Fixing the Catch rule.

[Cowboyz1]

It's gotten to the point that nobody knows what a catch is anymore. It changes from week to week, game to game and crew to crew. I have an idea that would solve the problem.

 

How about this.

 

A catch is made once the ball is stopped from flight and the receiver has possession of the ball and two feet down in bounds period. At that instantaneous moment whether in the endzone or in the field of play it is presumed a catch. No football move verbiage or anything that ambiguous. Therefore in the end zone, if the receiver stops the flight of the ball and controls it AND gets two feet down in bounds at that instantaneous moment it is a touchdown. No matter what happens after that just like the ball crossing the plain with control.

 

In the field of play if the same thing. IF he loses control after that instantaneous moment of control and two feet in bounds it's a fumble. IF he goes out of bounds and loses control it's a catch and dead ball out of bounds.

 

That way replay and show that instant where he has control or not. It can show if the feet or down or not. Makes it very simple.

 

Control means the ball has stopped moving for a spit second with two feet in bounds. After that call it a catch then fumble or what every happens. That includes catching it then bobbling it into a fumble afterwords. There is no such thing as completing the catch as they say today. A catch is the spit second the receiver stops the balls flight and controls it with his hands with two feet in the field of play.

 

A perfect example is the Butch Johnson touchdown way back when. He caught the ball going down in the endzone and the moment he hit the endzone it was a touchdown and he left the ball where he went down all in one motion.

That instant he controlled the ball and touched the endzone it was a touchdown period.

 

What do you think?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Cowboyz1

[Grits and Shins]

I recommended essentially the same thing a couple of weeks ago ... 2 feet down with control should be a catch regardless of anything else that happens.

[Boy Named Suh]

It's gotten to the point that nobody knows what a catch is anymore. It changes from week to week, game to game and crew to crew. I have an idea that would solve the problem.

 

How about this.

 

A catch is made once the ball is stopped from flight and the receiver has possession of the ball and two feet down in bounds period. At that instantaneous moment whether in the endzone or in the field of play it is presumed a catch. No football move verbiage or anything that ambiguous. Therefore in the end zone, if the receiver stops the flight of the ball and controls it AND gets two feet down in bounds at that instantaneous moment it is a touchdown. No matter what happens after that just like the ball crossing the plain with control.

 

In the field of play if the same thing. IF he loses control after that instantaneous moment of control and two feet in bounds it's a fumble. IF he goes out of bounds and loses control it's a catch and dead ball out of bounds.

 

That way replay and show that instant where he has control or not. It can show if the feet or down or not. Makes it very simple.

 

Control means the ball has stopped moving for a spit second with two feet in bounds. After that call it a catch then fumble or what every happens. That includes catching it then bobbling it into a fumble afterwords. There is no such thing as completing the catch as they say today. A catch is the spit second the receiver stops the balls flight and controls it with his hands with two feet in the field of play.

 

A perfect example is the Butch Johnson touchdown way back when. He caught the ball going down in the endzone and the moment he hit the endzone it was a touchdown and he left the ball where he went down all in one motion.

That instant he controlled the ball and touched the endzone it was a touchdown period.

 

What do you think?

 

That leaves no room for the officials to have faceless people in some control room influence the game. Goodell (who I suspect is the faceless people in the CONTROL room) will never allow it.

[CaptainHook]

I recommended essentially the same thing a couple of weeks ago ... 2 feet down with control should be a catch regardless of anything else that happens.

I disagree. I think the rule makes sense as it is. I do not want to go back to the years of Cris Carter catching the ball on the sideline, toe-tapping, and then dropping it when he hit the ground. That is not a complete pass. Or guys catching a ball in the end zone with two feet, getting blasted and they drop it, and it is ruled a TD.

 

In a league where every rule seems to favor the offense, you have to give defensive players a chance to break up a play. Forcing players to catch a ball, maintain possession if they hit the ground or make a football play is a great rule. I really don't see what all the crying is about. If you catch a ball while going to the ground, at the end of the play you must still have control. You can't drop it. Makes sense to me.

[Cowboyz1]

I disagree. I think the rule makes sense as it is. I do not want to go back to the years of Cris Carter catching the ball on the sideline, toe-tapping, and then dropping it when he hit the ground. That is not a complete pass. Or guys catching a ball in the end zone with two feet, getting blasted and they drop it, and it is ruled a TD.

 

In a league where every rule seems to favor the offense, you have to give defensive players a chance to break up a play. Forcing players to catch a ball, maintain possession if they hit the ground or make a football play is a great rule. I really don't see what all the crying is about. If you catch a ball while going to the ground, at the end of the play you must still have control. You can't drop it. Makes sense to me.

So you're in favor of never really knowing what will be called week in and week out. Unsure if you are going to have a catch one week and the next it not be one. Your in favor of sitting watching commercials for 30 minutes a game while they try to figure out what a football move is or how long he had the ball or did he have it long enough going to ground or out of bounds. This rule can't continue as is. It's way to subject to being called inconsistently. How often do you see a Carter play? You see far more opportunities for defenses to create turnovers with my rule. Besides it would be the same as a runner where they ground can't cause a fumble. Whether it be out of bounds or in the endzone. Either it would be a no catch, a catch, a catch fumble, a catch touchdown or a catch dead ball out of bounds. Easy peasy japaneasy.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Cowboyz1

[awesomebench]

I AGREE!!!

[CaptainHook]

So you're in favor of never really knowing what will be called week in and week out. Unsure if you are going to have a catch one week and the next it not be one. Your in favor of sitting watching commercials for 30 minutes a game while they try to figure out what a football move is or how long he had the ball or did he have it long enough going to ground or out of bounds. This rule can't continue as is. It's way to subject to being called inconsistently. How often do you see a Carter play? You see far more opportunities for defenses to create turnovers with my rule.

I can watch a play as the rules are currently written and decide after two replays if they will rule catch or not. It is so simple. If you are going to the ground during the catch process, you must maintain possession throughout.

 

If you are not going to the ground, you must make some type of move. It's not just two feet down, so I always look for more than that. I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

[Boy Named Suh]

I disagree. I think the rule makes sense as it is. I do not want to go back to the years of Cris Carter catching the ball on the sideline, toe-tapping, and then dropping it when he hit the ground. That is not a complete pass. Or guys catching a ball in the end zone with two feet, getting blasted and they drop it, and it is ruled a TD.

 

In a league where every rule seems to favor the offense, you have to give defensive players a chance to break up a play. Forcing players to catch a ball, maintain possession if they hit the ground or make a football play is a great rule. I really don't see what all the crying is about. If you catch a ball while going to the ground, at the end of the play you must still have control. You can't drop it. Makes sense to me.

 

In that case, it shouldn't matter if a RB reaches the ball across the goal line but then has it knocked out of their hand. According to you, they didn't have control at the end of the play, so that should be a fumble and not a TD. No different than the several plays this year where a receiver has caught the ball outside the end zone, reached it across the line, and then dropped when they hit the ground. Reaching it across the line should be the football move, but apparently not..sometimes.

[Cowboyz1]

I can watch a play as the rules are currently written and decide after two replays if they will rule catch or not. It is so simple. If you are going to the ground during the catch process, you must maintain possession throughout.

 

If you are not going to the ground, you must make some type of move. It's not just two feet down, so I always look for more than that. I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

Because what you call a football move is different that what I would call a football move. What you call going to the ground and having control long enough is different then what I would call long enough. You can't leave a rule to interpretation. It has to be cut and dry. Did he have control at any point. Yes or no. did he have two feet down. Yes or no. Two simple tests and it's over. Repay helps to get to the answers for both without ambiguity. Then you can go to what happens after it was deemed a catch.

[Boy Named Suh]

I can watch a play as the rules are currently written and decide after two replays if they will rule catch or not. It is so simple. If you are going to the ground during the catch process, you must maintain possession throughout.

 

If you are not going to the ground, you must make some type of move. It's not just two feet down, so I always look for more than that. I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

 

Shouldn't take two replays to judge a catch...taking replay way too far. Just because we have replay doesn't mean that they should make rules so complex that it has to be used.

 

"football move" is too ambiguous.

[DMD]

Control, two feet in, catch. Not sure why it ever changed because that was the rule for a long time. I think they did it because rules favored the receivers so much in recent years.

[CaptainHook]

Because what you call a football move is different that what I would call a football move. What you call going to the ground and having control long enough is different then what I would call long enough. You can't leave a rule to interpretation. It has to be cut and dry. Did he have control at any point. Yes or no. did he have two feet down. Yes or no. Two simple tests and it's over. Repay helps to get to the answers for both without ambiguity. Then you can go to what happens after it was deemed a catch.

There is no "long enough" when you go to the ground. You have to keep have control period. No grey area at all. If you go to the ground in the process of making the catch, and at the end of the play the ball is on the ground, it is incomplete. Simple.

[CaptainHook]

Control, two feet in, catch. Not sure why it ever changed because that was the rule for a long time. I think they did it because rules favored the receivers so much in recent years.

I can think of multiple catches over the years that cause them to change that. Jeremy Shockey had one in the end zone, and like I said, just about every sideline catch of Carter's career was dropped after he hit the ground and called complete. I hated that.

[CaptainHook]

 

Shouldn't take two replays to judge a catch...taking replay way too far. Just because we have replay doesn't mean that they should make rules so complex that it has to be used.

 

"football move" is too ambiguous.

it really isn't, they've been pretty consistent with it

[Boy Named Suh]

There is no "long enough" when you go to the ground. You have to keep have control period. No grey area at all. If you go to the ground in the process of making the catch, and at the end of the play the ball is on the ground, it is incomplete. Simple.

 

But if the ball is reached across the goal line, then that has already happened while he had control, the play should be dead right there with a TD, but instead it gets extended to the ground? Makes no sense.

[CaptainHook]

 

In that case, it shouldn't matter if a RB reaches the ball across the goal line but then has it knocked out of their hand. According to you, they didn't have control at the end of the play, so that should be a fumble and not a TD. No different than the several plays this year where a receiver has caught the ball outside the end zone, reached it across the line, and then dropped when they hit the ground. Reaching it across the line should be the football move, but apparently not..sometimes.

that's completely different. If you catch a ball in the end zone, you must have control when the play is over. Otherwise a guy could catch a ball for a tenth of a second with two feet down, get blasted, and drop it, and you would rule that a TD. That's actually why they changed the rule. I wish I could find video of that Shockey TD, but it was a perfect example.

[CaptainHook]

 

But if the ball is reached across the goal line, then that has already happened while he had control, the play should be dead right there with a TD, but instead it gets extended to the ground? Makes no sense.

except that the rule for what constitutes a completed pass when going to the ground supersedes it.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

 

But if the ball is reached across the goal line, then that has already happened while he had control, the play should be dead right there with a TD, but instead it gets extended to the ground? Makes no sense.

oh I see, you mean like....DEZ BRYANT?!?!?!

[Boy Named Suh]

oh I see, you mean like....DEZ BRYANT?!?!?!

 

Yup...Eifert had one like that this year too. There was another one, but I can't remember who it was. Seems like maybe James Jones, but he might have just had the simultaneous catch/butt on the ground one.

[CaptainHook]

oh I see, you mean like....DEZ BRYANT?!?!?!

while I agree that was a tough one, it was the correct interpretation of the rule. I'm willing to lose that catch in order to not have what the NFL ruled a catch prior to this rule.

 

Two feet down should NOT BE how you determine a catch. You can have that happen, with control for a mere fraction of a second. Trust me, you don't want that again. Fumbles will increase. It penalizes the defense even more. And people will be screaming about guys catching the ball for a split second and then dropping it (and having it ruled complete) costing them games.

[Grits and Shins]

while I agree that was a tough one, it was the correct interpretation of the rule. I'm willing to lose that catch in order to not have what the NFL ruled a catch prior to this rule.

 

Two feet down should NOT BE how you determine a catch. You can have that happen, with control for a mere fraction of a second. Trust me, you don't want that again. Fumbles will increase. It penalizes the defense even more. And people will be screaming about guys catching the ball for a split second and then dropping it (and having it ruled complete) costing them games.

 

Trust me I DO want that back. Control, two feet down, catch. What happens after that happens. Just like once the ball is put into the gut of a running back what happens after that happens.

 

And it is amazing that you are able to determine what is and is not a catch when the paid professional referees can't.

[CaptainHook]

 

Trust me I DO want that back. Control, two feet down, catch. What happens after that happens. Just like once the ball is put into the gut of a running back what happens after that happens.

 

And it is amazing that you are able to determine what is and is not a catch when the paid professional referees can't.

Kinda surprised you feel this way. Most of the whipper snappers on here probably don't remember what it was like with the two foot down rule. It was awful. While not perfect, this is way better.

[Boy Named Suh]

Kinda surprised you feel this way. Most of the whipper snappers on here probably don't remember what it was like with the two foot down rule. It was awful. While not perfect, this is way better.

 

At least with the old way, you could say yup, he had both feet down...that's a catch and then he fumbled it. The way they are doing it now, you are the only one who knows for sure if it's a catch, and it takes you two replays. Far too much ambiguity.

[CaptainHook]

what if a guy catches it, gets one foot down, and the toe of the other foot down and then is hit and drops the ball. Fumble? Or catch?

[Grits and Shins]

Kinda surprised you feel this way. Most of the whipper snappers on here probably don't remember what it was like with the two foot down rule. It was awful. While not perfect, this is way better.

 

I would rather it be in the player's hands (literally) to determine whether or not it was a catch ... all he has to do is control the ball and get two feet down and bang we have a catch. This wishy-washy crap going on now is for the birds. If he catches the ball, has control, toe-taps I don't care if he loses it on the ground. This whole "it's a catch when he makes a football move" is too ambiguous.