MINNEAPOLIS -- Eight years after the birth of the Calvin Johnson rule, Roger Goodell wants to go back to the drawing board and redefine the catch.
The NFL commissioner held his annual state of the union press conference Wednesday in a plush ballroom at the Hilton here in downtown Minneapolis. He broached several topics during his half-hour behind the mic, but the first question posed to him was about was officiating, and Goodell wasted no time using the opportunity to pivot to the catch rule.
"I would like to start back, instead of adding to the rule, subtracting the rule. Start over again and look at the rule fundamentally from the start," Goodell said. "Because I think when you add or subtract things, you can still lead to confusion. These rules are very complex -- you have to look at what the unintended consequences are of making a change, which is what the competition committee, in my view, does so well and with so much thought."
"I think we have some very good ideas we're going to submit to the competition committee," Goodell said. "I think there will be a lot of focus on going to the ground, which I think has been part of the confusion with respect to that rule. And I think we've got a great opportunity to get this rule right so everyone understands it."
That latter point was an allusion to the so-called complete the process rule, better known around the league -- and especially in Detroit -- as the Calvin Johnson Rule. It states a player must maintain control of the football through the entire act of the catch. Which means simply having possession when a player is downed is not enough.
Johnson found that out the hard way after catching -- or at least appearing to catch -- a game-winning TD in the 2010 season opener against Chicago. He caught the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand and maintained control as he went to the ground. But then he lost control of the ball as he planted his hand to the turf.
tearing things up and starting over is a good thing I think
my suggestion would be force all replays to be at game speed ... they can watch it as many times as they want, but it has to be at game speed ... I think this will lead to more rulings passing the eye test
and I still say Calvin Johnson's TD catch WAS a TD catch ... the man has the ball in 2 hands and sitting on his butt in the endzone and because he dropped it when standing up no catch? bullshit ... and the beginning of the mess they are currently in
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
I view this as a positive. I believe, and have heard, that the major push this offseason will be to clarify and simplify catch rules. As always with committees and investors, chances are excellent there won't be too much change, but this is a very negative look for the NFL.
I'm cautiously optimistic about what will transpire here, because this is fundamental to the sport.
I am hoping for the best, but as long as that jackass Riveron is still in control of replays, there will always be mistakes as he presents his intentionally blurred and darkened images as proof of why his wrong decisions are in fact correct
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
They have as much of an issue with getting away from the “clear and convincing evidence” requirement to overturn plays.
If you have to slow down to frame by frame and enhance a photo a thousand times to try to overturn it, the call on the field stands. That way the 94 reviews every game don’t extend the game so much and Al Riveron has more time to blow the devil, or whatever he does when he’s not f@@@ing up football games.
I still don’t know what constitutes a catch. That Clements catch looked pretty obviously like it was moving around while he got the first foot they counted down and he didn’t get it under control before he was out.
Al Riveron needs to be beaten with a sack full of oranges.
BR0D1E86 wrote:I still don’t know what constitutes a catch. That Clements catch looked pretty obviously like it was moving around while he got the first foot they counted down and he didn’t get it under control before he was out.
Al Riveron needs to be beaten with a sack full of oranges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was the opposite, I thought he secured it well and it never came loose.
Just goes to show two sets of eyes see different things.
Most likely, since it was called a catch on the field they weren't sure enough to overturn it. If it had been called the opposite way I would assume it would have stayed that way as well.
Glad both were ruled catches, always thought it was a bit stupid that a ball has to basically be immobile to be ruled secure. That said, there's quite a few incomplete I see that I think should be fumbles...
I agree that Ertz' wasn't questionable at all, clearly a runner before the ball crossed the plane.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".
Otis Day wrote:I thought both "questionable" catch/TDs were TDs and I was rooting for the Pats. The Ertz catch wasnt even questionable to me.
looked to me Ertz took 3 steps with the ball before getting hit and diving towards the endzone ... to me that was crystal clear he was a runner at that point, which was why I was pretty confident they would get it wrong and call it incomplete ... much to my surprise, they not only got it right but then actually correctly said why
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." George Carlin
I can't believe Collinsworth fought so hard against the Ertz catch. The guy caught it, had clear control for 3 steps, broke the plane with ball in control, and the ground caused a fumble.
It was a clean, easy touchdown catch, yet Collinsworth is insisting it be overturned and was analyzing frame-by-frame like the Zapruder film. There was no reason for any drama.
Nothing says thrilling more than having to wait 2-3 minutes for some middle aged white dude to make a decision after watching what just happened on a Microsoft Surface.
UOK wrote:I can't believe Collinsworth fought so hard against the Ertz catch. The guy caught it, had clear control for 3 steps, broke the plane with ball in control, and the ground caused a fumble.
It was a clean, easy touchdown catch, yet Collinsworth is insisting it be overturned and was analyzing frame-by-frame like the Zapruder film. There was no reason for any drama.
yep that was incredibly brutal, and i normally like collinsworth.
if they had overturned the clements catch, that would have been bullshit but i would have understood where they were coming from.
if they had overturned the ertz catch i'd still be out in the street burning cop cars and chucking bricks through starbucks windows right now.
UOK wrote:I can't believe Collinsworth fought so hard against the Ertz catch. The guy caught it, had clear control for 3 steps, broke the plane with ball in control, and the ground caused a fumble.
It was a clean, easy touchdown catch, yet Collinsworth is insisting it be overturned and was analyzing frame-by-frame like the Zapruder film. There was no reason for any drama.
That pissed me off to no end. The dude caught the ball, took three fucking steps with the ball SQUEEZED in his hands, and then he dove into the endzone.
Here's a shocker for idiots like Collinsworth: if you're a runner, the SECOND that the ball broaches the goal line the play is dead and it's a touchdown.
I don't know if he's stupid or if he was pandering to Patriots Nation.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS
"Wallet white, phone is pink, case is clear, nails are clear, lips are pink – your girl LOVE 'em!"
I took Collinsworth's remarks as more of an indictment on NFL rules than pandering or fighting against the catch. It was like "with how stupid these rules are, and how confusing everything is, you know it has to be overturned right?"
Almost in a way that says "it's a catch, but you all know what's going to happen right?"
