Maybe we've all been focusing on the wrong thing this whole time when it comes to the current version of the NFL's catch rule.

Instead of discussing what is or isn't a catch, a clearly fruitless discussion that at this point appears to have no end in sight, maybe we should talk about what is or isn't a rule.

A "rule," by Oxford Dictionary definition, is "a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere."

That may be the problem with the NFL's catch rule. It's not explicit (defined as "stated clearly and in detail with no room for confusion and doubt") and it most certainly isn't understood, not even by experts in the field. Even the league's officials don't really seem to be sure what is or isn't a catch at times.

According to the NFL's current standard, the language for which got adjusted again this offseason thanks to Dez Bryant, for a receiver 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."

Therein lies the problem. Or at least the first one. "Long enough to clearly establish himself as a runner" is ambiguous, arbitrary and open to interpretation -- and thus not a rule. Forget the catch part, these aren't even real rules.


Continue reading ... 

Ross Tucker wrote: