Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes. Force refs to watch replays at half-speed. Stop this frame-by-frame replay analysis where the ball can jiggle for 1/60th of a second. Watch half speed and suddenly we aren't analyzing everything as minutely and refs will STILL be able to fix incorrect calls.

So the goal isn't actually to get the call correct, its to speed up an annoying process to get it "close enough"? Tell that to Olympians who win by .001 of a second in February.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have to ask this one question. If technology existed that allowed film to be quickly processed through a computer that was programmed to interpret the rules with the film and that computer could quickly spit out accurately whether it was "pass interference, fumble, catch, etc." would you be in favor of it or against it? Just curious. Mondio, I think I know your answer

 

[Mondio]

How did you read my mind? am I that transparent?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How did you read my mind? am I that transparent?

LOL....While you and I are on total opposite ends of the spectrum on this, I respect the fact that you aren't afraid to say that you prefer "old school, call them as you see them". I'm fine with technology helping to get very tough "bang bang" decisions correct, but if you are going to use technology, use anything and everything available to make that call as correct as possible. If you don't do that, those with better technology are going to keep showing you just how faulty the decision making process is.

Clearly, the rules and interpretation of are the key elements in this discussion and until those are cleared up, it won't matter whether you are making the calls from your horse and buggy or a spaceship.

 

[swhitset]

LOL....While you and I are on total opposite ends of the spectrum on this, I respect the fact that you aren't afraid to say that you prefer "old school, call them as you see them". I'm fine with technology helping to get very tough "bang bang" decisions correct, but if you are going to use technology, use anything and everything available to make that call as correct as possible. If you don't do that, those with better technology are going to keep showing you just how faulty the decision making process is.

Clearly, the rules and interpretation of are the key elements in this discussion and until those are cleared up, it won't matter whether you are making the calls from your horse and buggy or a spaceship.

I lean heavily to the side of "get the call right"... however until we have the technology to build a true AI.... somebody is still going to have to input the parameters into that computer... and There will always be a situation that is unique enough that the parameters don't cover it.. and then there will still be controversy lol. I was somewhat with Udonta until suggestions of limiting what replays you can watch and at what speed... Regardless of what the rules are, if we are going to use replay.. it should be used at whatever speed or angle give the refs the most clear picture of what actually happened.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

After all these years of instant replay being used in the NFL and fans getting accustomed to it, could you imagine the uproar after the first "major blown call", if instant replay was "dumbed down"? At least now, when a final review call is controversial, it usually falls into the grey area of interpretation surrounding the rules, not how it was reviewed.

 

[AmishMafia]

I lean heavily to the side of "get the call right"... however until we have the technology to build a true AI.... somebody is still going to have to input the parameters into that computer... and There will always be a situation that is unique enough that the parameters don't cover it.. and then there will still be controversy lol. I was somewhat with Udonta until suggestions of limiting what replays you can watch and at what speed... Regardless of what the rules are, if we are going to use replay.. it should be used at whatever speed or angle give the refs the most clear picture of what actually happened.

How about sensors in the ball and the players gloves. Contact with 18 psi and 8% of the football for over 0.6 seconds constitutes a catch.

Sideline, Goal line and goal post sensors determine in bounds, tds, first downs, and field goals.

Guess we need to line the shoes with sensors.

 

[AmishMafia]

After all these years of instant replay being used in the NFL and fans getting accustomed to it, could you imagine the uproar after the first "major blown call", if instant replay was "dumbed down"? At least now, when a final review call is controversial, it usually falls into the grey area of interpretation surrounding the rules, not how it was reviewed.

There was an uproar over blown calls, that is why we have replay now. If we go back it would last a dozen years and people would demand replay again. Grass is always greener . . .

 

[XPack]

Contact with 18 psi and 8% of the football for over 0.6 seconds constitutes a catch.

Is the metrics for a normal football or a Patriots deflated football?

I reckon a 16psi, 6% and 0.4 seconds should apply for Brady's Bunch specially.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I lean heavily to the side of "get the call right"... however until we have the technology to build a true AI.... somebody is still going to have to input the parameters into that computer... and There will always be a situation that is unique enough that the parameters don't cover it.. and then there will still be controversy lol. I was somewhat with Udonta until suggestions of limiting what replays you can watch and at what speed... Regardless of what the rules are, if we are going to use replay.. it should be used at whatever speed or angle give the refs the most clear picture of what actually happened.

So what if the NFL decided to use 4K high speed cameras capable of 2000 frames per second (yes, they're out there) and are able to measure that the ball moved 1.7 mm in the players hands over a duration of 0.118 seconds and the players second foot does not touch down for another 0.22 seconds after the ball stops moving? Would that be a "bobble" or an adjustment, and how would you tell the difference? Would you be in favor of the possibility of a Super Bowl winning TD being overturned based on that kind of thing? I'm in favor of fewer and quicker reviews, not more reviews that become more complicated. The fact that it took them 3 minutes to figure out that Ertz caught that TD pass indicates a real problem.

 

[RRyder]

Considering I don't really have a big issue with the catch rule I'd rather them open up instant replay to include being able to reverse a penalty where the defender never touches the WR but gets flagged 40 yards downfield anyways.

Seems like that would have a bigger impact then changing a catch rule that passes the eye test 9/10 times

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Considering I don't really have a big issue with the catch rule I'd rather them open up instant replay to include being able to reverse a penalty where the defender never touches the WR but gets flagged 40 yards downfield anyways.

Seems like that would have a bigger impact then changing a catch rule that passes the eye test 9/10 times

Or just do what they do in college football, 15 yard penalty and a first down. Never liked the NFL PI rules to begin with. Giving a team yards for something that may or may not have been completed, on a judgement call no less.

 

[RRyder]

Or just do what they do in college football, 15 yard penalty and a first down. Never liked the NFL PI rules to begin with. Giving a team yards for something that may or may not have been completed, on a judgement call no less.

I don't have a problem with it being a spot foul in the pros but damn if I don't hate seeing that flag thrown when zero contact was made

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't have a problem with it being a spot foul in the pros but damn if I don't hate seeing that flag thrown when zero contact was made

My biggest issue with the spot foul is that it assumes that the receiver would have caught the ball AND that he was interfered with. Over the years we have seen some really bad PI calls as well as receivers being very smart on what to do to get the call. Neutralize all of that by awarding a 15 yard penalty. In the rare occasion that Offensive pass interference is actually called, is the defense rewarded with the ball at the spot?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So the goal isn't actually to get the call correct, its to speed up an annoying process to get it "close enough"? Tell that to Olympians who win by .001 of a second in February.

I'm sorry, what part of the current system makes you think "correct" is being accomplished? Frame-by-frame is stupid. It's not an attempt to speed up the process, it's an attempt to allow for reviews at slow-motion but prevent the ridiculous overanalalysis that occurs now.

 

[yooperpackfan]

So the goal isn't actually to get the call correct, its to speed up an annoying process to get it "close enough"? Tell that to Olympians who win by .001 of a second in February.

Good Point, I was only thinking NFL football.

 

[Veretax]

In my opinion a catch should be simplified to the following:

Control of the ball with one hand and bringing it into the body and then have control or two hands and make a move with the ball. Or two hands, stationary and 2 seconds of control. A receiver who is stretching out with the ball is no longer a receiver for the purposes of the catch rule. (WHich I think would fix the fumbling in end zone incomplete thing)

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm sorry, what part of the current system makes you think "correct" is being accomplished? Frame-by-frame is stupid. It's not an attempt to speed up the process, it's an attempt to allow for reviews at slow-motion but prevent the ridiculous overanalalysis that occurs now.

If you have a better system than the one that is currently being used and you feel it will get more calls correct, I am all ears. Or maybe you aren't concerned about getting the call correct and prefer no replay? I have no clue where you stand and your last sentence is contradictory within itself and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This subject has been brought up every year and is beat to death. Some prefer no review, some prefer making sure the call is correct by whatever means and some fall in between those two lines of thinking. Personally, I don't see a big problem with the review process, I think the bigger issue is making sure the catch rule is clearly defined for all situations and take it from there. I don't see anyone claiming review doesn't work for determining if 2 feet were in bounds, if the runner crossed the goal line, etc. Seems like some are confusing the replay process with the confusion of the catch rule.

 

[Half Empty]

In my opinion a catch should be simplified to the following:

Control of the ball with one hand and bringing it into the body and then have control or two hands and make a move with the ball. Or two hands, stationary and 2 seconds of control. A receiver who is stretching out with the ball is no longer a receiver for the purposes of the catch rule. (WHich I think would fix the fumbling in end zone incomplete thing)

Bring time into the equation, and you'll still have long replay problems as they try to decide if it was 1.9 or 2.0 seconds of control.

 

[Veretax]

Bring time into the equation, and you'll still have long replay problems as they try to decide if it was 1.9 or 2.0 seconds of control.

Right my comment doesn't address the length of time. Only the definition of catch is concerned.

I like the idea of a minute 30 time limit, if you can't decide in that amount of time great.

The problem is, everyone thinks the replays are slow because of viewing time. What if there's a technological problem getting them up fast in some situations that is also to blame.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If you have a better system than the one that is currently being used and you feel it will get more calls correct, I am all ears. Or maybe you aren't concerned about getting the call correct and prefer no replay? I have no clue where you stand and your last sentence is contradictory within itself and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This subject has been brought up every year and is beat to death. Some prefer no review, some prefer making sure the call is correct by whatever means and some fall in between those two lines of thinking. Personally, I don't see a big problem with the review process, I think the bigger issue is making sure the catch rule is clearly defined for all situations and take it from there. I don't see anyone claiming review doesn't work for determining if 2 feet were in bounds, if the runner crossed the goal line, etc. Seems like some are confusing the replay process with the confusion of the catch rule.

I'm all for replay, where did you get the idea I was against it? I'm against the frame-by-frame analysis. I don't think the ball moving for 1/30th of a second should invalidate a catch. Sorry, that's just my feeling. And my final sentence, if you follow my idea, is completely correct. Allowing only half-speed reviews prevents frame-by-frame OVER-ANALYSIS (i.e., looking at every frame is over-analyzing).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm all for replay, where did you get the idea I was against it? I'm against the frame-by-frame analysis. I don't think the ball moving for 1/30th of a second should invalidate a catch. Sorry, that's just my feeling.

So is it the "frame by frame analysis" that you are against or the rule that says that if the ball moves, it can invalidate a catch?

I honestly didn't backtrack through the thread to see what your stance was. However, it seems like some people want to mess around with the actual replay process and are getting that confused with the real issue, the rules or definitions of what constitutes a catch. Basically, if the rules say "if the ball moves for 1/30th of a second, it isn't a catch", than go after changing the rules, but leave the replay system alone.

 

[adambr2]

I'm sorry, what part of the current system makes you think "correct" is being accomplished? Frame-by-frame is stupid. It's not an attempt to speed up the process, it's an attempt to allow for reviews at slow-motion but prevent the ridiculous overanalalysis that occurs now.

Frame by frame happens because they have the technology for it. From '86 to '91 they used a 12 inch screen and basically a VCR because that's what they had the technology for.

I have no problem with using the technology available to analyze the play, that is what it exists for.

Now if you want to say that after 90 seconds of frame by frame you still can't see enough to overturn it, then the replay should end and the call should stand, I could understand that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Even in the Olympics they can get it wrong with instant replay. Not sure how this was missed, "home team" advantage?

https://sports.yahoo.com/photo-finish-show-south-korean-snowboarder-actually-losing-062545852.html

 

[Mondio]

All I got was some story where people are pissed about People they don't know taking pictures with other people they don't know?