Can anyone articulate what a catch is any more?

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Wwharton I definitely see what you're saying and you make great points. You explain the situation in a very clear and concise manner. I still think that the job of officiating on certain calls seems a lot harder and more subjective than ever even though the rules try to take the subjectivity away.

I don't disagree with you (guess I could just say "I agree" lol). But it's a general pressure for refs to get every single call right. There's a reason they were fighting challenges so hard, and we may be seeing the ramifications. I've argued plenty in the NBA forum that the game is literally impossible to officiate without making judgement calls and having some errors. Football should be easier, but that doesn't mean it's as easy as we think. But all the super slow mo replays make us more aware of their flaws. The catch is one that will always be a bit subjective, which will always leave it up for debate.

I'm not arguing that the current rules for a catch are great, I'm just saying they are what they are (and not as confusing as many want to believe) AND even if the rules were what they used to be, there'd still be many complaints on what is or isn't a catch... maybe more.

[ggsimmonds]

I do dislike the term "football move" because I don't really know what that is. The way it has been explained is a bit circular.

In order to complete a catch you must establish possession to long enough to "make a football move."

So what is a football move?

A motion done by a football player after establishing possession of the ball.

Oh, okay...no wait, what?

I don't think the problem was with the rules; the problem was with the media personalities "explaining" the rules to the fans. This led to confusion so the league tried to clarify the rules, but all they did was make it convoluted which led to confusion among the refs.

Way to go guys.

[XtremeDunkz]

That Buffalo play last week would have been ruled a catch if Rex challenged. He chose not to for some strange reason, but it surely would have been reversed.

[SteelersFreak]

I guess my biggest issue is every week in basically every game we have to take about 5 minutes out of every game to sit here and analyze every angle of what looks like a catch or doesn't look like a catch and take into account every fractional movement the receiver makes with his hands, feet, whatever. I'd rather just not have the challenges, they're painful to sit through and listen to Joe Buck and Troy Aikman and *insert retired referee here* ramble on about what they think happened.

Its all just part of the reason, to me, that the NFL is becoming more and more of a chore to sit through.

[SteelersFreak]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I do dislike the term "football move" because I don't really know what that is. The way it has been explained is a bit circular. In order to complete a catch you must establish possession to long enough to "make a football move." So what is a football move? A motion done by a football player after establishing possession of the ball. Oh, okay...no wait, what? I don't think the problem was with the rules; the problem was with the media personalities "explaining" the rules to the fans. This led to confusion so the league tried to clarify the rules, but all they did was make it convoluted which led to confusion among the refs. Way to go guys.

The first time I remember hearing "football move" was this:



I didn't understand how it was possibly ruled an incompletion at the time and I still don't understand it.

Also its funny to hear them call Polamalu a "young guy".

[dubcity]

Quote: Originally Posted by XtremeDunkz

That Buffalo play last week would have been ruled a catch if Rex challenged. He chose not to for some strange reason, but it surely would have been reversed.

The fact that in the back of our minds we think think there's even a 1%-5% chance the refs would have found a reason to not reverse that call tells us where we're at with this.

Also, tired of people acting like it's Rex's fault the ref blew the call. Just because he failed to challenge it doesn't excuse the brutal refereeing. (not saying you specifically said that btw)

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by SteelersFreak

I guess my biggest issue is every week in basically every game we have to take about 5 minutes out of every game to sit here and analyze every angle of what looks like a catch or doesn't look like a catch and take into account every fractional movement the receiver makes with his hands, feet, whatever. I'd rather just not have the challenges, they're painful to sit through and listen to Joe Buck and Troy Aikman and *insert retired referee here* ramble on about what they think happened. Its all just part of the reason, to me, that the NFL is becoming more and more of a chore to sit through.

But we don't have to... heck, I never do that, lol. I smh that so many people do.

But even if your reply is that announcers, analysts, fans, etc. do it all the time... well I'd say look at everything else. The refs basically cost another team a win with a terrible call (league admitting it was wrong) at the end of the game. Second time in less than 3 weeks. We've seen phantom holding calls, Gronk getting called for offensive PI twice for doing something I think we all assumed all receivers do; a perfectly squared up hit on Palmer is a flag bc of barely grazing the head with a helmet, etc, etc, etc.

My stance is refs are human and we'll never get rid of issues... others like to go all in on the refs. In either case, the catch rule is the only thing that gets attacked like this. That's what doesn't make any sense. It's no different than anything else... subject to a ref screwing up the call. And personally I don't think they screw it up any more than the many other things they screw up on a weekly basis.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by dubcity

The fact that in the back of our minds we think think there's even a 1%-5% chance the refs would have found a reason to not reverse that call tells us where we're at with this. Also, tired of people acting like it's Rex's fault the ref blew the call. Just because he failed to challenge it doesn't excuse the brutal refereeing. (not saying you specifically said that btw)

Who said it's his fault the ref blew the call? It's his fault that he didn't challenge it, nothing more. It was 100% in his hands to try and fix and he declined to. This circumstance is why replay exists.

Either way, bad call by the ref, not sure anyone has said otherwise.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk