Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

[Pokerbrat2000]

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?

Sorry, yahoo links usually suck.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/spo...eongchang-Winter-Olympic-Games-475066993.html

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

"True AI" as you describe it, without human parameters, is pure science fiction.

Today, IBM's Watson reads images of tumors and diagnoses them, evidently with quite helpful accuracy. It accomplishes this by having been first fed thousands of images of tumors each identified as having turned out to be cancerous or non-cancerous. When a new image is presented of a current patient, Watson makes a probabilistic determination of cancer or no cancer.

So, If one were to apply the Watson/cancer approach to replays, the first step is to load up the data base with instances of catch vs. no catch. And there's the rub. Unlike cancer, there's no objective, measurable way of determining catch / no catch. Whatever criteria one uses, there will be disagreement. The Jesse James no-catch is a good example. The replay is clear as to what happened. The rule stipulates the receiver must establish himself as a runner. Disagreement is intense. Those who think it should have been a catch want to see a rule change.

In answer to the OP question, "can this be fixed?", the answer is "no", at least not to a consensus satisfaction. No matter how the rule is defined and no matter how clear the replay, the determination is more art than science.

 

[Mondio]

Sorry, yahoo links usually suck.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/spo...eongchang-Winter-Olympic-Games-475066993.html

run by a bunch of yahoos

 

[Mondio]

Sorry, yahoo links usually suck.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/spo...eongchang-Winter-Olympic-Games-475066993.html

The only thing I can figure is the "real" finish, with the eyes is not represented by the line in the snow? Or they're rigged

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The only thing I can figure is the "real" finish, with the eyes is not represented by the line in the snow? Or they're rigged

You could be correct that the red line is not where the actual "laser line" is, but from everything I have read, this was a case of replay officials totally missing the call and by quite a bit.

 

[OldSchool101]

The one thing I hate about changing rules...
“There’s always a catch”


It’s the same reason that in the Oval Office they hardly ever want to change laws.
“It sits Precident”

I 100% believe it’s already “fixed”...it’s “fixed” more than a Las Vegas Casino Black Jack Table

 

[BoxSafety]

I think they just need to follow the rule that is in-place. Two steps and football move (with control), should constitute as a catch. It shouldn't matter if the ground causes the ball to move. If the receiver takes two steps and dives up-field then it should be a catch.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think they just need to follow the rule that is in-place. Two steps and football move (with control), should constitute as a catch. It shouldn't matter if the ground causes the ball to move. If the receiver takes two steps and dives up-field then it should be a catch.

It has been mentioned on several occasions that the phrase football move isn't part of the rule anymore. Here's the exact wording of the current rule:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds maintains control of the ball until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

 

[Mondio]

I think they just need to follow the rule that is in-place. Two steps and football move (with control), should constitute as a catch. It shouldn't matter if the ground causes the ball to move. If the receiver takes two steps and dives up-field then it should be a catch.

but what if he's already falling to the ground and his feet just happened to stumble their way to touching the ground and the entire side of the ball hits the ground and then bounces 2 feet in the air? Still a catch? If the receiver regains posession is it a catch, fumble, recovery? if he stumbles and fumbles and it goes out of the endzone is it the defenes' ball at the 20? what if the ground causes the fumble, but nobody contacts him, can it still be a fumble? because right now it can't be? I'm against anything that allows the ball to touch the ground and move and still be a catch, if it doesn't also allow it to be a fumble.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm against anything that allows the ball to touch the ground and move and still be a catch, if it doesn't also allow it to be a fumble.

Agree fully with this. I can't stand when I hear the statement "did the ground aid or not aid in catching the ball?" To me the ground is almost like a "3rd hand" and if it contacts the ball during the process of the catch, no catch.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It has been mentioned on several occasions that the phrase football move isn't part of the rule anymore. Here's the exact wording of the current rule:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds maintains control of the ball until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, OR taking additional steps.

The interesting thing about this rule is the bolded "or" in the above quoted passage. It is not an "and".

Here's the James no-catch:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Did James "become a runner", a pre-condition for all catches following two-feet-down? Was James "capable of warding off or avoiding" a tackle, capable of "taking additional steps" or "capable" of turning upfield Probably not. He was diving for the ball. Was he capable of tucking the ball? Sure looks like it, but "capability" is a judgement call. In the slow-mo at around 0:50 he does a half tuck with clear control then extends. According to the letter of the rule, "catch" would be the most reasonable call. But the interpretation appears to be not "capable" of tucking but actually tucking the ball.

Despite the recent change to the rule wording, the call on James is pretty consistent with the 2014 Bryant call against the Packers, where he's got a stumbling, diving semi-tuck:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Compare to the Ertz play ruled a catch:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Despite it being an "or", Ertz happened to satisfy all of the criteria in fact and not just "capability", including turning upfield, taking 3 steps before diving, warding off a tackler and making a tuck to the armpit before extending.

Here are a few of my takeaways:

1) The game announcers and analysts don't help matters by putting the cart in front of the horse when I listen to the audio in the above clips. They are preoccupied with whether the receiver maintained control to the ground without analyzing first the precondition that might make that irrelevant: did the receiver become a runner with one of the "ors" that go into that?

2) "Capability" as opposed to "actuality" is a guess work. Once upon a time the rules included stuff involving "intent", as though the ref should be a mind reader. Smartly, that word no longer exists in the rules. Intent cannot be established; defenders are now held accountable for what they actually do regardless of what might be floating around in their heads that nobody can actually know. "Capability" is similarly flawed. At the very least that word needs to be addressed. How about "actually" accomplishing the things now ruled as "capabilities"? That has other problems, but at least explaining the application of the rule would be clearer.

3) Whether the league is following the letter of their rule, which they evidently do not with respect to the "or" and the "capabilities" in the rule, the ultimate question is whether the calls accurately respect the athleticism of the players. I would say they do not. It's why this is such a debate. Regardless of what the rule says, did Bryant or James or Ertz make a football catch to the studied eye? I would say yes. They established control of the ball in the field of play. That should be enough regardless of what happens next.

4) The rule is constructed to make it easier on the refs. The rule is constructed to elongate the process of the catch with all of the "ors" in the criteria to make it easier to make the call on the field. That's not working.

5) The rule is interpreted more as a preponderance of the evidence than a strict application of the "or". Ertz looks a lot more like a catch than James. Bryant looks more like James than Ertz. I would expect the league has compiled tape of plays deemed "catch" vs. those deemed "non-catch" for referee guidance. There's a lot eye test in all of this.

6) Can the issue be satisfactorily resolved for all knowledgeable parties concerned? The answer is "no". Ultimately, regardless of what criteria one uses, judging whether a catch is good or bad is not dissimilar to the question of whether a painting is good or bad. There will be disagreements. In the end, "catch" is a term of art.

 

[HardRightEdge]

what if the ground causes the fumble, but nobody contacts him, can it still be a fumble? because right now it can't be?

If a player in control of the football loses control by contact with the ground without having been contacted by a defender, that is a fumble. "Fall down and go boom" just doesn't happen very often.

The exception is when a runner in the broadest sense of the term penetrates the goal line with the football. As soon as that happens, the play is over, its a TD, and what happens next does not matter. Again, with the James no-catch, control-to-the-ground was not the issue; the issue was whether he first established himself as a runner. Had he been ruled to be a runner, then losing the ball on a contact with the ground would be irrelevant since he penetrated the goal line with the ball before losing control.

 

[Mondio]

If a player in control of the football loses control by contact with the ground without having been contacted by a defender, that is a fumble. "Fall down and go boom" just doesn't happen very often.

The exception is when a runner in the broadest sense of the term penetrates the goal line with the football. As soon as that happens, the play is over, its a TD, and what happens next does not matter. Again, with the James no-catch, control-to-the-ground was not the issue; the issue was whether he first established himself as a runner. Had he been ruled to be a runner, then losing the ball on a contact with the ground would be irrelevant since he penetrated the goal line with the ball before losing control.

kind of, depends on how they interpret it. Sometimes it's just an incomplete pass I wasn't completely clear, but if they're going to allow what i see as "quicker" catches with less control exhibited, I see more of these "incomplete" passes as "catches" maybe. If a player is contacted by a defender, but is not in contact with him after "securing" the ball with the ground it should be a fumble. Right now if a player is going to the ground, usually as the result of some sort of contact before securing the ball and the ball never touches the ground, it's a catch and down by contact. If they're going to allow ground contact after that point and still be a catch, then they better rule it a fumble at that point too if they aren't currently being contacted by the defender.

 

[HardRightEdge]

kind of, depends on how they interpret it. Sometimes it's just an incomplete pass I wasn't completely clear, but if they're going to allow what i see as "quicker" catches with less control exhibited, I see more of these "incomplete" passes as "catches" maybe. If a player is contacted by a defender, but is not in contact with him after "securing" the ball with the ground it should be a fumble. Right now if a player is going to the ground, usually as the result of some sort of contact before securing the ball and the ball never touches the ground, it's a catch and down by contact. If they're going to allow ground contact after that point and still be a catch, then they better rule it a fumble at that point too if they aren't currently being contacted by the defender.

I'm glad you cleared that up.

Changing the rule to allow "quicker" catches with less control is not something I would propose. "Quicker catches" without imposing the requirement of establishing one's self as a runner is more what I have in mind. I don't think anybody could reasonably challenge Jesse James having control of that ball before penetrating the goal line. The issue in nearly all of these cases is not one of control; it's the establishment as a runner that gets called into question, something our professional TV commentators consistently fail to understand.

Now, that's not to say there would not be more bang-bang plays that the ref's human eyes would have trouble sussing out since the runner requirement is designed to elongate the process.

To that I say, "too bad". The game is about the athleticism, not what a ref can or cannot make out with the human eye. The answer, then, is more cameras and more replays. Replays are commercial cut-aways. Those timeouts substituting for TV timeouts won't elongate game time much. One or two more replays per half should not be an issue. What's really at issue is that NFL wants to keep as much control of the game as possible with the on-field refs. I believe they believe if the refs are not the controllers of the game then the game will get out of control. That's a questionable proposition.

"If a player is contacted by a defender, but is not in contact with him after "securing" the ball with the ground it should be a fumble."

If I understand that scenario correctly, that is a fumble. Lets say a defender contacts a runner and knocks the ball into the air. If the runner then gains possession of the ball without further contact, hits the ground, and the ball comes loose, that is a fumble. If that's a receiver who never established himself as a runner, then it is incomplete.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This would be great news on Pass Interference IMO!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...l-could-change-defensive-pi-to-15yard-penalty

 

[HardRightEdge]

This would be great news on Pass Interference IMO!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...l-could-change-defensive-pi-to-15yard-penalty

"Changing the pass interference penalty is on its face a defense-first measure. Offenses would have far less to gain by "chucking it up" to try and draw a penalty from a grabby defensive back downfield."

Conversely, if a DB knows he's beaten on a downfield route, he'll just tackle the receiver before the ball arrives. Imagine the howling and second guessing when that occurs.

The rule change I'd really like to see is allowing putting with the flag in to speed up the game. Oh, snap, wrong sport!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

"Changing the pass interference penalty is on its face a defense-first measure. Offenses would have far less to gain by "chucking it up" to try and draw a penalty from a grabby defensive back downfield."

Conversely, if a DB knows he's beaten on a downfield route, he'll just tackle the receiver before the ball arrives. Imagine the howling and second guessing when that occurs.

What I have always found wrong with the PI penalty in the NFL is that it assumes the player will catch the ball. Not to even mention that the call tends to be very much a judgement call that varies from ref to ref and game to game.

I'm fine with a DB tackling a guy if he thinks he is about to get smoked for a TD and only being penalized 15 yards for it. That doesn't seem much different than an offensive player tackling a defender to prevent him from making an interception.

 

[Mondio]

I"m not a fan of a 15 yard only penalty as it would encourage Dbacks to just tackle their guy when beat deep down field. it will change the game, but i guess either way they want to do it, defenses, offenses and down/distance strategies will adapt and move on. As much as I loathe those cheap *** passes and penalties down field, I'd rather see them back off on calling anything but the most blatant penalties on those horribly thrown deep jump balls that so often seem to result in cheap first downs and massive field position changes, I'd hate to see the threat of the big play cheapened with a standard 15 yard penalty when the defender just saved 40 yards by playing poorly. Not sure which is the best way to go.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What I have always found wrong with the PI penalty in the NFL is that it assumes the player will catch the ball.

Not quite. PI is not to be called on throws deemed "uncatchable". The receiver is given some benefit of the doubt.

But you could say the same thing about most penalties. A holding call assumes the pass rusher would otherwise impact the play. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but we'll never know either way in any one particular case.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not quite. PI is not to be called on throws deemed "uncatchable". The receiver is given some benefit of the doubt.

But you could say the same thing about most penalties. A holding call assumes the pass rusher would otherwise impact the play. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but we'll never know either way in any one particular case.

Not to be a "stick in the mud"....but a PI in the NFL, when called, assumes that the receiver would have made the catch, by placing the ball at the spot of the interference. You are correct, when it appears that the receiver had no chance to catch the ball, then the penalty is not suppose to be called.

A holding call whether its on the line or in the secondary doesn't really assume anything, other than a violation of the rules was committed. Much like the PI call, if it assumed something, it would try to "correct the play" to end the way the referee judged it would probably end without the hold.

Why doesn't offensive pass interference result in the ball going to the defense? Had the interference not occured, wouldn't the defense have intercepted it?

 

[HardRightEdge]

A holding call whether its on the line or in the secondary doesn't really assume anything, other than a violation of the rules was committed. Much like the PI call, if it assumed something, it would try to "correct the play" to end the way the referee judged it would probably end without the hold.

Why doesn't offensive pass interference result in the ball going to the defense? Had the interference not occured, wouldn't the defense have intercepted it?

Your complaint that I was addressing was the assumption the receiver would catch the ball. That is the same as assuming a hold would impact a play.

With the PI call, the official is not assuming a play outcome in the way you suggest. He isn't granting a TD or an advancement of the ball past the point of infraction. One can debate whether it should be a 15 yard penalty or something else, but the basic assumption is the same as with a holding call: there's an infraction but nobody knows if the play would be affected or not.

As for why a defender is not granted an INT on offensive PI, that's a different question and it happens to be a good one. Why not? The easy answer is we've seen some 40 years of rule changes, going back to the change whereby an offensive lineman could use his hands to block, that favor offense and scoring. It would appear the league is starting to understand they may have gone a little overboard, perhaps in light of the Superbowl romp-a-thon, in considering this change to the PI rule. But don't go too far!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm against anything that allows the ball to touch the ground and move and still be a catch, if it doesn't also allow it to be a fumble.

Absolutely agree with that part of your post.

This would be great news on Pass Interference IMO!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...l-could-change-defensive-pi-to-15yard-penalty

I don't like the league to make that change for the reason HRE and Mondio mentioned.

Why doesn't offensive pass interference result in the ball going to the defense? Had the interference not occured, wouldn't the defense have intercepted it?

Offensive pass interference mostly results in a receiver being open but rarely prevents an interception by a defensive player though.

 

[McKnowledge]

Create a "catch committee", made up of 5 former HOF players. 2 WRs, 2 TEs and 1 receiver (a la Marshall Faulk). When a catch needs to be determined, the results (yes or no) are based on 5 votes. Obviously, majority rules. None of the HOF players can be from the same team they primarily played for. The results are televised (quickly) and the committee is based at the same headquarters as the NFL replay office.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Offensive pass interference mostly results in a receiver being open but rarely prevents an interception by a defensive player though.

Defensive pass interference always results in the ball being marked at the spot of the infraction (except endzone), it assumes possession would have been made, yet we never know if the play ever would have been completed. Just because it appears offensive pass interference rarely prevents an interception, it shouldn't cancel out the fact that it can and probably at times does. Same penalty on opposite sides of the ball, different results.

If people don't like the way it's done in college (15 yd PI penalty), would they be open to "on passes greater than 30 yds, where PI is called, the penalty equals 1/2 the distance between the line of scrimmage and the spot of the foul."?

It is funny how defensive PI results in the ball being placed at the spot of the foul, yet not in the endzone. Doesn't the penalty assume the ball would have been caught? A safety is called if a QB is in the endzone and there is offensive holding or intentional grounding, both scenarios award points based on assumptions of what might have happened.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Create a "catch committee", made up of 5 former HOF players. 2 WRs, 2 TEs and 1 receiver (a la Marshall Faulk). When a catch needs to be determined, the results (yes or no) are based on 5 votes. Obviously, majority rules. None of the HOF players can be from the same team they primarily played for. The results are televised (quickly) and the committee is based at the same headquarters as the NFL replay office.

You are assuming that these 5+ guys know more than the officials currently reviewing plays, I doubt they do. It really isn't a problem with who makes the final call, the problem is the interpretation and the rule itself.

Hey why not do it like they do on reality TV shows, put it to a fan vote. Fans have 1 minute to vote and the running results are shown on the screen.