The NFL often reacts to controversial calls by changing the underlying rule. In response to one of the most controversial calls of the 2014 season, the NFL may be reacting by changing the underlying rule without actually changing the underlying rule.
During a Monday press conference, the Competition Committee explained in further detail some of the proposals on which the owners will be voting this week. For the rule that defines what a catch is and isn’t, the Competition Committee has proposed a change that isn’t.
“The committee doesn’t recommend a change to the rule, but looked at the language and tweaked the language in an attempt to make it clearer and easier to understand,” V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino said.
“For years the requirements for a catch -- the way it was communicated in the rule book is control, both feet and then after that the receiver had to have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game -- and that was defined as being able to pitch it, pass it, clearly advance the ball as a runner. I think as part of this discussion around this play it was that ‘act common to the game,’ football move, whatever you want to call it, that I think created some confusion. And so in an effort to clear that up the committee looked at the language and made several changes.
“So in order to complete a catch, the receiver has to have control, both feet on the ground and he has to have it after that long enough to clearly establish himself as a runner. And this would fall directly in line with our defenseless player rule where we say a receiver is protected until he can clearly establish himself as a runner. What does that mean? That means he has the ability to ward off, avoid, protect himself from the impending contact.”
So, basically, the NFL would be trading one subjective, vague, and murky standard for another.
“I don’t think there’s a difference,” Blandino said of the current rule and the proposed rule. “I think it’s an effort to just make it easier to understand. What gets lost in this rule is the time element and that requirement. That’s the subjective part and it’s hard to quantify that and so the rulebook has done it for years having it long enough to perform an act common to the game. Now what we’re saying is to having it long enough to clearly become a runner, to clearly be able to do something other than just attempting to secure possession of the football. So I don’t think the standard changes, but the way we’re communicating the standard has changed.”
That’s fine, but the standard will still be flawed as long as it relies on subjective interpretation of what a receiver can and can’t do. To eliminate all confusion, an objective standard must be adopted, like the one suggested by PFT on Friday.
It’s not surprising that the league feels compelled to do something in response to the Dez Bryant non-catch that would still be a non-catch under the proposed rule change, even though most of the fans who saw the play would look at it and say, “That there’s a catch.” So here’s where the owners, who for the most part have a mentality that aligns more closely with fans than those who make a living delving into the nuances, niceties, and technicalities of football rules have a chance to take charge of the game over which they preside and say, “None of this makes any sense. We need a simple, clear rule that everyone can understand, especially after they’ve consumed several cans of the official beer of the NFL.”
And then the owners can adopt the idea that PFT proposed on Friday night for the low cost of zero dollars and zero cents. They’ll definitely get their money’s worth.
