NFL clarifies catch rule

[ThunderGod]

The NFL League Meetings are taking place in Orlando, Florida this week, and the big story is that the definition of a catch has been changed.

https://www.dailynorseman.com/2018/3/27/...catch-rule

[Guest]

"Or the ability to perform such an act."

That leaves some gray area, but overall should be much better than the former rule.

[Guest]

I think the term "a football move" is silly.  Whatever

My biggest issue with overturns was always the ones where the guy would catch the ball with his hands, move/extend the ball with his hands and then have it move on the ground after all that.  The Jesse James 'catch' is the perfect example.  If a guy has the control to move the ball from here to there with his hands it should be a catch.   This new verbiage appears to make it so.  

[Guest]

I hope the “defenition” comes into play in week 1 to let everyone see, and get on the same page

Clarifying is good

Consistency is better

[Guest]

I hope they clean it up in the end zone.  It's bullshit.

[Guest]

@"A1Janitor" said:
I hope they clean it up in the end zone.  It's bullshit.

I've never understood how a running back can jump over the line, "break the plane" with the ball, and it counts as a TD, even if the ball is knocked out of his hands on the way to the ground, the TD still stands.
A receiver, on the other hand, catches the ball in the end zone...ostensibly "breaking the plane"...but if he doesn't maintain full possession, including allowing the ball to "move" in his hands, it's ruled an incompletion.
The game has been played since 1892, and they can't determine what defines a catch in 2018.  Amazing.

[Guest]

I don't think there was any real issues with consistency in how they called the catch rule recently.  The previous rules are the most well defined rules there have ever been and only people that don't understand the rules are the ones who struggle with it's consistency.

I do like the rule changes, because I think it more closely aligns to the spirit of what people think a catch should be.  But people who think this is going to eliminate controversy over catches are going to be in for a rude awakening because these rules are more subjective than the old rules.

I am really curious to see how many more fumbles are called due to the lesser amount of control required.  I'm eagerly awaiting the first controversial fumble for the new rule where one team feels like they got hosed on what used to be incomplete now being a fumble.

[Guest]

@"medaille" said:
I don't think there was any real issues with consistency in how they called the catch rule recently.  The previous rules are the most well defined rules there have ever been and only people that don't understand the rules are the ones who struggle with it's consistency.

I do like the rule changes, because I think it more closely aligns to the spirit of what people think a catch should be.  But people who think this is going to eliminate controversy over catches are going to be in for a rude awakening because these rules are more subjective than the old rules.

I am really curious to see how many more fumbles are called due to the lesser amount of control required.  I'm eagerly awaiting the first controversial fumble for the new rule where one team feels like they got hosed on what used to be incomplete now being a fumble.

Agreed.  I understood what a catch was.  The problem was the difference in requirements for a catch when going to the ground versus staying on your feet.  Control with the slightest toe drag versus complete control until you hand the ball to the ref or stand up and dance.   I get what they were trying to do, but the different requirements was the contention.

So I do like the change, but yes, it is still subjective.  It just makes the catch rule more consistent for the different types of catches.

[Guest]

Finally some direction...  B)