Committee says Bryant '14 playoff play should be a catch in the future

[Fire Me Boy!]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...me-ruled-catch

INDIANAPOLIS -- Dez caught it.

The NFL competition committee has reached a "unanimous" agreement that some of the league's most debated catch controversies should be ruled complete in the future, according to committee member and New York Giants owner John Mara.

They include plays involving Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the 2014 playoffs and Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2010, Mara said, and have prompted a discussion during meetings here at the scouting combine geared toward rewriting the rule for the 2018 season.

"I think where we are unanimous," Mara told ESPN on Tuesday, "[are] plays like the Dez Bryant play in Green Bay, going to the ground, [and] the Calvin Johnson play from a couple of years ago. I think all of us agree that those should be completions. So let's write the language to make them completions."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has directed the committee to study the issue, prompted by yet another controversial incompletion ruling against Pittsburgh Steelers tight end Jesse James late in the 2017 season. Mara said the committee is not in complete agreement on the James play and acknowledged that past efforts to tweak the rule have failed.

What is different in 2018, in addition to Goodell's insistence on change, is the consensus to find a way to avoid inorganic rulings caused by the requirement to maintain control throughout the process of going to the ground.

"The Jesse James play, I think should be a completion," Mara said, "but I'm not sure we're unanimous on that. But plays where guys seem to make the catch and then make a football move with it, I think most of us agree those should be completions. Now it's just a question of coming up with the right language."

Typically, the competition committee continues rule-change discussions through the spring and makes proposals to owners at league meetings, scheduled this year for March 25-28. Mara said he couldn't be sure that a new catch rule would be ready by then, but said, "We're going to try."

He added: "It's easy to say the rule has got to be changed, but coming up with the right language is a challenge."

Meanwhile, Mara said the committee has discussed the possibility of adding a targeting rule to enhance player safety. But Mara downplayed the possibility of proposing a rule that mirrors the college version, which mandates ejection for a player who hits a defenseless opponent in the head or neck area.

"We've had a lot of discussion about it," Mara said. "I'm not sure we'll ever get to the college rule. But there's been a lot of discussion about it, and we'll have some more."

The competition committee is also discussing changing the penalty for pass interference to 15 yards instead of the current spot foul.

"There's a lot of debate on that," said Packers president Mark Murphy, a committee member. "Obviously it's a huge penalty -- 40-, 50-yard penalty at times. It seems to have worked in college. I think there's a concern that our defensive backs are so skilled that the end of the games we'd just have a series of 15-yard penalties. You don't see that in college."

A source tells ESPN the chances of a revised pass interference rule being enacted this season is a long shot.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by tooge

I don't know what is so ****ing difficult about this issue. IF YOU CATCH THE BALL, IN YOUR HANDS OR AGAINST YOUR BODY, AND TWO FEET TOUCH THE GROUND, THEN IT'S A CATCH. IF YOU THEN LOSE THE BALL AGAINST THE GROUND, IT'S A FUMBLE.

If it is ruled a catch, then you lose the ball against the ground, the ground can't cause a fumble. So it should be ruled down at the spot.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I think that's a catch.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

If it is ruled a catch, then you lose the ball against the ground, the ground can't cause a fumble. So it should be ruled down at the spot.

The ground can cause a fumble if you haven't been touched

[cmh6476]

Because chiefs, right? I mean we finally get a qb who can chuck it and donks and fade will just knock our receivers down evertime am I rite

[ChiefFanForHire]

If you are over thirty years of age, or have watched pro football for 15 plus years, and you still think it's not rigged, you're pretty gullible.

That or you're proudly raping your friends and family our of enough money in fantasy that it's in your best interest not to let the horrible truth out.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

If it is ruled a catch, then you lose the ball against the ground, the ground can't cause a fumble. So it should be ruled down at the spot.

Yeah, you are forgetting that in the NFL, the ground CAN ABSOLUTELY cause a fumble because you need to be touched down. If you fell to the ground without a defensive player causing that or touching you down, then the ground will cause that fumble.

Saying the current rules suck is easy. FIXING them is hard. I can see it now -- guy grabs the ball, two feet touch down and a tenth of a second later before he secures the ball he gets blown up or the ball is stripped out. Expect to see ALOT more fumbles if they go that route.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I still say its not a catch.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Yeah, you are forgetting that in the NFL, the ground CAN ABSOLUTELY cause a fumble because you need to be touched down. If you fell to the ground without a defensive player causing that or touching you down, then the ground will cause that fumble.

Saying the current rules suck is easy. FIXING them is hard. I can see it now -- guy grabs the ball, two feet touch down and a tenth of a second later before he secures the ball he gets blown up or the ball is stripped out. Expect to see ALOT more fumbles if they go that route.

I'm with you on all of the above. Fans are going to be upset when they still don't know what a catch is. I think the current rule is fine, but given all the animosity, I think they should tweak the rule for the endzone and out of bounds.

If you have two feet (one knee, etc) down in the endzone and the ball secured for a moment, it is a TD. If you have the ball secure the moment you touch out of bounds (after getting two feet in bounds) it is a catch.

A catch/non-catch in the open field stays the same.

Fans may not realize it yet, but they don't want the new rules applied to the middle of the field because it will result in too many catch/fumbles. I don't think they want that and neither do I.

Almost all of the issues are regarding TD's and out of bounds. So tweak the rules where the PR problem is.

[MahiMike]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Still not a catch

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

Still not a catch

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think that's a catch.

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I still say its not a catch.

People complain about the rules but just with four people in this thread we’re 50/50 (I think it was a catch as well).

[BigRedChief]

The only way this is still not going to make people upset is that they implement the same rules as runners entering the end zone and if the rules are the same as when WR's are catching the ball not in the end zone.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

James catch was a TD as was the one against the Jets. TWO gifted wins by a team on blown/stupid rules/ calls is inexcusable.

[TribalElder]

They typically admit they were wrong


Way after it ever matters or makes a difference


The NFL is crooked as hell with their replay bullshit

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by tooge

IF YOU THEN LOSE THE BALL AGAINST THE GROUND, IT'S A FUMBLE.

Ground can't cause a fumble

[dlphg9]

Lol it's a catch. He gained possession at the 5 yard line and had complete control of the ball after taking 2 steps and dove for the pylon. Only reason he lost it was because he dove at the end and the ground jarred it loose. He didn't bobble the ball.