It was January 1st, 2015, and all eyes were on the NFL divisional matchup between the Cowboys and Packers. An instant classic, this game had Lambeau Field filled to max capacity as Tony Romo lined up in the shotgun on fourth and two, down by five with five minutes left in the fourth.
The NFL world’s collective jaw dropped to the floor as Dez Bryant, in vintage Dez form, elevated over Packers’ defender Sam Shields and snatched the football out of the air in a seemingly supernatural act of athleticism. After planting two feet on the ground with the ball securely in his grasp, Dez lunged for the goal line, the ball squirming loose on impact with the ground before he corralled it again in the endzone. What an incredible play; it would surely go down in the annals of NFL history as one of the greatest playoff catches ever. But it didn’t. On challenge, the play was overturned and stunned football viewers around the country were told that Dez didn’t maintain possession as he went to the ground, so it was an incomplete pass and a turnover. So, did Dez catch the ball? Let’s take a look at the rule:
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3. Ah, the ever-popular catch rule. A fan-favorite, one might say. No, but really: this rule sucks, and it’s time for a change.
Let’s start with the fact that it takes the NFL 649 words to explain exactly what a catch is. 649 words is approximately an entire page of single-spaced, 12 point, Times New Roman font. An entire page, filled to the margins.
I have two major problems with the current catch rule, the first of which being the treatment of players falling to the ground. In writing, this rule is fairly clear: if a player doesn’t “survive the ground” when he falls down (after getting two feet in bounds), the play is blown dead and the ball is incomplete. So, what constitutes surviving the ground? According to the rulebook, it’s “maintain[ing] complete and continuous control” throughout the collision with the ground, which seems simple enough, right? No, the NFL wanted to complicate things further by adding the caveat that “If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession,” so now the referee has to determine what constitutes “slight” ball movement--we saw how that went with the Corey Clement SB LII touchdown, and half of the football world was up in arms (okay, probably less than half because it was against the Patriots, but you get the point).
So, while the definition of “loss of possession” is a fairly clear aspect of the catch rule, it still causes significant controversy in the NFL world. But my major issue isn’t with the clarity of the rule; it’s with the fact that the NFL requires you maintain control to the ground after the ball has already clearly been caught. Once you have the ball securely in your hands and get two feet inbounds, you have made a catch. Anything after that should be separated from the process of the catch. Let’s remember that from 1938 to 1982 (for more than four decades), the NFL had no such requirement on catches. That’s the way it’s been in the past, and that’s the way it should be now. Historical precedent, undue pressure on referees to make subjective decisions, and a misunderstanding of what it means to catch a football all demonstrate that the “surviving the ground” clause of the catch rule should be eliminated.
My second issue with the current catch rule is the ambiguity of “becoming a runner.” If a player becomes a runner, he no longer has to maintain control as he falls to the ground, whether that be in or out of bounds. Let me preface this portion by saying that I believe that the Zach Ertz touchdown in the Super Bowl was clearly a catch as Ertz took three steps after securing the ball and then proceeded to lose control of the ball as he lunged for the goal line. On the other hand, Brandin Cooks’s little hopping maneuver against the Texans was deemed sufficient to turn Cooks into a runner, as the ball was clearly jarred loose when he hit the grass. I’m not so sure about that one, but let’s take a closer look at the text.
When a player gets control of the football and places two feet in bounds, everything after that should be considered separate from the catch.
Article 3 states that “a player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.” Once again, officials are left to determine whether or not players are “capable” of doing a plethora of actions that have subjectively been determined to turn a football receiver into a runner. These actions (defending oneself from contact, protecting the ball, turning up field, and taking steps) are all arbitrary and in no way related to securing a catch. And yet, the catch rule requires receivers to demonstrate that they are capable of doing such things to complete a reception. Was the “becoming a runner” standard properly applied to the Dez Bryant drop in the 2014 NFC Championship Game? Were the referees correct to say that Jesse James didn’t “become a runner” by lunging for the goal line when the Steelers played the Patriots in Week 16? One could certainly argue that lunging for a touchdown shows the “capability” of meeting the specific requirements, but it’s a subjective inquiry left up to the referees. Furthermore, as I’ve stated several times before, even if you believe that it’s okay for the rule to be subjective, how can you attest that catching a football requires more than controlling the ball with two feet in bounds? You can’t, because that’s not what catching a football means.
When a player gets control of the football and places two feet in bounds, everything after that should be considered separate from the catch. No, he doesn’t need to show that he has “become a runner” or that he controlled the ball through the “process of the catch” as he tumbled to the turf.
It’s time to simplify things. Let’s stop blaming the officials for doing their best to enforce a crappy rule, and let’s make the catch rule truly about the catch instead of all the garbage that happens after Odell Beckham goes up and makes an absurd grab. As I wrap up this article, I feel as though I’ve just had to analyze the catch rule in the way that a legal scholar scrutinizes the text of the Constitution--it wouldn’t be this complicated if they’d just change the damn rule. If you have control of the football and two feet inbounds, congratulations, you have yourself a reception. Oh, and by the way--Dez caught it.
(GIF via SB Nation and photo courtesy of PennLive.com)
Comments