Owners Pass Simplified Catch Rule

[kidhawk]

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000923342/article/nfl-teams-unanimously-approve-simplified-catch-rule[/urltargetblank]

The new rules defining a catch include:

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
» A third step;
» Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
» Or the ability to perform such an act.

 

[replicant]

No more “going to the ground” bs. More fumbles are anticipated.

 

[kidhawk]

No more “going to the ground” bs. More fumbles are anticipated.

It may, and I'm ok with that. Fumbles are a very exciting part of the game. More so than officials nullifying obvious catches (IMO).

It will be interesting how the "ground causing fumbles" and down by contact rules play into how the officials call fumbles this upcoming year, but I think it should improve the quality of the game.

 

[sdog1981]

This rule is going to cause a lot more fumbles.

 

[Milehighhawk]

No more “going to the ground” bs. More fumbles are anticipated.

It may, and I'm ok with that. Fumbles are a very exciting part of the game. More so than officials nullifying obvious catches (IMO).

It will be interesting how the "ground causing fumbles" and down by contact rules play into how the officials call fumbles this upcoming year, but I think it should improve the quality of the game.

I came here to post just this. The whole "going to the ground" concept was a fiasco from the start. At least anecdotally, more negative came from those judgement calls than positive. I am not sure I am a fan of the third clause they put in about "ability to do so" as that seems like a fairly ill-defined phrasing open to significant interpretation.

 

[kidhawk]

No more “going to the ground” bs. More fumbles are anticipated.

It may, and I'm ok with that. Fumbles are a very exciting part of the game. More so than officials nullifying obvious catches (IMO).

It will be interesting how the "ground causing fumbles" and down by contact rules play into how the officials call fumbles this upcoming year, but I think it should improve the quality of the game.

I came here to post just this. The whole "going to the ground" concept was a fiasco from the start. At least anecdotally, more negative came from those judgement calls than positive. I am not sure I am a fan of the third clause they put in about "ability to do so" as that seems like a fairly ill-defined phrasing open to significant interpretation.

It will be interesting to see how the officials interpret that. This is something that will hopefully become clear in the pre-season.

 

[kidhawk]

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/videos/football-101/0ap3000000923367/What-is-a-catch-now-Al-Riveron-explains-the-new-catch-rule[/urltargetblank]

This link is a video of the head of NFL officiating discussing the rule change and shows a few video examples of what will be a catch now that wasn't previously, and adds in where some would be fumbles. He uses our game (in the ugly green uni) against the Cardinals where a Fumble we recovered was called "not a catch".

 

[sutz]

Well, at least they are trying. :229031_shrug:

 

[Chapow]

This is very telling IMO.

League owners approved modifications to the catch rule for the 2018 season during the Annual League Meeting on Tuesday. The changes passed unanimously on a 32-0 vote

They knew it was a huge problem. Kudos to them for doing something about it instead of burying their heads in the sand and ignoring it.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Still don’t like “the football move” BS. The rule needs to be as simple as possible.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Still don’t like “the football move” BS. The rule needs to be as simple as possible.

AGreeed.....Tippytoes on the sideline catch equates to a football move. And there is none. Sheesh.

 

[kidhawk]

Still don’t like “the football move” BS. The rule needs to be as simple as possible.

I do like the fact that they've defined several things that make a football move, thus eliminating those things from being discretionary. Over time, as the rule plays out, we may find some football moves that aren't being called, but they can add those specifically at a later date. It still is a vast improvement over the previous rule.

Also, the officials are given guidelines as to how they want rules enforced, and this rule is pretty explicit about wanting catches to be declared in a simplistic manner, so I don't think that we'll see a lot of officials trying to decipher if something is or isn't a football move.

I mean, a third step, or extending for yards are probably the two biggest areas where that was an issue previously

 

[kidhawk]

Still don’t like “the football move” BS. The rule needs to be as simple as possible.

AGreeed.....Tippytoes on the sideline catch equates to a football move. And there is none. Sheesh.

Two feet down or another body part (such as a knee as explained in the video). Pretty self explanatory really

 

[Sports Hernia]

Still don’t like “the football move” BS. The rule needs to be as simple as possible.

I do like the fact that they've defined several things that make a football move, thus eliminating those things from being discretionary. Over time, as the rule plays out, we may find some football moves that aren't being called, but they can add those specifically at a later date. It still is a vast improvement over the previous rule.

Also, the officials are given guidelines as to how they want rules enforced, and this rule is pretty explicit about wanting catches to be declared in a simplistic manner, so I don't think that we'll see a lot of officials trying to decipher if something is or isn't a football move.

I mean, a third step, or extending for yards are probably the two biggest areas where that was an issue previously

Oh, I agree it’s much better, no argument there, but I don’t want ANY grey area that can be left up to a zebras “interpretation”
Back in the 80’s and 90’s a catch was obvious and there was never any question about what was and what wasn’t because the rule was simple. The Whole rulebook needs to be streamlined and simplified IMHO, but this is a step in the right direction though.

 

[Mindsink]

Oh, I agree it’s much better, no argument there, but I don’t want ANY grey area that can be left up to a zebras “interpretation”
Back in the 80’s and 90’s a catch was obvious and there was never any question about what was and what wasn’t because the rule was simple. The Whole rulebook needs to be streamlined and simplified IMHO, but this is a step in the right direction though.

No it wasn't obvious in the 80s and 90s, which is what led to the rule you have today. There was always a grey area of "did he have possession long enough to be considered a catch". They tried to define this grey area, but they over-complicated it.

I think this new catch rule is about as perfect as you can get.

 

[MD5eahawks]

In reality, they just changed it back to the way it used to be. There are always going to be vague perceptions as to did he or didn't he. That's just a by product of a fast paced sport.

 

[Jase]

One thing that won't change is Collinsworth will disagree with every call and drone on for 10 minutes about how his opinion is somehow valid.

:lol:

At any rate, I guess at least they did "something." Not holding out a ton of hope that it's going to change things a lot, but I guess we'll see. If nothing else it should be interesting to watch it play out (so to speak).

 

[IndyHawk]

Oh, I agree it’s much better, no argument there, but I don’t want ANY grey area that can be left up to a zebras “interpretation”
Back in the 80’s and 90’s a catch was obvious and there was never any question about what was and what wasn’t because the rule was simple. The Whole rulebook needs to be streamlined and simplified IMHO, but this is a step in the right direction though.

No it wasn't obvious in the 80s and 90s, which is what led to the rule you have today. There was always a grey area of "did he have possession long enough to be considered a catch". They tried to define this grey area, but they over-complicated it.

I think this new catch rule is about as perfect as you can get.

In the 80s-90s I don't remember there ever being a fuss about what was a catch or not.
It was people wanting to get more offense changing crap to try and favor that side.
One step in any direction was a football move period.I dunno where it had or has to be 3
came from because that is plain stupid.
You got ball ..You are live without even moving..Easy as that!

 

[kidhawk]

Oh, I agree it’s much better, no argument there, but I don’t want ANY grey area that can be left up to a zebras “interpretation”
Back in the 80’s and 90’s a catch was obvious and there was never any question about what was and what wasn’t because the rule was simple. The Whole rulebook needs to be streamlined and simplified IMHO, but this is a step in the right direction though.

No it wasn't obvious in the 80s and 90s, which is what led to the rule you have today. There was always a grey area of "did he have possession long enough to be considered a catch". They tried to define this grey area, but they over-complicated it.

I think this new catch rule is about as perfect as you can get.

In the 80s-90s I don't remember there ever being a fuss about what was a catch or not.
It was people wanting to get more offense changing crap to try and favor that side.
One step in any direction was a football move period.I dunno where it had or has to be 3
came from because that is plain stupid.
You got ball ..You are live without even moving..Easy as that!

I'm interpreting the "Third Step" as meaning you get two feet down and take a step. The first 2 steps being getting the feet down. I believe that's what they mean with that definition.

 

[TriCHawk]

"Ability to perform such an act" seems a little subjective...