incompetent.

Well the ball skimmed the turf, but I thought the "Bert Emmanuel" rule was supposed to make that a catch

Any reason that we can't just have the "eye in the sky" review process that Rugby and Cricket employ? Part of the annoyances of the review process is the amount of time it takes Mr. On Field Official to scamper over to the periscope and look at it, come back, and then give sometimes a rather long-winded explanation of what happened. It's nice we get that explanation, and perhaps some of it is to temper the feeling that a ref got it wrong on the field, but do we need it for every review? How about this, on all plays that currently receive an automatic review, rather than the on-field officials going over to the screen, there is a fully-functional replay booth referee with the same amount of authority to overturn as any other ref on the field rushing over and saying "I saw it better! It was incomplete!" This would eliminate, perhaps, the very well-noticed issue of the refs playing it safe and perhaps even making a call that no one really things is right just so that the play isn't whistled dead and can be reviewed. That this now has to pass "incontrovertible" scrutiny seems silly.

Anyway, the upstairs full referee than can overrule the call on the field and radio the the head ref who then just announces the new call. No long-winded explanation. Secondly, like in Rugby or Cricket, if the refs on the field feel as though a given call (not automatically reviewed) needs another look, they can call for the eye in the sky review as well. This will result in a few more reviews, but hopefully they're only 20-30 seconds long, if that. Lastly, if after all this the coach is still pissed, give him one review per half or whatever (fewer than now) in which that would send Mr. On Field Official scampering over to the periscope for a traditional "incontrovertible" scrutiny review.

tims4wins said:

Well the ball skimmed the turf, but I thought the "Bert Emmanuel" rule was supposed to make that a catch

Click to expand...

It did? What angle did you see?

Will screen grab in a bit - on mobile.

Yeah, probably for another thread and it's been discussed before but I'm all for having the replay officials in the booth make the calls.
Prefer they get rid of challenges too or at least change it to two (or even 3) wrong. Too many bad calls to limit replays.

Van Everyman said:

It did? What angle did you see?

Click to expand...

I initially thought it didn't, then I saw this:

Thanks that is what I was gonna post. Skimmed was the wrong term but it looks like the ball touches the ground

Like I said though that doesn't mean incomplete - the Bert Emmanuel rule

tims4wins said:

Well the ball skimmed the turf, but I thought the "Bert Emmanuel" rule was supposed to make that a catch

Click to expand...

I thought at the time, that it skimmed the turf, and then there was a lot of movement

tims4wins said:

Thanks that is what I was gonna post. Skimmed was the wrong term but it looks like the ball touches the ground

Like I said though that doesn't mean incomplete - the Bert Emmanuel rule

Click to expand...

But, Bert Emmanuel had the ball secured after it hit the ground, last night, the ball was moving all over the place, after it touched the ground. I have to think, that this is what the refs saw.

Edit: Quote messed up.

CHAOS said:

I thought at the time, that it skimmed the turf, and then there was a lot of movement



But, Bert Emmanuel had the ball secured after it hit the ground, last night, the ball was moving all over the place, after it touched the ground. I have to think, that this is what the refs saw.

Click to expand...

But that isn't how the rule works to my knowledge. He had control when the ball touched the ground. It was clear there was no ball movement when the nose hit. It moved once he rolled but the ball had nothing to do with that.

From my understanding that is a catch.

Mark Maske says the NFL won't change the catch rule because they think it will lead to more concussions:

So it might be reasonable to believe that the competition committee, after tweaking the language of the catch rule last offseason but not overhauling it, would be eager to ditch the rule this offseason and start over. Not so.

Here’s the main reason: The rules for illegal hits say that a receiver who is in the process of making a catch is a defenseless player and cannot be hit in the head or neck area.

How could the catch rule be changed and made simpler? One popular suggestion is to award a legal catch to a receiver who has possession of the football with two feet on the ground, or perhaps to a receiver who has possession of the football with two feet on the ground and takes a third step while in the field of play. That would eliminate the confusion over the time element required for the receiver to legally establish himself as a runner.

The problem is, that also would make the receiver a runner, by rule, that much sooner and potentially would subject the receiver to being hit in the head legally at that point (helmet-to-helmet hits on ball carriers are legal). Hits that now are deemed illegal might have to be legalized to make the rules consistent.

Click to expand...

Mostly he's just echoing Polian here, but it's a valid concern.

The simple fix there is to make helmet-to-helmet hits on runners illegal, which should have been done years ago.

Silverdude2167 said:

But that isn't how the rule works to my knowledge. He had control when the ball touched the ground. It was clear there was no ball movement when the nose hit. It moved once he rolled but the ball had nothing to do with that.

From my understanding that is a catch.

Click to expand...

That's not what the rule is - if you go to the ground in the action of making a catch, you have to maintain control of the ball throughout going to the ground. The fact that the ball came loose after touching the ground means that he didn't have full control over it when it did touch the ground.

The ball CAN touch the ground - you just have to have (and maintain) complete control of it during and after that - the receiver didn't. This is similar to a receiver bobbling the ball while sliding out of bounds - it doesn't matter that he looked like he had control for a bit - as soon as the ball comes out it signals that he didn't actually have control, the play is reassessed, and he is out of bounds.


The problem with Maske's rule change is that it's basically just changing the word 'control' to 'possession' - the confusing parts in the rules are about defining those words, not about the use of them. The rule basically already is what he's saying it should be.

Stevie1der said:

The simple fix there is to make helmet-to-helmet hits on runners illegal, which should have been done years ago.

Click to expand...

I'm still befuddled as to why this hasn't been done yet.