Lions got robbed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Brian Fein]

So let me propose this:

Calvin Johnson catches the ball.  Stands there for one full second, and then the corner shoves him violently, causing him to fall on his butt out of bounds.  Then in the act of getting up, he places the ball on the ground deliberately.

By the rule, this should be an incomplete pass?

[Dave Gray]

I like the rule as it is now. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of it for the refs, which is a Good Thing (tm) IMHO.

I'm on the other side of this because I think it actually hurts the refs.  It forces them into making bad calls.  It makes the refs bigger than the game.

[AZ Fins Fan 55]

The Lions got hosed plain and simple. You can over process this with the wording of this asinine rule all you want but common sense tells you that was with out a doubt a catch and a TD. Terrible rule to cost a team a game!!!!!!

[Pappy13]

I'm on the other side of this because I think it actually hurts the refs.  It forces them into making bad calls.  It makes the refs bigger than the game.

Exactly.  Now that Instant Replay is here to stay, make it a judgement call by the official again, catch or no catch?  If you think he got it wrong you can challenge and it will automatically be reviewed by the booth in the last 2 minutes of a game.  Put the decision making back into the hands of the refs and then let instant replay overrule it if it's clearly the wrong call.

[fyo]

It depends because If you make a football move after catching the ball then the catch is considered completed.

There is no "football move" requirement anymore. That rule was abolished before last season (IIRC).

Anyway, that's irrelevant to THIS issue, since it deals exclusively with a player catching the ball WHILE GOING TO GROUND. By definition, if a player makes a football move, he wasn't going to the ground WHILE catching the ball.

[fyo]

I'm on the other side of this because I think it actually hurts the refs.  It forces them into making bad calls.  It makes the refs bigger than the game.

Exactly.  Now that Instant Replay is here to stay, make it a judgement call by the official again, catch or no catch?

I don't understand your argument at all Pappy. The argument you present seems to support the opposite viewpoint.

As for the refs, the current rule certainly makes it easy for them: If the player has the ball under control on the ground --> COMPLETE, if not --> INCOMPLETE.

The idiocy here is that the refs, even upon review, decided that the player did not have control on the ground. That was clearly INCORRECT and, judging by former head of officiating Mike Pereira's comments, is due to the current interpretation of the rule by the refs. That interpretation (and not the rule as written and -- I'm willing to bet -- meant) is idiotic and should be changed.

Yes, I'm saying the refs don't understand the rule. I appreciate the insanity of such a claim. I still stand by it, however, and unless someone from the Competition Committee or whatever comes forward and says otherwise, I'll believe that the rule writers actually meant what they wrote (which CLEARLY isn't what the refs are judging).

[Pappy13]

I'm saying the rule IS the problem.  The refs are calling it one way while many people see it a different way BECAUSE of that part of the rule about having to maintain control after the catch.  Take that whole going to the ground garbage out of the rule and just tell the refs they have to get 2 feet down with control of the ball, if they do then it's a catch.  None of this BS about maintaining posession after the catch.  Any disputes are covered with instant replay.  How is that confusing?  You either believe he caught the pass and had 2 feet down or you didn't, I don't care whether he's hitting the ground or not.  If you think he caught it, that's how you rule it if you dont think he caught it that's how you rule it.  If the coach disagrees, let's go to the booth and they can decide whether it's a bad call or not.  If the call is CLEARLY WRONG, you overturn it, if it's NOT CLEARLY WRONG the call stands whatever was called, it's as simple as that. 

That's what instant replay is for, to overturn CLEARLY WRONG CALLS. There's plenty of judgement calls in the NFL already, why do we need to try to take the judgement of the official out of this one particular call when in reality you aren't taking the judgement of the official out of the equation you're just changing it to a decision of whether or not he had control BEFORE going to the ground like you mentioned and you end up with worse calls in some cases like yesterday's.  The call was correct according to the rule, but it doesn't make any sense the rule should be like that in the first place.  That's a needless rule in my opinion.  Get rid of that going to the ground BS.

[fyo]

Pappy, have you ever seen a game with a bunch of people? How often can a room come even close to agreeing on what constitutes "control" unless the player catching the ball happens to be playing for "their" team?

And that's with infinite replays from numerous angles in slow motion.

How the hell is a ref supposed to make a call that's anything but random on the field with live action from what's almost certainly not an ideal angle?

Referring everything to instant replay isn't an option. I like instant replay, but I wouldn't want it used all the freaking time.

Bottom line, I've been in so many discussions about a ball "shifting" vs the player "securing it further" vs whatever. It stinks and would be the source of many more controversies than the current rule. Just tell the refs to go with the rule AS WRITTEN, not as they currently interpret it.

Look at it another way: Had the receiver in the Lions game lost control of the ball before rolling around, would viewers really have thought "that's a catch"? Even though he may have had control of it in the air with two feet down? I don't think so.

This whole issue stems from the fact that the receiver appeared to maintain control of the ball TO THE GROUND (as per the letter of the rule), rolled over and threw/flicked the ball away. The rule doesn't state anything about "two motions" (i.e. that throwing the ball away must be part of a second motion, as compared to the falling to the ground motion). It just states you have to maintain control to the ground, which the player clearly did. Case closed.

[Phishfan]

It just states you have to maintain control to the ground, which the player clearly did. Case closed.

While I think they were hosed, it doesn't say to the ground. It is after making contact to the ground. Those are different.

[fyo]

While I think they were hosed, it doesn't say to the ground. It is after making contact to the ground. Those are different.

Correct. The "after" could be infinitely short, of course, but in this case, the ball wasn't knocked lose upon hitting the ground. Control was clearly retained AFTER "touching the ground" (as per the rule). It doesn't say the player has to come to a complete rest, must complete a second movement, must get up and hand the ball to the ref or anything like that.

[Pappy13]

Pappy, have you ever seen a game with a bunch of people? How often can a room come even close to agreeing on what constitutes "control" unless the player catching the ball happens to be playing for "their" team?

Well it really doesn't matter what ANY of them think, it matters what the ref thinks.  He's the one closest to the play as it happens.  He makes a decision and if it's the wrong one then theres the replay booth to decide if he made the wrong one.  If the replay doesn't clearly show the correct call even after slowing it down and watching it from every angle we have, then whatever was called is good enough.  Officiating isn't an exact science, but that's ok as long as you don't have glaring problems and Instant replay does enough to eliminate those.  You're never going to get every last person to agree and you shouldn't try, you should only try to get the call as accurate as possible.

How the hell is a ref supposed to make a call that's anything but random on the field with live action from what's almost certainly not an ideal angle?

The refs are trained how to be in the best position and they've been doing it for years by the time they are working in the NFL.  They aren't perfect but they're they best we got.

Referring everything to instant replay isn't an option. I like instant replay, but I wouldn't want it used all the freaking time.

Not everything, only when their appears to have been a mistake.  99% of the time the refs get it right or it's too close to call.  For the 1% of the time we have instant replay.  It's a good system. 

Bottom line, I've been in so many discussions about a ball "shifting" vs the player "securing it further" vs whatever. It stinks and would be the source of many more controversies than the current rule. Just tell the refs to go with the rule AS WRITTEN, not as they currently interpret it.

That's just talk and it's obvious from the last 2 days of talk that the rule as it is now is not perfect or there would be no talk.

Look at it another way: Had the receiver in the Lions game lost control of the ball before rolling around, would viewers really have thought "that's a catch"? Even though he may have had control of it in the air with two feet down? I don't think so.

But that's not what happened.  The way the rule is written (and interpreted by the NFL) the official HAD to call INCOMPLETE.  He HAD to regardless of what he thought and what just about everyone who's seen the play thought.  That's contrary to logic.  If it looks like a catch than it should be a catch and not incomplete because the rule says it has to be.  That's a stupid rule in my opinion.  You say it's being interpreted wrong, but the NFL has a rules commitee that determines how the rules should be interpreted and they said this one needs to be interpreted the way they interpreted the call on Sunday.  The NFL is not saying they got the call wrong, they are saying that's the rule.  Well in my opinion then it's a bad rule and should be changed.

[fyo]

The way the rule is written (and interpreted by the NFL) the official HAD to call INCOMPLETE.  He HAD to regardless of what he thought and what just about everyone who's seen the play thought.

This is where we disagree. There's no way I can read your (and Pereira's) interpretation of the rules into the words as written. It quite clearly DOESN'T state how long control has to be maintained after touching the ground. The refs (who aren't the ones writing the rules) seem to have interpreted this as "indefinitely", whereas I would argue the opposite ("momentarily", i.e. just to make sure the actual contact with the ground doesn't knock the ball lose -- a reasonable argument since the ball getting knocked out would be an indication that the player didn't have a firm grasp (i.e. control) in the first place). I expect the League to issue a clarification (not rule change) on the matter in the coming off-season, although it will have to be done gracefully, since the League would never criticize the officials, regardless of how much the League / competition committee might disagree with them.

As for the replay system, yes, I agree it's a good system, but if you think the refs "get it right" 99% of the time, you're delusional. There are uncalled fouls on many, if not most, plays and most every game has a fumble/pass/runner-down situation where the refs got it wrong (which we can only tell thanks to the wonder of slow motion replays, esp. on our own DVRs) -- and the majority of those are never subjected to review. The last thing the game needs is a rule the refs have no chance of calling accurately. There's a reason the trend (quite deliberately) is in the opposite direction, i.e. removing judgement calls.

(Just out of curiosity... did you learn to type on a typewriter?)

[Pappy13]

This is where we disagree. There's no way I can read your (and Pereira's) interpretation of the rules into the words as written.

It's not my interpretation, it's the NFL's.  The rules are agreed to by a representative from every team.  Every team is aware of what the rule is. It was ruled as it is suppose to be ruled.  You may not agree with it, but that is the rule as it currently stands.  I haven't heard anyone associated with the NFL say that it was ruled incorrectly and I'm talking refs, coaches, analysts and players.  They are ALL saying it was ruled correctly according to the rules.

As for the replay system, yes, I agree it's a good system, but if you think the refs "get it right" 99% of the time, you're delusional. There are uncalled fouls on many, if not most, plays...

I think that's pretty subjective, but I'm not really talking about fouls, I'm talking where they have to actually make a call on a play. See below.

...and most every game has a fumble/pass/runner-down situation where the refs got it wrong (which we can only tell thanks to the wonder of slow motion replays, esp. on our own DVRs) -- and the majority of those are never subjected to review. The last thing the game needs is a rule the refs have no chance of calling accurately.

Out of how many times?  Hundreds?  They make decisions about complete, incomplete, fumble, no fumble, down, not down, in bounds, out of bounds, spot of the ball on every snap and usually more than 1.  So the fact they get it wrong once or twice a game is really not that big of a percentage, about 1%.  Maybe it's 2%.  Still that's a very small number, well within reason.  The coaches have the right to challenge those plays they wish as long as they have challenges left.  Few are used.  Why?  Because they know the chances the officials got it CLEARLY wrong are small.  Maybe they will get it overturned and maybe they won't and they'll lose a timeout.  How many are challenged and then upheld?

There's a reason the trend (quite deliberately) is in the opposite direction, i.e. removing judgement calls.

I agree.  That doesn't mean the game is better for it because you get cases like last Sunday where a judgement call was needed in my humble opinion.  All this trend does is try to deflect any negativity away from the ref.  Make them less accountable.  Well personally I think instant replay and the challenge system handles that just fine, you don't need to put in any extra rules.

(Just out of curiosity... did you learn to type on a typewriter?)

Yes, in 1978.  Why?

[fyo]

Yes, in 1978.  Why?

Very few people who DIDN'T learn to type on a typewriter use two spaces after a period (introduced because typewriters used mono-spaced fonts). There are exceptions, of course, since some publications still use the double-space, but with the advent of proportional fonts the practice has pretty much disappeared.

[Pappy13]

Very few people who DIDN'T learn to type on a typewriter use two spaces after a period (introduced because typewriters used mono-spaced fonts). There are exceptions, of course, since some publications still use the double-space, but with the advent of proportional fonts the practice has pretty much disappeared.

Interesting.  I do that without thinking about it.