Owners Pass Simplified Catch Rule

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
[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

New member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
No more “going to the ground” bs. More fumbles are anticipated.
 
OP
OP
kidhawk

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
replicant":3dmecs78 said:
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

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
240
This rule is going to cause a lot more fumbles.
 

Milehighhawk

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
928
Reaction score
23
kidhawk":30yrrauw said:
replicant":30yrrauw said:
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.
 
OP
OP
kidhawk

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
Milehighhawk":1c4syw6w said:
kidhawk":1c4syw6w said:
replicant":1c4syw6w said:
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.
 
OP
OP
kidhawk

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
[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-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
29,164
Reaction score
5,185
Location
Kent, WA
Well, at least they are trying. :229031_shrug:
 

Chapow

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
5,295
Reaction score
1,176
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
Still don’t like “the football move” BS. The rule needs to be as simple as possible.
 

Seahawkfan80

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
11,207
Reaction score
615
Sports Hernia":2z9x9tb6 said:
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.
 
OP
OP
kidhawk

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
Sports Hernia":3nj874cw said:
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
 
OP
OP
kidhawk

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
Seahawkfan80":1i2jgax0 said:
Sports Hernia":1i2jgax0 said:
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
kidhawk":d90b2m5v said:
Sports Hernia":d90b2m5v said:
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

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
437
Reaction score
0
Sports Hernia":1q94s7cl said:
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
1,569
Reaction score
173
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

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
415
Reaction score
30
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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
7,958
Reaction score
1,597
Mindsink":2vxmprsl said:
Sports Hernia":2vxmprsl said:
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!
 
OP
OP
kidhawk

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,924
Reaction score
2,702
Location
Anchorage, AK
IndyHawk":1e5kora3 said:
Mindsink":1e5kora3 said:
Sports Hernia":1e5kora3 said:
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.
 

Latest posts

Top