Great idea, Rog...

[Mr. Scot]

NFL begins public campaign to explain the catch rules

Some years back, a company I worked for asked employees to do a survey that rated how well management was doing.

Management at the time was utter crap, and the survey results were absolutely savage.

So in response to this, did they try to comprehend the problems? Did they look at possible changes? Did they seek to get to the heart of the issue? 

No. 

They sent back the survey with an email that basically said "well, maybe you didn't understand the questions".

Likewise, the NFL has now decided that rather than make any actual changes to the catch rule or the way that it's enforced, they're just going to try and explain to everyone why it's okay just as it is.

Oh yeah...Great idea.

[Jmac]

Why fix something that is broke....oh wait ...that didn't come out right.

 

[Zaximus]

Well of course not, they want to be able to say it is or isn't a catch whenever they want.  

[shaqattaq]

2 minutes ago, Zaximus said:

Well of course not, they want to be able to say it is or isn't a catch whenever they want.  

How else can the refs determine who will win the game? Ignoring holding, pass interference, and personal fouls might not be enough!

[Mr. Scot]

And let me just take a moment to speak three of my favorite words:

Full...time...refs.

[LinvilleGorge]

Explain?  You can't explain something that no one understands.  When you former head of officials and other in-game analysts just joke about every close call because they know there's no rhyme or reason to it you know you have a problem.  I don't even blame the refs.  The rules are so vague that I don't know how they're supposed to interpret them.

[KillerKat]

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Explain?  You can't explain something that no one understands.  When you former head of officials and other in-game analysts just joke about every close call because they know there's no rhyme or reason to it you know you have a problem.  I don't even blame the refs.  The rules are so vague that I don't know how they're supposed to interpret them.

Actually they're too detailed. They just need to simplify it. Go back to ball in hands, 2 feet on ground = catch. The only reason they made the change to the way it is now was to cover up a bad call years ago. They just need to put their pride aside and go back to the way it was.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, KillerKat said:

Actually they're too detailed. They just need to simplify it. Go back to ball in hands, 2 feet on ground = catch. The only reason they made the change to the way it is now was to cover up a bad call years ago. They just need to put their pride aside and go back to the way it was.

The NFL?

Wouldn't put money on that, sadly.

[outlaw4]

I'm sure this is an excellent idea. The league already does a good job informing the referees what defines a catch to ensure accuracy and consistency across the board.

Oh, wait.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, outlaw4 said:

I'm sure this is an excellent idea. The league already does a good job informing the referees what defines a catch to ensure accuracy and consistency across the board.

Oh, wait.

Heh... :)

[Snake]

It's just going to get worse like the concussion thing. At some point they are going to have to simplify what a catch is. 

[rayzor]

What, and give up a key tool used to decide the fate of games? Lol

[PhillyB]

here's the current catch rule as defined by blandino via the nfl.

 

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after controlling the ball and touching the ground with both feet or any part of his body other than his hands, until he has clearly become a runner.

 

how would you guys change it?

[Mr. Scot]

I didn't like Mike Perreira.

Blandino makes me miss Perreira.