Jason Caplan/ Jc Montoni week 1 article of the week: NFL catch rule
Article Link: Controversial Catch Rule
Discussion Questions:
- Do you think the plays in the videos were considered catches; which do you think were and weren't, why?
- Should the catch rule be changed? if so then what changes should be made to make the game more fair?
- How would the Super Bowl gone differently had your new proposed rule got enforced?
I believe that the first catch was not a touchdown, but I do think that the second catch was a touchdown. My reasoning for the first play not being a catch is that the first step in the end zone he did not have possession of the ball. However, on the second and third step, he had possession of the ball, but the third step was out meaning it was not a catch. The refs ended up calling it a catch which I disagree with. The second catch I do believe was a touchdown, Zach Ertz broke the plain with the football and had possession while he was on the air. I do think that the NFL catch rule should be changed, there are way too many technicalities about a catch. I think that they should make the rule less technical, he either had the possession or he didn't. I think the outcome of the game could have been much different. After the first controversial touchdown, the Eagles gained tons of confidence and momentum. If this call was made correctly, I believe the Patriots would still have a fighting chance at winning the game.
ReplyDeleteI think that the catch rule has got to be changed. The amount of sundays where the referees have to stop the flow of the game to have a debate on whether or not it was a "catch" is ridiculous. In my eyes, if you have 2 feet down and in bounds and the ball is somewhat against your body and hasn't touched the floor then thats a catch. This would definitely help the flow of the game and there needs to be a clear understanding of what a "catch" is for fans, players and officials. If there are multiple versions and definitions of "catch" then which one applies when? I think at the moment the rule is harder than it needs to be. A catch is a catch in my eyes. I also think that you know theres a problem with a rule when one week its given a touchdown and the next week its called back. Just like the Pittsburgh Steelers with Jesse James, that was called back. Then in the Super Bowl for the Philadelphia Eagles it was ruled a touchdown. The rule has got to be changed before more teams are given an advantage or disadvantage because of unclear ruling.
ReplyDeleteOver the pass few years, since the debacle of the Dez Bryant catch during the 2015 NFC divisional matchup between the Cowboys and the Packers, the debate on what is and what is not a catch has become very hazy and has showed on the biggest stages like this years super bowl. Within the craziness of this NFL season, the discussion about this rule has been at the forefront. When we think of these types of instances we are often reminded of the "Dez caught it" and in the 2017 season, Jesse James presumably game winning catch against the Patriots which was eventually rescinded. Later this year in the super bowl this rule was seen again on the corey clement and Zach Ertz touchdown catches. In my opinion, I believe that between the two catches, Corey Clement's touch down should been reversed while the latter by Zach Ertz was right to stand. Clement's should not have stood because although he initially caught the ball, as he was falling to the ground, the football appears to fall out of the receiver's arm. When Clement secures the ball again, his second foot is on the white line marking the end of the end zone and out of bounds. On the other side, I believe that Zach Ertz's touchdown was right to be confirmed because when he catches the ball Ertz takes three steps turning him into a runner rather than a receiver. So although the ball did hit the ground when he crossed the plane, it did not have to survive the impact of the turf since he was under the ruling of a runner.
ReplyDeleteI think the catch rule does need to be changed. Before instant replay, a thing that looked like a catch was a catch. In other sports as well instant replay has lead to reviews over the smallest details in each game when they really should be used to fix big mistakes. A small bobble in the hands of a receiver who manages to come down and hold the ball through ground should not matter. If a receiver has the ball in his hands and holds on to it without having it touch the ground in bounds, it should be a catch. Going frame by frame to look for control is pointless. Also, once a receiver makes two steps with the football he is a runner. Once the ball is caught, the receiver should be considered a runner so all these calls where receivers dive into the end zone should still be catches because he caught the ball and then made a football move. The catch rule is way too complicated today and focuses on the wrong parts of the game.
ReplyDeleteI think the catch rule needs to be changed. I think the current rule doesn't draw a specific enough line between what is and what isn't a catch. Far to often the refs need to stop the flow of the game and closely evaluate a certain catch to make the correct call. I believe the rule should allow for small bobbles in the hands of the receiver. I think the most important aspect to consider when ruling on a questionable catch should be whether or not the ground help the receiver make the catch. I feel the ball should be allowed to touch the ground as long as possession has already been established and that the ball doesn't necessarily need to touch the ground in order to assist the receiver. I think if my rules were enforced in the superbowl the Clement's touchdown would have been overturned. I think he lost possession of the ball after his second foot came down and therefore needed two additional steps to establish that he was inbounds. This touchdown was not only a big score, it was also a big momentum swing. I think the Patriots could have either won or made the game closer if my rule was enforced.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the catch rule should be changed. I think this because the rule today is still inconsistent and tajes time away from the game. I believe that the catch rule should only be a factor if the player losses control of the ball and the ball makes contact with the ground. If this was in effect then the game could have better fluidity and more consistency with the calls. I believe that all of the catches were touchdowns because the each player was able to keep both of their feet in bounds and even if the ball had slight movement the player still kept control of it. The only play with some debate was Zach Ertz's game winning touchdown in the Superbowl. After Ertz dove into the endzone he lost possession of the ball for a second where it visibly popped out of his hands. The only reason why I think that the touchdown was good was because he recovered the ball in the endzone. I don't think my rule would have changed the outcome of the game but it would be more beneficial in the future and would help benefit the NFL.
ReplyDeleteI think the catch rule should be changed because it is too complicated and controversial. Refs constantly have to pause games to closely examine plays because they can’t make calls from what they see anymore. There aren’t fine enough lines that make it easy to distinguish what is and what isn’t a catch, which has led people to ask “what is a catch?” If a player has two feet down and the ball is in their hands, I consider that possession and believe that should be a catch. A small bobble should not matter if the player gains strong possession of the ball without it touching the ground. If the rule was like this, it would have made it easier for the refs to call catches like Ertz’s catch and Bryant’s catch. It would also leave less confusion between what a catch is and therefore similar plays or catches wouldn’t be called differently giving some teams advantages and other teams disadvantages.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the catch rule should be changed in order to increase the consistency of rulings across all games of football. Having a rule that is so vague and subjective makes it difficult to fully enforce a baseline ruling that does not vary based on the game and the referee. In my opinion, as long as a player is in possession of the ball with both of their feet on the ground, a catch was made. Movements of the ball that are only identifiable through high tech means of instant replay are insignificant and should not be considered when determining whether or not a catch was made. When a rule is made to be so specific that the important aspects of it are unidentifiable to the naked eye, it becomes incredibly inconsistent and continuity of a sport as a whole. Calls made throughout the history of football regarding 'catches', similar to those made in the Superbowl regarding the catches made by Bryant and Ertz, have proved to be game-changing and championship deciding rulings that may have had the opposite result if there had been a different referee on the field. Because of the significance that calls made regarding catches often have on the overall outcome of a game, I believe a more distinct and objective rule must be made in order to reduce the current play to play fluidity of the rule.
ReplyDeleteVia the rule in place right now, and the way calls have been made this season, I believe that both the Zach Ertz and Corey Clement touchdowns should have been ruled incomplete. The Corey Clement catch was without a doubt incomplete because he began to bobble the ball, leading to him not getting both of his feet inbounds to complete the process of the catch. On the other hand, the Zach Ertz touchdown gets much more complicated. While I do think the catch rule is flawed and a rule fix would change my opinion, with the way that the NFL overturned the Jesse James touchdown a few weeks ago, this touchdown should have been ruled incomplete. They are nearly identical plays, and it makes no sense that the Ertz one counted and the James one did not. The NFL absolutely needs to fix the catch rule. As of now, there are no real guidelines as to what a catch is. Frankly, no one really knows. The definition of a catch seems to change on a game by game basis. When the NFL inevitably institutes a new rule, it must establish clear guidelines for what a catch. This would allow for consistency in the calls as well allow the game to flow much better by reducing the amount and lengths of stoppages.
ReplyDelete^Zach Strober
DeleteIn recent memory there have been many moments that have brought the flaws of the NFL's catch rule to fruition. While it is obvious that an adjustment has to be made to this rule in order to create a clearer understanding of what is actually a catch, I think that the NFL has a pretty good foundation already. I believe that the current rule that the NFL has in place has a lot of different aspects to try to create a clear ruling for every possible situation. However I believe that the one rule that is still unclear to many is what is considered having control of the ball. At many times have seemingly caught the ball only to have the call reversed because it is out of their control but still in their hands. This is a problem because it makes the ruling of the catch completely objective and up to the referees with almost no background to base their decision. The reason I believe that this is the biggest issue going forward is that there is a rule for almost every situation that a referee can be faced with except for judging if the ball is secured in the players arms or not. Since the referees have missed a bunch of calls for example Jesse James and Zach Ertz, there should be intense training done for all referees when it comes to what is considered a catch and what isn't.
ReplyDeleteI think that the catch rule should be changed. I think this because the amount of times that a football game stops now is ridiculous. It takes away from the game because we are alway stopping to decide wether or not these are catches. The NFL needs to change the rule because the first catch clearly he didn't have his second foot in bounds in my point of view, and if they had made the correct call the Patriots may have still had a fighting chance in winning the super bowl which is the biggest game of the year. Its not like this was pre season or something that didn't really matter I believe that the ref didn't make the right call for the biggest game of the year which could of caused the Patriots to lose the game. So I think that the refs need to have a clearer view than they did as to wether or not they have 2 feet in the end zone and if it is not clear then they should rule it as no touchdown.
ReplyDeleteI believe that most of the catches in the video were in fact catches because of the current rule and because of what the refs said about the catches. I think that the catch rule should be in fact changed because there is no standard to what a catch is and didn't refs call different things because they don't even understand the catch rule themselves. I think the catch rule should be changed that if the ground was not used to assit in a catch or if the person took three steps with clear possession of the ball they should be considered a runner. I think that the super bowl would've turned out the same because the catches were somewhat important but not to crucial to the game, and that the Patriots were not playing very well that game either.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn order to have a more timely, fair game, there must be a change regarding the rules of a catch in the NFL. The current rule is not only vague, but it leaves room for human error when in the hands of a ref. A bad call is always perceived differently; bad call is good if it's for your team, terrible if it's against your team. In order to decrease the amount of inconsistent rules and angry, confused fans, the rule must change. Personally, I would say as long as a player, whether it be a quarterback or a wide receiver or whoever has possession, lands or falls with the ball in hand, within the lines of play, and the ball does not hit the turf, there should be no doubt it was caught. Although the NFL is not the only sport with angry fans or "bad calls," there have been a substantially large amount of controversy, especially regarding the touchdown made by Nick Foles as he connected with drafted rookie Corey Clement on a bullet 22-yard touchdown. Such as big game like the Superbowl, with more viewers than any other televised sport in the United States, everyone has heard of the controversy. In order to keep it fair and undeviating, there must be a change that will suit the many circumstances of a poor catch.
ReplyDeleteI think that most of the catches displayed in the videos could easily be argued legitimate catches. However, at the same time I think that the NFL has many grey areas in its regulations that often cause stipulations. I feel that overall the NFL's catch rules have room for improvement but do no need to be completely rewritten. I think the NFL should put time into making the catch rules more clear, so that it is more of a black and white comparison as to what constitutes a catch. I think fans should keep in mind that calls made on the field by referees during the game are not always spot on. In any professional sport there are always calls made that people will not be happy with sometimes because the referee was actually wrong, but sometimes just because their team lost. I think that fans expressing their opinions on certain plays and calls is an important aspect of all sports.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the catches shown in the videos were considered catches. But, I do think that some of them may have been controversial, and it could be argued that they weren't catches. I do not think that the rules for what constitutes a catch do not need to be changed, but they need to be made clearer. There is always a lot of controversy of many different things not only catches. I think if there was a clear distinction between what was a catch and what wasn't there would be much less controversy because it would be a lot harder to make an argument. If the rules were made more clear I don't think the outcome of the super bowl would have changed, but it would defiantly save a lot of time reviewing plays and making difficult calls.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both catches during the Super Bowl were touchdowns. I believe that Corey Clement had possession of the ball because even though he bobbled the ball for a insignificant amount of time, he still ended up clearly possessing the ball in the end and never dropped it. Zach Ertz's touchdown was undoubtedly a touchdown due to the fact that even though the referees should've ruled based upon precedent with the ruling in the Jesse James catch, Jesse James was not ruled a runner whereas Zach Ertz was making the catches different from each other. I believe that the catch rule should be elaborated on to avoid any confusion and arguments which make the catches controversial in the first place. The Super Bowl wouldn't have been affected because by elaborating on the catch rules in the way that I would like, they would favor both Ertz and Clement making both catches touchdowns.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe all of the plays in the videos were catches, but with the way the NFL is moving currently, they are completely changing what a "catch" is and isn't. Right now, with the rules being fairly unclear and inconsistent, there isn't enough evidence to rule against any of these catches. In this offseason I expect the NFL to not change, but specify what a catch is so that conversations like these don't have to be made. With that being said, the NFL should not fully change the ruling, but instead modernize and improve what is the current catching rules, because of the lack of clarity from game-to-game on what is a catch. If one simple, but effective rule can be established all of this controversy wouldn't have to occur. If there was further clarity on the catch rulings, the Super Bowl wouldn't have even been the same game. The Steelers, who got knocked out due to a questionable "no catch" call late in the game to Jesse James, would have replaced the Patriots and would've definitely changed the dynamic of the game.
ReplyDeleteWhen a receiver catches a ball he becomes a runner. This means that he must maintain control of the ball while having both of his feet touch the ground, or have both arms around the ball. I think that the rule should be changed because there is clearly still a lot of confusion as to what is considered a catch. The NFL should work to make a rule that clearly outlines the qualification for what is and what is not a catch. The rules unintended consequences has been exposed through instant replay therefore they need to revise the rule to take into accuont the role that instant replay plays in football today. Specifically, in today’s rule if there is any movement in the ball before the player hits the ground it is not a catch. Therefore, with the use of instant replay, even the smallest movement of the ball in a player's hand would nullify a catch. Some minimal amount of ball movement should be allowed when determining whether a receiver made a catch.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the rules, I do not think those catches were legitimate. In the first one, Corey Clement clearly loses possession of the ball as it falls down his body to his hip. He then does not reestablish two feet in bounds, as his second foot touches the white out of bounds line. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not think the catch rule needs modification. I think it is very clear as it is written. A player must have possession of the ball and two feet or one other body part in bounds, and if the player is going to the ground he must maintain possession through contact with the ground. If he does not satisfy both of those criteria, the pass is incomplete. When a receiver gets a catch overturned, most of the time it is because he made a stupid play, usually to reach out and get the ball knocked out. It is unfortunate for the receiver that this happens, but it is not the rule's fault or the official's fault, it is his own. As it pertains to the Super Bowl, I think the catch calls had a deciding impact on the game. Both of these plays occurred on third down with the Eagles in field goal position, so if they had been overturned, the Eagles would have scored 3 points instead of 7, resulting in a Eagles -4 swing each play, for a total Eagles -8 swing. Considering the difference in the game ended up being 8 points, these calls played an integral role in deciding the game.
ReplyDelete