Author Topic: Catch Process - Possible regression in philosophy?  (Read 733 times)

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 496
  • FAN REACTION: +48/-44
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Catch Process - Possible regression in philosophy?
« on: February 07, 2018, 11:25:56 AM »
I think most of us probably thought the ruling on the field of a completed catch and TD on that end line play in the Super Bowl (for a Philadelphia TD) would be changed by replay, due to what most of us believed to be indisputable video evidence that the receiver did not have firm hold of the ball until after a foot had touched the ground out of bounds.  TV ultra-HD slo-motion replay showed the ball still moving in the receiver's hands/body until after one of his feet touched the ground OB.  Clearly an incomplete pass, based on the pure definition of a catch, i.e., requiring the ball to be firmly held and the receiver needing to demonstrate control of the ball by performing some action common to football before the ball contacts the ground, or some part of the receiver's body touches something OB.  No doubt.  The foot was OB before the ball was firmly held and a football action performed.  Incomplete pass.

Welllllllllllll, maybe not.  We all know that, after review, the on-field ruling of catch/TD was allowed to "stand," mystifying and befuddling most, if not all, of us.

I have a theory.

Perhaps, technology has become too good.  With the ultra-fine clarity - and super-slo motion capability - of modern video technology, perhaps the ability to see such minor movement is taking something away from the game that was really never intended with the advent of replay.  Perhaps the game is better served to allow such plays to be considered "good."  As long as the ground doesn't truly assist the receiver in securing the ball; as long as the receiver isn't OB before he has any amount of control of the ball; as long as he can keep the ball in his hand(s), or pinned against his body with at least one hand, even if the ball slides around a bit, maybe the receiver should be given credit for making the play, and the ruling should be "catch."

Maybe that is what the players want.  Maybe that is what the coaches want.  Maybe that is what the executives/administrators want.  Maybe that is what the fans want.

If so, then this particular play would certainly fall into that category, thus, successful catch (or, at least the ruling on the field stands).

Just a theory.

Robert
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 03:03:19 PM by ElvisLives »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3341
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-485
Re: Catch Process - Possible regression in philosophy?
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2018, 02:31:19 PM »
Almost sounds like a suggestion we go back to the requirements necessary to be a "catch", BEFORE all the absolute, technologically correct, nit-picking experts convinced themselves that, what seemed to be working fine for the previous 50+ years, needed to be "improved".

It was a Fordham Univ. lineman, who later got involved in Coaching, who cautioned, "The pursuit of perfection should never interfere with the delivery of excellence".

Offline Kalle

  • *
  • Posts: 2703
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-33
Re: Catch Process - Possible regression in philosophy?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2018, 02:22:07 AM »
I doubt that it will ever happen, at least on NFL, but I'd like the replay to be changed so that it will not even be used in situations where it takes more than 15s to decide to overturn a call. Use it on clear errors and leave the human factor intact.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2558
  • FAN REACTION: +312/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Catch Process - Possible regression in philosophy?
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2018, 09:24:26 AM »
I LOVE THE PATRIOTS :'(.
I HOPED THE CALL WOULD GET OVERTURNED :o
I AGREED THAT THEY SHOULDN'T  :(

"Indisputable video evidence" to me, means without a doubt.

IMHO, the late TD was by a runner, who had taken a couple of steps before the ball in his possession had broken the goal line plane.

IMHO, the earlier TD, while questionable, was not "without a doubt". The Pats got the benefit of a few of these earlier in the season and you can't get them all.

I'm not a NFL rules expert, but I feel some of you are. Wasn't requiring a football move for the catch to be complete added to prevent an airborne receiver to be hit as he landed and a then completed pass would turn into a fumble?

IN NEW ENGLAND, WE STILL HAVE...

  THE CELTICS AT THE TOP

THE BRUINS NEAR THE TOP

...AND THE RED SOX EQUIPMENT TRUCK OFF TO FLORIDA

PS: Brady is not a good receiver!

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 263
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-12
  • We are always learning
Re: Catch Process - Possible regression in philosophy?
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2018, 04:46:30 PM »
Interesting to watch the process f the review between Gene and Big man Al. : https://streamable.com/zzxfu

Yes the football move or "time" as ex VPs of officiating like to call it now.

i.e. time to be sure that the receiver has transitioned into being a runner.

I wrote this for a UK football website: http://dblcoverage.com/officials-help-lay-the-patriots-to-rest/

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 496
  • FAN REACTION: +48/-44
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Catch Process - Possible regression in philosophy?
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2018, 08:02:45 AM »
Don't know NFL rules, but these things seem to always filter down to NCAA, so I am wondering what effect this will have on NCAA.  The current NCAA rule requires to the ball to be "firmly held."  If the ball is moving in the hand(s)/arm(s) involuntarily, then it isn't firmly held.  Could this mean this requirement may be eliminated?  Or, the definition 'refined?'
We shall see.

Robert