The NFL expects to review the catch rule that cost Lions receiver Calvin Johnson a potential winning touchdown in a season-opening loss to Chicago.
The play was ruled a no-catch. After Johnson went to the turf with possession, he placed the ball on the ground as he ran to celebrate. It's been one of the season's most discussed -- and dissed -- calls.
"The going-to-the-ground rule definitely will be discussed," NFL competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said Tuesday at the league's fall meetings. "It's been discussed the last couple of years. It's a difficult rule. It was made for on-field officials, not as much for people watching on TV."
"There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."
Clearly, the vast majority of fans did not like this rule and it's good that the NFL is taking note and taking action in reviewing the rule.
10 comments:
Great. Every off-season the rules are examined. We'll see if they make any changes and what changes those are.
As I have said numerous times already, the reason we have the rule as it is now written is because of inconsistency in ref rulings in the past. McKay said it is a difficult rule, but the way it is now is fair and consistent.
My guess is there won't be any change.
It's clear that it is a controversial rule with the majority of fans not in favor of the rule.
I appreciate the league recognizing this and reviewing the rule.
As McKay stated, they have to see if "they extended [the rule] too far."
Robs, you are right that the rules are examined all the time. However, I can't remember the last time there was such a controversial rule.
We'll see if/how the rule changes.
The rule was specifically emphasized this year because of controversies last year in four games, including the NFC title game.
I like the way the rule is now because it eliminates human judgment that can be wrong or at least inconsistent from one ref to another.
No one has offered a better rule that I have heard - including you. It is easy to just bitch and moan - which is what the average fan does - but the rules are well thought out and apply equally to everyone.
If they can make this particular rule better and it remains fair and consistent then that is great. I am not against a rule change just because I am against rule changes. I just haven't heard a good alternative.
It's clear most fans do not like the rule.
I offered my take on the change. It's funny because if you go to the thread, I offered my suggestion and later in the thread you said I had yet to offer my take so I had to copy and paste what I wrote earlier and now, again, you are saying I didn't offer anything.
I'm just happy that the NFL Competition Committee realizes that the rule probably goes too far and they need to look at this rule again.
Leaving it to the ref (which I think is your solution) is not a solution. That is why they have the rule as it is now because it led to inconsistent rulings from game to game.
The human aspect is part of the game.
If we want to make absolutes to one part of the game, they should make absolutes for all parts of the game. They should make an absolute for pass interference and make it reviewable. They should make an absolute for helmet to helmet and make it reviewable. Any other aspect, make an absolute and make it reviewable.
Frankly, I TOTALLY disagree with that and I am very comfortable leaving it in the hands of the refs. Again, I am assuming that refs will do their best to make the correct call. They will take advantage of instant replay when it is a reviewable call and make the best judgement they can. It may not always go the way you want but that is part of the game and I am comfortable with that.
Going back to Sunday's Redskins game, there were a number of calls that could have gone either way. They include:
1. 11 minutes left in the third quarter, on a 3rd down pass to Moss which would have given the Skins a first down on the Packers 40 yd line, Woodson should have been called for a pass interference. It was not called. They showed multiple replays where Aikman commented how they used to have the Jordan rules. Well, I guess they now have the Woodson rules because it was an obvious pass interference that wasn't called. Even Joe Buck said, "Whoa!" when they showed the replay.
2. In the fourth quarter, a pass interference on Cooley. One ref called it, he was over ruled by another ref and they showed the replay and again, Aikman said that it was a bad call.
3. In the fourth quarter on a third down slant pass to Moss that would have given the Skins a first down at the Packers 40 yd line, it was a close pass interference call. They didn't call it. They showed the replay and Aikman said it was close but Moss probably should of had it regardless.
4. In the fourth quarter on a third down play to Galloway that would have given the Skins possession on the Packer 5 yard line. Again, it was close and looked like interference but they showed the replay and again, Aikman said it was close but probably a good no call.
5. The now infamous Jarmon helmet to helmet. BTW - watched the NFL replay last night and Aikman made no mention of it on the replay. When they showed the replay, he said that the INT was set up by a linebacker (Jarmon) who was in the face of Rodgers. However, no mention of helmet to helmet.
I have pointed out a number of occasions where Fox is unafraid to replay questionable calls and Aikman is unafraid to voice his opinion and disagreement with the calls. I am PERFECTLY fine with the his explanations and opinions and the tone of his voice. Correct me if I am wrong but you feel like announcers should be more vociferous in their opinions.
Going back to the issue at hand, I pointed out a number of plays that were left to human (ref) judgement. I am fine with that. I am more comfortable with that than the idea of an absolute where that CJ play, IN MY OPINION, was a catch. Again, the majority of people are in agreement that it should have been a catch. PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP THE RULE. We ALL understand the rule and based on the rule it is NOT a catch but that is why the Competition Committee understands that the rule needs to be reviewed because most people believed that the CJ play was a catch.
I'm glad you want to leave it to refs, but the same NFL competition committee - whose job is to maintain the integrity of the game - found that there were too many inconsistencies and errors leaving it to refs (even when they had instant replay). The outcome of one play could have affected the Super Bowl (Lance Moore) - the problem is that different refs would have ruled differently on the play.
For the umpteenth time - THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE RULE AS IT IS NOW. It is fair because it can be applied universally and consistently.
That is why your solution doesn't work - AGAIN, FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME.
In my opinion, another good rule change would be to allow coaches to use a challenge to challenge pass interference calls that result in 15 or more yards of penalities. I hate seeing a 40 yard phantom pass interference call. Those types of plays can really change game outcomes.
If you agree with me on this last point, then your argument for leaving it up to the ref (when we know that it has resulted in inconsistent rulings in the past) makes no sense. Then maybe you will agree with me and finally stop talking about it.
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. You don't need to say "for the umpteenth time" as though I do not follow what you are saying.
You like the rule as it stands. I don't. Judging from the outcry on the CJ play, most people don't like the rule. I believe most people would be happy with the way it was before and allowing the refs to do the best job they can in making the call and living with the call. Again, we assume the refs are not rooting for one team and will call the play to the best of their knowledge. I can live with that. Sure, there will be times when I disagree. In the Skins game, I disagreed with a couple of clear pass interference calls that could have given us first downs. Those calls are harder to make for the refs as they are happening in real time and they have no benefit of slow motion instant replay. It sucks! I'll live with it. The refs are doing their best.
For the umpteenth time, I get your position. I disagree with it and I think most football fans don't like the rule as it stands and didn't like the CJ call.
Every week refs are criticized for errors. I'm sure that the refs want clarity on this issue so that they can just refer to the rule.
You agree that the rule is in place because there were controversies in the past - don't you? There were AT LEAST four "controversies" last year when they didn't emphasize the rule - including one in the Super Bowl. You just don't remember them because they were in games you didn't have a rooting interest in.
You may not like the rule, but it works fairly for all. That said, if the NFL can figure out a way to keep it consistent for all that is fine with me.
What do you think about allowing coaches challenges on pass interference calls that are longer than 15 yards?
There were controversies in Sunday's Redskins game. I am still fine with the human aspect of it with inclusion of instant replay. Again, judging from the fan outcry and the majority of fans believing that the CJ play was a catch and the rule was bad, I think they would be okay with the same. Again, the refs are doing the best job they can. They are not trying to fool anyone or trying to make a bad call so I can respect that and I can live with their decisions.
I would be good with the challenge of 15+ yard pass interference calls.
Post a Comment