The reason we have replay is because fans were pissing and moaning over bad calls. You can never please everyone. As for me, I'm all for it.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't say the rule was perfect. I'm saying no definition is going to be perfect. If you think your solution resolves the matter, I dont. I think it creates different and more problems.
Click on "watch on youtube".
We'd still be complaining about it. And rightfully so.
I "understand" it too... just don't like it..... I'm leaning towards Udonta's idea.
Nope. It was a link to one already there.
And I never said mine was the best by any means. Obviously, it would need refinement and was really only intended as a starting point for ideas. But the status quo is just too subjective, too ambiguous and open to interpretation. While no definition can be perfect, it stands to reason that the simpler the rule can be made, the less room there is for debate. Maybe the answer is as easy as limiting reviews on catches to whether or not the player had two feet in bounds and making the question of whether or not the ball moved in a players arms/hands 1/8" after contacting the ground nonrenewable. That would allow the "eye test" and common sense be a more prevalent part of the rule rather than slow-mo, microscopic analysis and minute technicality being the ultimate deciding factor. It the movement isn't enough to see in real time, is it worth fussing over? Would they get it wrong from time to time? Sure. But they get lots of nonrenewable things wrong at times, like most penalties.
I don't remember ever asking that?
With Goodell pushing the rules committee for a fix to the leagues currently abysmal catch rule, what do you see as the best fix to make the rule clearer and less subject to interpretation?
My solution is fairly simple (I think, until you guys point out all of its flaws.)
Part 1: Dump the requirement to "survive the catch to the ground." Ball control + 2 feet or 1 knee, elbow, butt cheek, etc = a catch. If the player is falling to the ground in the act of the catch it doesn't matter if the ball moves after touching the ground as long as the ball is controlled all the way to the ground. No "football move." No Bert Emmanuel rule. No Calvin Johnson rule.
Part 2 (optional): Assuming Part 1 is satisfied, if the ball comes completely out of the player's possession upon hitting the ground, then the ball is dead at that spot. If it simply moves in his hands or arms but the receiver is able to keep it from coming loose, he can get up and advance the ball.
If Part 2 is still too subjective, then the play is dead any time the ball touches the ground after the catch as defined by Part 1.
I agree with your post, however there were a number of times in that game where Michaels made me wonder if he had been partaking in a few too many pre game cocktails. The way he was convinced that Cory Clement's TD was going to be reversed as well struck me as odd.
I thought there was a chance Clement's TD was going to be reversed as well. I've certainly seen similar called non catches in the past. He didn't have the ball all that securely at first, and yes he was moving to secure it better, but therein lies the "catch". Did he really have control, or did he sense he was going to lose it and thus the need to move the ball to a more secure location? These things happen very quickly and almost innately, what isn't up for debate is the fact that after he moved it, his 2nd foot did come down out of bounds.
