In the wake of the controversial Week 1 call involving Calvin Johnson and what many thought should have been a touchdown, a debate came about regarding what is and isn't a catch. It became clear that with the way the NFL rulebook presented the definition of a catch, there was a big gray area and much ambiguity. Many called for an immediate change to the rules, and at the very least the expectation was for something to be done about this matter in the offseason.
After debating internally about the situation, the NFL Competition Committee has apparently decided that no clarification of the rules is necessary. No change will be made to the rulebook as far as what is and isn't a catch is concerned, so there will not be a "Calvin Johnson rule" to talk about anytime a possible catch needs further examination. This is all by design, according to John Mara.
"That play will still be incomplete," said competition committee member John Mara, the Giants’ president and co-owner.
"If you read the rule, it’s not a catch," Mara said. "The reason it’s not a catch is you’ve got to control the ball when you hit the ground. It makes it easier to officiate. It’s a bright line that you can draw."
This is almost too funny. The whole reason there was controversy over the call is because there is no bright line. Nothing in the rules explicitly states how long control of the ball must be maintained for a catch to be made. If the rule was clear cut and not a problem, this wouldn't have been ruled a catch in the 2010 Super Bowl, and these kind of close calls wouldn't require such a large debate every time they happen. What fantasy world are the members of the Competition Committee living in? Wake up and realize your rules stink, fix them and then tell me that there is nothing wrong and maybe I'll believe you.