SF 49ers: 3 executive orders for NFL rule changes

Quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo #10 of the San Francisco 49ers talks to referee Craig Wrolstad #4 (Photo by Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images)
Quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo #10 of the San Francisco 49ers talks to referee Craig Wrolstad #4 (Photo by Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
3 of 4
Next
Lions receiver Calvin Johnson (Charles Rex Arbogast |AP Photo)
Lions receiver Calvin Johnson (Charles Rex Arbogast |AP Photo) /

No. 2: End-zone catch rule

Ah, yes! If you want to strike up a debate, try having a room full of sports fans agree on what constitutes a catch. Add the caveat that it happens in the end zone, and mayhem may very well ensue.

The most famous (or infamous) controversial call in the end zone may very well be the Detroit Lions’ Calvin Johnson’s catch versus the Chicago Bears in September of 2010. Johnson caught what appeared to be a game-winning touchdown against the Bears, only to have the referees say he did not complete the process of the catch, negating what most pundits and fans at that time would have considered a game-clinching grab.

But what many may have forgotten (myself included) was the true origins of the controversy of what constitutes a catch was actually the wide receiver Bert Emanuel catch/no catch back in 1999.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers and St. Louis Rams were in the midst of a 6-5 barnburner in the NFC Championship Game in St Louis. Late in the fourth quarter, the Rams scored to take the lead on a wide receiver Ricky Proehl touchdown.

The Bucs, led by quarterback Shaun King, were driving the ball with under a minute to play. On 2nd-and-23, King threw a pass to Emanuel that put the ball at the Rams’ 23 yard-line.

But before the Bucs could run another play, the referees took a moment to review it. After reviewing the play, they determined Emanuel had let the tip of the ball touch the ground although he never lost control or security of the ball.

The Rams held on and advanced to the Super Bowl, leaving a myriad of questions behind about what constitutes a catch in their wake.

And in instances of end-zone catches, the rule is even more complex.

The rule states “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.”

My executive order would be to simplify the rule with the player maintaining control of the ball with both feet in bounds or when he hits the ground. Once the player hits the ground, if he is not juggling the ball, it is a catch. The ground plays no part in a determining if it is a catch or not.

Sounds simple enough, right?