Finally, we can all agree that when something looks like a catch, it probably is. No more dissecting replays over and over to find the split second when the ball hit the ground (even while the receiver still had control of it) and suddenly blowing everybody's mind by saying that an obvious catch suddenly wasn't.
This, of course, has been a source of confusion/frustration for years. But it really came to a head during the 2017 season. And, when Mr. Brilliant Commissioner talked about it at the Super Bowl, you knew a change was finally coming. He basically told the Competition Committee to find a way to get this done. Which I think, for the most part, they did.
All they had to do was remove the "survive the ground" from the definition of what a catch is. That, essentially, was the problem. All of the catches that were overturned over the years, from Calvin Johnson to Dez Bryant (the two most obvious examples) to Jesse James, it's because the officials determined they didn't "survive the ground," which made the pass incomplete. Under the new rule, with that language taken out, they would've been catches. Which they were.
Will there still be controversy? Absolutely. But the new rule definitely makes things clearer and a lot easier to officiate. All a play needs to meet in order to be considered a catch is three criteria: control, two feet (or another body part) in bounds, and a football move.
For me, the football move part had always been the sticking point. Take the Jesse James play. He "lost control" while trying to extend to the end zone, which is why they ruled it incomplete (well, that and because it was against the Patriots, further playing into the hands of the conspiracy theorists). But trying to extend the ball into the end zone is a football move!
And, here's the part that made no sense to me. A running back could lose control trying to extend the ball, and it was no harm, no foul. So why was it different for a catch? In order to reach for more yardage, the end zone, etc., he would've had to already had possession. So at what point do you become a runner? Fortunately, that distinction doesn't have to be made anymore.
Critics have argued this may lead to more plays being ruled catches and fumbles. But that's OK. Because how often would that fumble end up in the hands of someone other than the pass catcher? One in five maybe? Likewise, the bang-bang play will remain incomplete. Which no one has an issue with. You make a catch and it immediately gets knocked out, it should be incomplete. The defender did his job and you didn't fulfill all three requirements of a catch.
An interesting point that Jesse James brought up about the catch/no catch controversy was regarding the use of replay on these plays. And, frankly, I think he was right. The intent of instant replay is to confirm the officials' call or provide indisputable evidence that the call should be overturned. If they don't have that indisputable evidence, they're supposed to stick with the call on the field.
But with catches, it seemed like they were using replay for the exact opposite reason than it was intended. Instead of trying to confirm a ruling, it often felt like they were looking for a reason to say it WASN'T a catch, even though it was pretty clear to the naked eye (and the first five regular-speed replays) that it should be. How many times did we see them spending an extended amount of time combing over replay after replay from every angle, only to come back with a long-winded explanation as to why they changed it (we'll miss you, Ed Hochuli)?
Even people who know the rules had no idea what type of ruling they'd come back with after these catch/no catch replay reviews. Because it would look so obviously one way, only to have it be ruled the opposite. Then, to all of our surprise, Zach Ertz has a similar play in the Super Bowl, we all expect it to come back, and they rule it a touchdown! (Apparently they were using the new rules in the Super Bowl.)
The fact that all 32 owners agreed to the rule change is pretty telling, too. Of course, they knew it was going to pass, so even the owners who might not've agreed were somewhat backed into a corner. But I think the frustration for everyone had boiled over. Everyone knew a change was necessary after the Cowboys lost a playoff game because of the Dez Bryant play, and it was brought further to the forefront last season with the Jesse James play in a late-December nationally-televised showdown between the top two teams in the AFC.
I'm sure we'll still have our share of controversial rulings, but they'll be a lot fewer. Because the new definition of a catch is a lot clearer and, frankly, makes a lot more sense. Now, maybe when play looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, they won't have to spend five minutes looking at the replays only to come back and say it's a goose.
No comments:
Post a Comment