These “catch” replays are ridiculous

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I was really irritated at the overturning of the McKenzie catch. You see this every week. Replays slow down the action,

and then they unnaturally analyze these catches frame by frame and examine the millimeter movements of the ball.

 

Anyone with any common sense or who has played sports realizes that these are true catches. I feel like replay and the catch rules are ruining the game, and not rewarding players for some really terrific plays. 
 

I think the rule needs to be that if the receiver gets two feet down and has firm control of the ball, that’s it. All these minor movements of the ball or touching of the ball to the ground are irrelevant.
 

They don’t need to defy common sense to implement the current bright-line rule that isn’t really working now. 
 

 

[Ta111]

The problem with the McKenzie catch is that it was called incomplete on the field. Even though it looked like he had controlled the ball I understand them keeping it incomplete. If it had been called completed on the field it would have stayed that way.

[strive_for_five_guy]

Nothing was overturned.  It was called incomplete to begin with.

[peterpan]

A few years ago the eased the “going to the ground” BS and had fixed it.

 

idk if they re-broke it or what but they’ve gone back to this nonsense rule where a catch isnt again.

[Process]

I don't know. I think the rule is fine tbh. McKenzie made the catch harder than it had to be. And I'm more concerned about why we had two receivers on top of each other down the field.

[Rochesterfan]

6 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I was really irritated at the overturning of the McKenzie catch. You see this every week. Replays slow down the action,

and then they unnaturally analyze these catches frame by frame and examine the millimeter movements of the ball.

 

Anyone with any common sense or who has played sports realizes that these are true catches. I feel like replay and the catch rules are ruining the game, and not rewarding players for some really terrific plays. 
 

I think the rule needs to be that if the receiver gets two feet down and has firm control of the ball, that’s it. All these minor movements of the ball or touching of the ball to the ground are irrelevant.
 

They don’t need to defy common sense to implement the current bright-line rule that isn’t really working now. 
 

 

 

 

If you are going to complain - at least get it correct.  The review confirmed the call on the field of incomplete.

 

Nothing was overturned by review and when they slowed it down frame by frame - they confirmed that the ball moved in his hands meaning no catch.

 

This was at least a bit closer than the Poyer play, but they got the call correct in real time.

 

 

[KDIGGZ]

McKenzie not good at catching footballs but he can take a PI like a champ

[peterpan]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

If you are going to complain - at least get it correct.  The review confirmed the call on the field of incomplete.

 

Nothing was overturned by review and when they slowed it down frame by frame - they confirmed that the ball moved in his hands meaning no catch.

 

This was at least a bit closer than the Poyer play, but they got the call correct in real time.

 

 

Except he caught the ball, donut should have been a catch.  The NFL fixed this glitch a few years ago.  Did they undo that fix recently??  Or have the refs just reverted to the old makes-no-sense rulings?

[Beck Water]

17 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I was really irritated at the overturning of the McKenzie catch. You see this every week. Replays slow down the action,

and then they unnaturally analyze these catches frame by frame and examine the millimeter movements of the ball.

 

I share your frustration and your apparent belief that "c'mon, that was a catch" but, it wasn't overturned.

 

It was ruled incomplete on the field, I think by a ref who didn't see that McKenzie got a knee down before he went OOB. 

 

Then after that they got into microanalysis of hand placement and ball movement - ridiculous.

 

I think if it had been ruled a catch, it would not have been overturned - that "conclusive evidence" thing.

 

5 minutes ago, peterpan said:

Except he caught the ball, donut should have been a catch.  The NFL fixed this glitch a few years ago.  Did they undo that fix recently??  Or have the refs just reverted to the old makes-no-sense rulings?

 

The announcers keep talking as though they have.  Same deal on the Poyer interception that was ruled incomplete OOB because "the ball moved". 

 

Is it something about a catch OOB?  Because I thought like you did, that there was no longer supposed to be this minute "did the ball move even the teeny tinyest bit" microanalysis.

 

10 minutes ago, Process said:

I don't know. I think the rule is fine tbh. McKenzie made the catch harder than it had to be. And I'm more concerned about why we had two receivers on top of each other down the field.

 

That was a problem.  I need to look at the all-2, I think that was a route running error.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Beck Water

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

13 minutes ago, Ta111 said:

The problem with the McKenzie catch is that it was called incomplete on the field. Even though it looked like he had controlled the ball I understand them keeping it incomplete. If it had been called completed on the field it would have stayed that way.

 

12 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

Nothing was overturned.  It was called incomplete to begin with.

 

6 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

If you are going to complain - at least get it correct.  The review confirmed the call on the field of incomplete.

 

Nothing was overturned by review and when they slowed it down frame by frame - they confirmed that the ball moved in his hands meaning no catch.

 

This was at least a bit closer than the Poyer play, but they got the call correct in real time.

 

 

My mistake in the OP. Yes; It was called incomplete on the field. But that doesn’t matter. it is clear from how replay works, they no longer consistently apply the standard of “overturn only with irrefutable video evidence.” Just watch these replays on a regular basis and they are making calls basically based on what they see on the video regardless of the call on the field. I guarantee you they would have overturned that catch if it had been called complete on the field. 
 

in any event, my point is less with the decision and more with the rule of what we are looking for In a “catch.”

[Rochesterfan]

1 minute ago, peterpan said:

Except he caught the ball, donut should have been a catch.  The NFL fixed this glitch a few years ago.  Did they undo that fix recently??  Or have the refs just reverted to the old makes-no-sense rulings?

Nope - the rule has not changed in years.  The adjustment they made was the ball could contact the ground now as long as the player maintains control throughout.

 

Via the old rule that was 100% incomplete as the ball contacted the ground.

 

Via the change from several years ago - if McKenzie’s lower hand had stayed on the ball and not lost contact - that would have been a catch, but since he had control with that lower hand and then made contact with the ball and that hand lost control and his other hand came in - it is considered that he did not maintain control after contact.

 

You can tell how close it was by how the rule judge basically stated that you see the ball move and his one hand leave contact, but the other arm is there.  They most likely do not overturn it either way as the camera work is very difficult to tell where you have control.
 

 I think it is remarkable how much these Refs see and get right in real time that even slowed down is hard to identify without multiple angles.  People complain all the time about spotting of the ball and they show a replay and damn if they did not catch a knee hitting the ground just before stretching or where the ball went out of bounds.  It is amazing at live speed how really good these guys are.

 

 

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

My mistake in the OP. Yes; It was called incomplete on the field. But that doesn’t matter. it is clear from how replay works, they no longer consistently apply the standard of “overturn only with irrefutable video evidence.” Just watch these replays on a regular basis and they are making calls basically based on what they see on the video regardless of the call on the field. I guarantee you they would have overturned that catch if it had been called complete on the field. 

 

I disagree.  I think they do go with the "irrefutable evidence" standard.

 

3 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

in any event, my point is less with the decision and more with the rule of what we are looking for In a “catch.”

 

Yes, I agree.  They seem to be back to micro-analysing "did the ball move at all?" on those sideline catches.

[djp14150]

32 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I was really irritated at the overturning of the McKenzie catch. You see this every week. Replays slow down the action,

and then they unnaturally analyze these catches frame by frame and examine the millimeter movements of the ball.

 

Anyone with any common sense or who has played sports realizes that these are true catches. I feel like replay and the catch rules are ruining the game, and not rewarding players for some really terrific plays. 
 

I think the rule needs to be that if the receiver gets two feet down and has firm control of the ball, that’s it. All these minor movements of the ball or touching of the ball to the ground are irrelevant.
 

They don’t need to defy common sense to implement the current bright-line rule that isn’t really working now. 
 

 

it’s one of those plays that if it was ruled a catch, it stays a catch.i if it was ruled not thrn it stays thst way.

 

thr other question is….

 

what does secure the catch mean and how much movement is allowed with the ball.

[BuffaloRebound]

The problem with that play was the ref had no idea if McKenzie caught the ball and just ruled it incomplete because his view was blocked.  But that call set in motion the incomplete ruling standing after review.  In the NBA, refs go straight to the monitor if they can’t make a call on the court.  Don’t make call on the field if you have no idea.  

[WeckMonster]

Agree with OP’s macro point. Every week across the NFL there are incredible athletes making incredible catches.  The physics of a 200lb dude diving at full speed falling on a ball means the the ball’s gonna move a bit if you watch it in super slow-mo.

 

I think unless the ball is truly bobbled… ie is no longer in contact with the player… call it a catch.  That’s what you’d do in the backyard.

[AlfaBill]

1 hour ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I was really irritated at the overturning of the McKenzie catch. You see this every week. Replays slow down the action,

and then they unnaturally analyze these catches frame by frame and examine the millimeter movements of the ball.

 

Anyone with any common sense or who has played sports realizes that these are true catches. I feel like replay and the catch rules are ruining the game, and not rewarding players for some really terrific plays. 
 

I think the rule needs to be that if the receiver gets two feet down and has firm control of the ball, that’s it. All these minor movements of the ball or touching of the ball to the ground are irrelevant.
 

They don’t need to defy common sense to implement the current bright-line rule that isn’t really working now. 
 

 

It bothered because it should’ve been ruled a catch on the field. If it was reviewed not enough to overturn. The Bills seem to not get the benefit with these close ones. 

[RobbRiddicksTDLeap]

The problem continues to be that MacKenzie is unreliable, and is a liability on the field. Slow motion replays only highlight his deficiencies at making pressure plays. 

[Malazan]

1 hour ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I was really irritated at the overturning of the McKenzie catch. You see this every week. Replays slow down the action,

and then they unnaturally analyze these catches frame by frame and examine the millimeter movements of the ball.

 

Anyone with any common sense or who has played sports realizes that these are true catches. I feel like replay and the catch rules are ruining the game, and not rewarding players for some really terrific plays. 
 

I think the rule needs to be that if the receiver gets two feet down and has firm control of the ball, that’s it. All these minor movements of the ball or touching of the ball to the ground are irrelevant.
 

They don’t need to defy common sense to implement the current bright-line rule that isn’t really working now. 

 

The NFL rulebook is very complex. Complexity does not solve problems. You do not need to cover every possible situation because that means you have to apply that rule on every single play. 

[Xwnyer]

1 hour ago, Process said:

I don't know. I think the rule is fine tbh. McKenzie made the catch harder than it had to be. And I'm more concerned about why we had two receivers on top of each other down the field.

That happened multiple times

[gtw3]

I don't care how they officiate these plays, just please be consistent.  Play to play, week-by-week.   The inconsistency is what drives me crazy.

[T master]

1 hour ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I was really irritated at the overturning of the McKenzie catch. You see this every week. Replays slow down the action,

and then they unnaturally analyze these catches frame by frame and examine the millimeter movements of the ball.

 

Anyone with any common sense or who has played sports realizes that these are true catches. I feel like replay and the catch rules are ruining the game, and not rewarding players for some really terrific plays. 
 

I think the rule needs to be that if the receiver gets two feet down and has firm control of the ball, that’s it. All these minor movements of the ball or touching of the ball to the ground are irrelevant.
 

They don’t need to defy common sense to implement the current bright-line rule that isn’t really working now. 
 

 

 

The catch rules have been screwed up for a LONG time they are much more confusing than clear to many that watch the game . I can remember (but am not sure if it is still in use) a rule that states "the ground can not cause a fumble" yet if the ball moves while in your grasp that's not considered control ?????

 

But as we saw last night & many other times being football fans if the ball crosses the plain of the goal line & the player slams the ball on the ground after crossing the goal line and the ball comes out it's still a TD 🤔 so wouldn't or shouldn't you like the catch rule have to control the ball through the ground in order for this to be a TD ?????

 

Then there is the other part of this if you catch the ball and your elbow, knee, butt, hit the ground you are down at that point which is why when they look at replay to see on a first down run or a gaol line stand where the players knee went down to place the ball because he is in fact down the minute his knee hits yet after the "Runner" hits the ground if the ball comes lose it's still all good ????

 

I guess what ever fits the moment . But i'll never understand it and we will never get a common sense answer to it .