Owners Pass Simplified Catch Rule

[kidhawk]

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

I think it's meant to cover what's not already covered. The list isn't something that they need to check all of them off for it to be a catch. Anything on that list makes it a catch, so adding that bit just gives the officials more leeway towards allowing the catch, whereas the previous rule made it hard for officials to rule using the "eye test"

 

[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!

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.

Yes I get that but there was a part where if he hadn't turned upfield with a step it wasn't a football move
for a fumble..I sure hope that is fixed because you catch it ..You are live regardless of moving (feet are down)

 

[kidhawk]

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.

Yes I get that but there was a part where if he hadn't turned upfield with a step it wasn't a football move
for a fumble..I sure hope that is fixed because you catch it ..You are live regardless of moving (feet are down)

In the video I linked above, they showed a fumble reversed to a non-catch that happened when we played the cardinals that they said would have been a catch/fumble our recovery under the new rule. I think that may be what you're saying here.

 

[Swedishhawkfan]

But what happens now when someone dives for a catch and drop it when they land? will all of those be catches too?

IMO, that creates a reverse problem, were it will be ruled a catch but looks and feels like a drop. I think a catch means catching the ball and hanging on to the ball in the next immidiate sequence, meaning if you get hit as soon as your feet land it and drop it it is not a catch, and if you dive for it, land knee first and drop it when your upper body hit the ground that should not be a catch either.

The only problem with the catch rule was that they should have ruled football move on all those controversial ones. Now instead they seemingly took a huge skill element away from the game, since the main difficulty in a diving catch is hanging on to the ball when you land...

 

[kidhawk]

But what happens now when someone dives for a catch and drop it when they land? will all of those be catches too?

IMO, that creates a reverse problem, were it will be ruled a catch but looks and feels like a drop. I think a catch means catching the ball and hanging on to the ball in the next immidiate sequence, meaning if you get hit as soon as your feet land it and drop it it is not a catch, and if you dive for it, land knee first and drop it when your upper body hit the ground that should not be a catch either.

The only problem with the catch rule was that they should have ruled football move on all those controversial ones. Now instead they seemingly took a huge skill element away from the game, since the main difficulty in a diving catch is hanging on to the ball when you land...

I haven't heard about this specifically, but if they don't land first with control of the ball this would be a non-catch from my understanding. Of course we'll probably see more clarification in the pre-season

 

[chris98251]

The going to the ground rule about the ball touching the turf is the biggest issue, is it secured or is it a incompletion if the nose happens to touch, they always go back to ball movement even when the receivers hands are under the ball.

 

[IndyHawk]

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.

Yes I get that but there was a part where if he hadn't turned upfield with a step it wasn't a football move
for a fumble..I sure hope that is fixed because you catch it ..You are live regardless of moving (feet are down)

In the video I linked above, they showed a fumble reversed to a non-catch that happened when we played the cardinals that they said would have been a catch/fumble our recovery under the new rule. I think that may be what you're saying here.

That is what I was thinking..Well that answers my end at this point.

 

[kidhawk]

The going to the ground rule about the ball touching the turf is the biggest issue, is it secured or is it a incompletion if the nose happens to touch, they always go back to ball movement even when the receivers hands are under the ball.

I think we'll see those be incomplete on dive/catches, but more completions when they've gotten 2 feet down first or whichever criteria is used to consider it a catch.

This really is the biggest stickler here is the element of control. That one piece is where we need to see where the officials are calling it.