What is a catch? Etc.

[Eddie Jurak]

OK, here's my second seemingly controversial opinion in as many days.

I think the catch ule is fine and the controversial calls made over the pass couple of weeks have been fine.

People seem up in arm as though the catch rule is a clear and present danger that will ruin football, and I... just don't see it.

The Benjamin "catch" was clearly bobbled. If he catches it clean, it is a TD and not even a controversial one. Did he get a second foot down after he had control? Maybe, but it looked to me like he hadn't. That dragged foot came off the ground, he controlled the ball, stepped out of bounds without getting a second foot down. No TD.

I'll grant it was a very close play, maybe that second foot was down while he controlled the ball. Maybe. Not how it looked to me or (evidently) to Riveron.

Close enought that the official's call on the field should have been upheld? Probably. If the Pats had been the scring team there, I would probably have argued that it was close enough that the call should have been upheld. Had yesterday's call not been reversed, I'd have been pissed that the Bills scored whe the pass was incomplete. But I'd have understood the deference to the call on the field.

All of that said, that concept - "the ref had it wrong but it was close enough that the replay booth should have let it stand" - is truly not that big of a deal. Certainly no threat to the game or problem that must be solved.

It's the same for "survive the ground". What the hell is wrong with that as a standard? I just don't have a problem with it. You want the catch, catch the ficking ball clean and hang on to it. Not an unreasonable "ask" at all, at least not to me.

All the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth is misplaced. I shudder to think what stupid fucking correction the league will jam through in the offseason to try to fix a nonexistent problem.

The Tuck Rule was a completely different thing. That was called correctly at the time, and was a truly bizarre situation, but I can see the need for a tweak of the rules there.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

I think there are three separate arguments people are making with respect to the latest "controversial" reviews:

1) The rule is confusing/bad/no one knows "what a catch" is. On this one I am with Eddie 100% - the "survive the ground" rule is actually quite clear and the only reason things like the Calvin Johnson overturn happened is because he didn't understand the rule. You could probably have criticized the NFL at that point in time for failing to make clear what the new rule was, but that was SEVEN YEARS AGO - the excuse that players/coaches "don't understand the rule" is no longer valid. Just go read it - it's pretty clear and not that long. I still have yet to see anyone come up with a different rule that would result in fewer controversial rulings. (The Dez Bryant non-catch was a bit different - there I think there was a strong case he had become a "runner," but again that is not an issue with the rule itself being "bad," just that the refs arguably misapplied it.)

2) The rule is fine but the refs in the replay room are not applying the "clear and obvious" standard appropriately. This I think is a much more legitimate gripe. To my eyes, it seems like the replay officials really just look at the play from scratch and don't take into account the original ruling unless it is simply impossible to tell, like when a RB may or not have crossed the goal line in a huge scrum or when there is a fumble and it's simply impossible to tell when the runner's knee was down. I think the simple answer here is just to change the wording of the replay standard to match what is actually happening.

3) Regardless of the calls, the game is hurt by the amount and time taken up by replays and the game has become too legalistic - a related complaint is that fans/players/etc. can't ever actually celebrate a TD or big play because it's inevitably going to be reviewed. I don't really agree with this one as I think better technology inevitably leads to more fine-tuned reviews. If they have the ability, the TV networks are going to zoom in on that foot inches from the sideline to see if a player was in bounds or not, regardless of whether the play can be challenged, so we'd just end up with upset fans anyway complaining that the play should be reviewed. That said, I do understand where people with this complaint are coming from; if the league thought this was really becoming an issue there are many easy ways to change it, the most obvious of which would just be to not make TDs and turnovers automatically reviewed and force coaches to risk losing a TO if they think the call is important/egregious enough.

 

[jercra]

I don't get all of the all of the outrage either. Everyone I've spoken to about it in person eventually admits it's just hatred for the Pats that's coloring their viewpoint. Everyone wants a different rule but I haven't seen a single proposal that makes any sense in a world where technology continues to exist. There are really two issues at hand here though. First, what's actually a catch (which I think is pretty clear) and how should replay be used. On the first, I don't really see how you could make it anything but what it is today. On the second, I actually prefer a standard for getting it right, regardless of what the refs called on the field. I'm not sure in what situation it's better to get the call wrong, but a lot of people seem to want that and I don't get it.

 

[splendid splinter]

I think part of the problem is that what NY sees probably isn’t what the viewer sees. Yes, they are using the same camera angles that the viewer sees, but I would not be surprised if they have access to timestamp-synchronized views that let them see multiple angles simultaneously. So they might have had one shot from the left where control of the ball was clearly discernible, synched with another angle from the right where Benjamin’s foot is clearly off the ground at the moment he gains control. CBS shows whatever they want to show - you’re not necessarily seeing the angles NY is focusing on.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I think part of the problem is that what NY sees probably isn’t what the viewer sees. Yes, they are using the same camera angles that the viewer sees, but I would not be surprised if they have access to timestamp-synchronized views that let them see multiple angles simultaneously. So they might have had one shot from the left where control of the ball was clearly discernible, synched with another angle from the right where Benjamin’s foot is clearly off the ground at the moment he gains control. CBS shows whatever they want to show - you’re not necessarily seeing the angles NY is focusing on.

I got the exact same impression yesterday hearing Riveron's comments. I think the NFL command center is looking at synchronized clips from different angles.

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

I remember worrying that the Pats were going to get screwed when the NFL announced that the reviews would be done from NY and the ref would have NY in his headset for other decisions. Seems it's turned out ok.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

I would think the issue comes down to the fact that replay was supposed to cover clear indisputable evidence - that is, to quote a different sport, stop Don Denkinger from screwing up a call in the 9th in game 6 of the 1985 world series.

Not to watch 7 replays and find a slomo stop that might overrule a ref on the field.

Was at the game, rooting for the Pats, and it should have been a TD. That said if Clay hadn't dropped the one before this wouldnt have been an issue.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Nice response, OFC. Obviously I agree with you on #1.

With respect to point 2, this is a thing that doesn’t bother me that much. I’d solve this one by removing the clear and obvious language.

Point 3, it also doesn’t bother me that much, but I do think it is a legitimate thing for people to care about.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

My problem is kind of a theoretical one. Even with replay, we are at a know it when I see it point. There is no such thing as two things touching. When is a ball actually being controlled in the crook of one's arm? I know it sounds absurd but there is no such thing if you drill down to a molecular level. A football is always being bobbled. It's never even actually touching one's hand. Always. How much is too much? We all have an intuitive sense. We know it when we see it. We see it a little better on video. But what is "it"? We probably someday could use technology and directional lasers or heat sensors to get even more data about the extent to which the electromagnetic force between a hand or glove is interacting with the same of the ball. But, really, what are we doing. That's absurd, right? Why is it more absurd than what we are doing now?

It feels like it just is, but I cannot give a principled reason why.

 

[mr_smith02]

I am solidly in the 'replay needs to happen faster' camp. I say give the refs 90 seconds to watch replays, if there's nothing clear or convincing seen in that 90 seconds then the ruling on the field stands.

 

[Toe Nash]

3) Regardless of the calls, the game is hurt by the amount and time taken up by replays and the game has become too legalistic - a related complaint is that fans/players/etc. can't ever actually celebrate a TD or big play because it's inevitably going to be reviewed. I don't really agree with this one as I think better technology inevitably leads to more fine-tuned reviews. If they have the ability, the TV networks are going to zoom in on that foot inches from the sideline to see if a player was in bounds or not, regardless of whether the play can be challenged, so we'd just end up with upset fans anyway complaining that the play should be reviewed. That said, I do understand where people with this complaint are coming from; if the league thought this was really becoming an issue there are many easy ways to change it, the most obvious of which would just be to not make TDs and turnovers automatically reviewed and force coaches to risk losing a TO if they think the call is important/egregious enough.

Great post and I agree with #1 and 2 entirely. I do think the complaint that there are too many and too lengthy reviews is valid, and it really started when they began automatically reviewing scoring plays and turnovers while at the same time still allowing the coaches two challenges and the booth initiation under two minutes. I don't think that it's too legalistic, I just think it takes too long and we waste a lot of time reviewing plays that are not that important, or spend too long reviewing things that are pretty clear on the first or second replay.

What all of this means is that basically anything kinda close gets reviewed and it ends up getting pretty long and tedious.

The options here are to either have the booth initiate everything (probably difficult) or just go back to the coaches being the only people who can call for a replay, and work on really making the challenges efficient. There seem to be a lot of reviews where the TV broadcast finds an angle pretty quickly that shows the play and it's an obvious overturn or not, and they still seem to be mucking around for a while before a call is made. If that means you need more replay officials in NY so they can be watching along and quickly give word on the more obvious calls, they should spend that money. If it means you give the officials at the game more power before sending things to NY, so be it. Whatever makes it faster.

Maybe you could give the coaches three chances instead of two (regardless of whether you were successful) while taking away the automatic review of scoring plays and turnovers. I think that's a pretty reasonable option. You'd really only get the most important stuff being challenged and it would add another layer of strategy for teams.

 

[ragnarok725]

The speed issue is largely related to the fact that the on-field ref plays a significant part in replays still. They're making an announcement, going over to the sideline, coming back, making another announcement.

The best situation would be the institution of a replay clock. 30-60 seconds. It starts when the ref announces a review. It 100% happens in NY, and if there is a clear reason to reverse, then announce and move on. If not, the whistle is blown and life goes on.

Having the crowd see what NY is seeing at that time would also help in understanding why they're making the call that they are. Even hearing them as they discuss the call would be a cool behind-the-scenes look that would eliminate a lot of conspiracy theories, although I can understand why maybe they wouldn't do that.

I think anyone who's saying we should rewind to the days of no replay are kidding themselves. The first obviously blown call would remind everyone how unjust that feels and that its a much greater evil than the largely-fixable procedural challenges of embracing technology.

 

[DJnVa]

I am solidly in the 'replay needs to happen faster' camp. I say give the refs 90 seconds to watch replays, if there's nothing clear or convincing seen in that 90 seconds then the ruling on the field stands.

I think some of that time is spent recreating what the clock, etc. should be on an overturn. It's not just, "Okay, he didn't fumble, we need to overturn that, ball stays with the offense" it's "He's down THERE--ball on 42, clock needs to be reset to....3:45 and will start on my whistle" type of thing.

 

[The Needler]

I am solidly in the 'replay needs to happen faster' camp. I say give the refs 90 seconds to watch replays, if there's nothing clear or convincing seen in that 90 seconds then the ruling on the field stands.

The rules already include a 60-second limit.

 

[SoxinSeattle]

I have no problem with the way it is today. Sure delays suck but I would rather get it right than get it fast and mostly they get it right. The calls lately have been called absolutely correct when applying the rules of play. People keep saying "it should have been a catch". Well it wasn't and the rules explain exactly why.

 

[jercra]

Pace of the game seems like a good argument, but the data doesn't back it up. I posted this in another thread, but it should go here too. 538 looked into NFL game times and if you look at the numbers you'll see that games today aren't materially longer than they were in 1999 (as far back as the data goes). The difference between the longest and shortest avg game in that time span is 6 minutes and the difference between 2004 and 2016 is just 2 minutes. That's not even one whole commercial break.

One thing I noticed in the data is that the average number commercials have gone up by over 5 per game since 2008. That's almost certainly tied in some way to there being more reviews since they often go to commercial during reviews. To me, that means no one in control has any real incentive to reduce either the number or duration of replays.

 

[Sportsbstn]

I am solidly in the 'replay needs to happen faster' camp. I say give the refs 90 seconds to watch replays, if there's nothing clear or convincing seen in that 90 seconds then the ruling on the field stands.

I’m in full agreement on this. With that said, the idea replay is only for obvious mistakes, is asinine. The Bills owner was saying this today and many media types have been too. Where is the line for obvious? If evidence is conclusive, overturn the call, if not it stands. Not this garbage of well it’s technically the wrong call, but let’s just leave it because some deem it not obvious or blatant.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I am solidly in the 'replay needs to happen faster' camp. I say give the refs 90 seconds to watch replays, if there's nothing clear or convincing seen in that 90 seconds then the ruling on the field stands.

There's a tradeoff involved here. If a strict time limit is imposed and adhered to, then there will be more wrong decisions than otherwise. Going both ways - there will be some rushed overturns that wouldn't have stood up to greater scrutiny along with an even greater number of calls that should have been overturned but weren't. Maybe that is OK - better to have that than the occasional 5-minute delay. Maybe. But it is a tradeoff.

For me, if we're going to have replay at all, might as well try to get each call as correct as possible. Otherwise, why bother? One way to make game play move faster is to just nix replay entirely, which is no less fair to the teams involved than the current system.

 

[mr_smith02]

There's a tradeoff involved here. If a strict time limit is imposed and adhered to, then there will be more wrong decisions than otherwise. Going both ways - there will be some rushed overturns that wouldn't have stood up to greater scrutiny along with an even greater number of calls that should have been overturned but weren't. Maybe that is OK - better to have that than the occasional 5-minute delay. Maybe. But it is a tradeoff.

For me, if we're going to have replay at all, might as well try to get each call as correct as possible. Otherwise, why bother? One way to make game play move faster is to just nix replay entirely, which is no less fair to the teams involved than the current system.

The review in the Steelers game and the one this past weekend against the Bills (and I am certain there are countless others from other games and teams this season alone) just seem to have gone beyond 90 seconds and the "clear and convincing" expectations a lot of fans have. I am NOT arguing whether or not the calls were right or wrong, I'm saying the NFL's current procedure is both inconsistent and frustrating, and it's happening in too many games.

Replay is already somewhat unfair in that only a prescribed number of plays can be reviewed (which I fully understand). Still, people saying replay is making the game more fair aren't remembering that tons of calls that cannot be reviewed, but impact the outcome of drives and games each weekend, never get reviewed. If a blatant hold on a run that springs a halfback for a go-ahead TD, or even a first down, can't be reviewed, but super slo-mo and enhanced zooming-in is used to divine whether or not a catch was made, it's just frustrating for fans and it's truly not fair.

Maybe they should just leave it in the coaches' hands. Give each team the same number of challenges as they have time outs. I still feel like a stricter adherence to a time limit would help too. I know someone upthread mentioned that there's a 60-second limit already in place...I have not seen that enforced or adhered to often or ever.

So, give the coaches three replays per game for ANY rule infraction they feel occurred on a given play, slap a two-minute limit for refs to make a decision, at two minutes they make a call...and then use whatever time is needed to get the clock and spot correct. Penalize the team with the loss of a time out for a failed review. And, if a team has no timeouts left, but have reviews left they can use them, but get penalized 15 yards if the review fails.

It is better to have the outcome of a game be in the hands of the team and coaches, not officials and technology, IMHO.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

Someone posted this in another thread, but maybe better placed here: Roger Goodell wants to change the catch rule:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22257695/concerned-roger-goodell-wants-nfl-catch-rule-changed

I'm not really sure what his stated concern even is. Here he says the going-to-the-ground rule is "creating a lot of confusion" but also says "you might have clarity in a large element of it, but what happens is that it's not the rule that people really want." So basically he's saying the fans are too stupid to understand the clear rule and they just want to see catches, gosh darn it! Well, I hope they also want to see fumbles and turnovers.

He also doesn't seem to understand the rule book, since he says that the going-to-the-ground rule is different than on the sidelines and in the end zone, which is just totally inaccurate (unless he's being imprecise and saying something different, but it's hard to tell).

Audio:

 

[edmunddantes]

Good reminder if you are going back to square one. This is what it was...

 

[edmunddantes]

 

[Curt S Loew]

Good reminder if you are going back to square one. This is what it was...

Is a football move, any act common to the game?

 

[Prodigal Sox]

Have no idea how it might be changed but what I do know, based on past history, is that they will screw it up even more.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I like the concept of treating the goal line separately from other borders. So, I have a question:

A runner scores as soon as the football he's carrying touches the plane of the goal line. What if he's bobbling the ball at that point, gets hit in the end zone and loses control? I think it's not a score because he never had clear possession thru to the end zone?

Depending on that answer, I could understand treating a reception in the end zone similarly to the runner. Have "possession" of the ball for any amount of time on the other side of that goal line plane (and obviously in bounds) and for that situation a touchdown occurs...even if he drops the ball after controlling it for a minimum amount of time.

This makes it extremely tough on defenders though because knocking the ball out of the receiver's grasp will no longer be valid in the end zone. The only defense will be to prevent the reciever from wrapping his hands around the ball in the first place. Ouch. At least the concept equates the runner with the receiver.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Is a football move, any act common to the game?

Here is a football move, which I just felt like posting.

 

[edmunddantes]

This was a catch.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000722862/Super-Bowl-XII-Rodger-Staubach-45-yard-TD-to-Butch-Johnson

 

[tims4wins]

This was a catch.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000722862/Super-Bowl-XII-Rodger-Staubach-45-yard-TD-to-Butch-Johnson

LOL

 

[DJnVa]

Here is a football move, which I just felt like posting.

I'm not sure why it annoys me that I have to watch NFL shit on youtube actually on youtube, but it does.

Can they not monitor how many times it's played otherwise?

 

[DJnVa]

This was a catch.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000722862/Super-Bowl-XII-Rodger-Staubach-45-yard-TD-to-Butch-Johnson

They show Staubach making the throw twice in that video. The first throw he's stepping up in the pocket and being hit as he throws it:


In the second throw, he's not:



WHAT'S GOING ON NFL FILMS????

 

[BaseballJones]

LOL

hahaha

Well when they change the rule and the Pats beat the Steelers on a play like that, the world will explode.

 

[JohnnyK]

I'm not sure why it annoys me that I have to watch NFL shit on youtube actually on youtube, but it does.

Can they not monitor how many times it's played otherwise?

They can monetize the video when it is played on YouTube. There are no ads on embedded videos.