The NFL’s relatively recent “catch rule” change is by far the most absurd rule in the league save for the following honorable mentions: targeting and roughing the passer. Following several controversial calls over the years leaving both teams and fans frustrated and confused as to what constitutes a catch or not, the rule change enables referees to make calls based on as objective a rule set as could be contrived by the NFL. The rule, defined here, primarily requires a player who secures control of the ball inbounds to now additionally “perfor[m] any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent)…”. Although the change has served its primary purpose of alleviating the confusion of athletes and coaches, it is wildly insulting to the intelligence of anyone who even remotely athletically inclined.
Anyone who has ever caught anything such as a pair of keys tossed to them over the hood of a car instinctively knows two things: when he has secured control of the item (the keys) and that he does not need to perform some type of act common to using the item (e.g., unlocking or starting the car). The split second it takes to reach for the keys and grasp them in such a way as to produce a subject/object relationship, i.e., he can do whatever he chooses with them, is enough to establish a “catch” as a catch has been understood since the creation of the concept. Not only are no other considerations for a catch necessary, but once something is caught (controlled) it cannot be “uncaught”—it can only be dropped (no longer controlled).
In football terms, securing control of the ball (the catch) is not an observable phenomenon. It happens when the receiving player knows he is capable of manipulating the ball any way he chooses. It happens in the blink of an eye without producing the external cues such as that required by the rule change. Furthermore, once the ball is caught in the split second it takes to do so, getting hit so hard that the player loses control means only that the player caught the ball then dropped the ball. Catching, then subsequently losing control of the ball does not negate that fact the ball was caught, regardless of the span of time between the catch and loss of control. For example, a player that catches the ball (hands outstretched with ball unmoving in his hands, not bobbling or moving around) and is hit a half second later so that he drops the ball has effectively caught the ball and fumbled it. However, this type of “bang bang” play is almost invariably ruled an incomplete pass, despite the fact the player technically caught the ball by reality’s standards.
The rule change not only ignores this immutable reality but seeks to redefine it, even forcing referees to forego exercise of the common-sense judgement they are paid to use. The rule change is the result of cowards who would rather abdicate rational thinking in favor of an arbitrary standard to escape the necessity of critically evaluating a given play and upholding its validity in the face of criticism. To do otherwise would take courage and intelligence, of which the NFL appears to lack. Furthermore, the rule change will not alter the feelings of any but the most stunted minds who are satisfied to adjust their beliefs of what a catch is to the whims of others rather than what their own experience tells them is true. Ironically, it also does nothing to ease disagreements of fans who will applaud or complain over the same call depending on whether it favors their preferred team.
From the from the standpoint of aiding the calling of a game with the least number of complaints, the rule is effective—as long as you don’t care about calling the game in accordance with reality, i.e., correctly
ความคิดเห็น