NFL Forms Six-Member Committee To Fix The Catch Rule

[soxhop411]

Last week NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announced that he was forming a new committee to study the catch rules, and now USA Today has details on its makeup:

Former coaches Ken Whisenhunt, Jim Schwartz and Joe Philbin join former general manager Bill Polian, former NFL receiver James Thrash and Tom Finken, a former NFL side judge who currently trains game officials, on the committee.

NFL VP of officiating Dean Blandino said that the committee will look at plays going back 20 years and speak with current players like Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson, and sounds pretty open to the possibility of major changes to the rule:

“We don’t know what will come out of it,” Blandino told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday. “Maybe there’s something the (competition) committee hasn’t considered in the past.”

http://deadspin.com/report-nfl-forms-six-member-committee-to-fix-the-catch-1747515871?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/12/11/bill-polian-james-thrash-among-the-leagues-new-catch-committee/


Would not shock me if the NFL finds a way to screw this up.

 

[steveluck7]

Would not shock me if the NFL finds a way to screw this up.

assembling a "six man committee" is a pretty nice start down the road to screwing things up, that's for sure

 

[DJnVa]

Bill Polian is involved, so, yeah...

 

[ifmanis5]

Bill Polian's on it so I'm sure it'll be awesome.

 

[pedro1918]

I would have liked a couple of defensive backs on the committee. Rodney would have been a great addition.


.

 

[steveluck7]

I was reading some article (possibly linked through this board) abut how the frame by frame replay is causing more problems than it's solving. While that type of replay is great for fumbles and determining in bounds / out of bounds, it's not so effective for catches. Could they institute a rule that says for catch / no catch reviews the minimum replay speed allowed is XXX fps?
Basically refs would see a slowed down replay but not the frame by frame version they get now.

 

[Ale Xander]

Anyone have a clue on what part(s) of the catch they're thinking about changing?

# of feet, force outs, touching the ground, when control starts, etc etc.

Shouldn't you have a current player(s) on it, rather than Polian?

 

[loshjott]

Could Blandino's quote be less enthusiastic? Seems like he has thin skin, and for good reason.

 

[ifmanis5]

Shouldn't you have a current player(s) on it, rather than Polian?

NFL could give a crap about its players or their opinion.

 

[joe dokes]

Could Blandino's quote be less enthusiastic? .

Is "bland" the word you are searching for?

 

[djbayko]

I don't have much confidence, but it can't hurt. This is the logic a referee currently has to go through while evaluating a play in real time. What a mess.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Six is always an unfortunate number to select for one of these things:

Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

 

[soxfan121]

Three coaches and an executive, with one (not even a ref) official and one (marginal) receiver.

With Polian involved, if the offensive player gets a fingertip to the ball, it's gonna be a catch.

 

[ragnarok725]

I know the popular approach is to shit on the NFL at every opportunity, but I'm not sure what else they should be doing than this. They've seen an issue, and heard about it from the public and players. They're putting together a group of people to try to decide how to fix it. Anyone have better suggestions on what they should do here?

 

[mauf]

If they hadn't screwed up the Golden Tate catch, then defended their screwed-up call, this wouldn't be a problem.

The league usually errs on the side of calling passes incomplete. No one has a problem with that when it's a catch-and-fumble situation in the middle of the field. For some reason, many fans and players expect a different standard to apply on scoring plays, or on plays along the sideline. I think a little explanation would go a long way here.

 

[soxfan121]

I know the popular approach is to shit on the NFL at every opportunity, but I'm not sure what else they should be doing than this. They've seen an issue, and heard about it from the public and players. They're putting together a group of people to try to decide how to fix it. Anyone have better suggestions on what they should do here?

The group they put together is not a serious step toward fixing anything. It contains no referees, no defensive backs, one retired field judge, and one receiver. Whisenhunt is a former player (tight end) but Schwartz & Philbin are the the definition of "eminently available" and Polian is a toady for the league, and employed by their primary cheerleader.

Were they serious about fixing it, they'd have gotten a group with multiple officials and ex-players, and left the half of the six-man committee where they belong: at home.

 

[ragnarok725]

Why does being an official or player or ex-official or ex-player better qualify you for deciding what the definition of a catch is? Or is it less about qualification and more about credibility? I'm not sure how first-hand frustrations with the current rules would necessarily inform what the new definition should be.

I don't love the group they put together, but it's all people who are clearly invested in the game and have been around it for decades. I've gotta think and hope they'll consult with the right people around enforceability etc.

 

[soxfan121]

Why does being an official or player or ex-official or ex-player better qualify you for deciding what the definition of a catch is? Or is it less about qualification and more about credibility? I'm not sure how first-hand frustrations with the current rules would necessarily inform what the new definition should be.

I don't love the group they put together, but it's all people who are clearly invested in the game and have been around it for decades. I've gotta think and hope they'll consult with the right people around enforceability etc.

Because - if they are going to stick with human beings making the call - then the people who are most often involved (i.e. WRs, DBs, officials) should be the primary architects of a rule that makes sense.

The NFL is designing new processes & procedures by asking one guy who was promoted out of the job 30 years ago, two guys who've never done it, one upper management guy who has never even been on the field during a game, and only two people who've actually done the job.

That's...a sub-optimal way to improve the process. Usually, you ask the people involved.

 

[Marciano490]

That's some committee. It's like trying to figure out how to make Grammy voting better and stuffing the committee with Nickleback, Selena Gomez and those Norwegian weirdos who sang "What Does the Wolf Say?"

 

[WayBackVazquez]

That's some committee. It's like trying to figure out how to make Grammy voting better and stuffing the committee with Nickleback, Selena Gomez and those Norwegian weirdos who sang "What Does the Wolf Say?"

Don't comment bad about Selena, bro.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

They should just define a catch like SCOTUS defines pornography . . . .

 

[singaporesoxfan]

They should just define a catch like SCOTUS defines pornography . . . .

I know you were being facetious, but has the NFL's hyper-legalistic approach to defining a catch really produced superior results compared to allowing refs to use their judgement? I feel like for catches, there may be a point where trying to solve the problem of inconsistency might be better done by gathering all the refs together, showing videos, and having a common understanding of which of those videos show catches and which don't, rather than say that the problem is that we are not splitting our hairs finely enough. I know the NFL seems to like taking judgement out of the hands of refs, but in practice the current system already cedes judgement to the refs, and in a way that may worsen rather than lessen inconsistency.

I've also long maintained that one factor that will inhibit the expansion of the NFL overseas is that when you're used to soccer, or basketball, or rugby, why would you switch to watching a sport that follows every bit of action with what appears to be an audit?

With Polian involved, if the offensive player gets a fingertip to the ball, it's gonna be a catch.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The current rules favor the offense in that I think it makes calls tend towards incomplete passes rather than catch and fumbles.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6.

7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Why?

'Cause you're fuckin' fired!

 

[CausewayCoe]

Six is always an unfortunate number to select for one of these things:

Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

I was expecting a punchline

 

[djbayko]

No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6.

7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Why?

'Cause you're fuckin' fired!

7. Minute. Abs.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Help me out here. There are only 3 things to look at, right?

1. What constitutes control
2. How many steps constitute possession
3. Going to the ground

What's being proposed?

 

[snowmanny]

I sort of think the catch rule is fine. Receivers just need to understand it and protect the ball as they go to the ground.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I don't have a problem with it either. It's not perfect, but a different solution won't be either. It's a clear line and it stands to reason if you have possession from the air to inches above the ground, you have enough control to protect it through the ground.

I have read Florio's proposal about the third step going to the ground and I'd be OK with that. If you take a third step with the ball and it comes out going to the ground, its a catch/fumble. But get ready for the offense to scream "he didn't control it to the ground, not a catch" once they change the rule if they don't recover the fumble.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I know the popular approach is to shit on the NFL at every opportunity, but I'm not sure what else they should be doing than this. They've seen an issue, and heard about it from the public and players. They're putting together a group of people to try to decide how to fix it. Anyone have better suggestions on what they should do here?

I think the problem is that they have taken so long to get to this, and then focused on a public committee with 'names' rather than a more quiet working group. We'll see if (in operation) this is in fact a working group with consultation procedures that generates a useful solution and builds supports from the key stakeholders (players, coaches, officials)...given the NFL's nearly-perfect track record of failure on situations like this, and the total incompetence of NFL officiating and rules processes, I am anything but optimistic.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

I've also long maintained that one factor that will inhibit the expansion of the NFL overseas is that when you're used to soccer, or basketball, or rugby, why would you switch to watching a sport that follows every bit of action with what appears to be an audit?

“Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings.”
— George Will

 

[Harry Hooper]

I was expecting a punchline

Sorry, how about "He only took tips."

 

[SumnerH]

That's some committee. It's like trying to figure out how to make Grammy voting better and stuffing the committee with Nickleback, Selena Gomez and those Norwegian weirdos who sang "What Does the Wolf Say?"

This being a Red Sox board, those Norwegians should be known more for this:

Edit: nevermind, their Massachusetts song starts off funny but gets oddly homophobic at the end. Redacted.