Rozner: Volunteering some NFL official fiasco fixes

Up until Calvin Johnson Day, pretty much everyone knew what a catch was in the NFL.

Really, in any league. You knew a catch when you saw it. I knew what a catch was. We all knew what a catch was.

Then, Calvin Johnson happened.

On Sept. 12, 2010, more than 62,000 at Soldier Field saw Johnson's game-winning touchdown catch in the south end zone. The nearest official called it a touchdown, but with Johnson celebrating half a field away, the first official was overruled, even though Johnson had two hands on the ball and two feet on the ground, not to mention a butt cheek, a knee and a hand.

Nope, not a catch.

"I thought it was a touchdown," said Bears corner Zack Bowman. "It's a new rule, I guess. I didn't know the rule. I don't think any of us did."

Later that day, referee Gene Steratore explained.

"The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch," Steratore said. "We're talking now about the process of the catch."

It was foreign at the time, but now we understand the process.

Except, not so much.

You have Dez Bryant's football move that wasn't, Jon Anderson's interception that became a Golden Tate touchdown and Odell Beckham's touchdown that apparently wasn't fully processed.

"He must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process," Steratore said five years ago. "The process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch."

That was hundreds and hundreds of games ago, and the NFL has only made it worse. It's much more than a process now and the officials themselves don't seem to have a clue.

The networks all employ a retired official to explain the calls and predict the outcome of replays, and they are struggling as much as the rest of us.

Said a frustrated Mike Pereira on Fox last Sunday afternoon, "I don't know what to say anymore."

The truth is the NFL doesn't have to do anything to improve officiating, simplify the rules or improve the fan experience. Roger Goodell paid lip service to it last week, but the guess is he does not care and he doesn't have to.

Ratings are through the roof and growing by the week.

But if the NFL wanted to make watching games a little less aggravating, here are some relatively easy solutions:

• Instead of having a 60-year-old official run 75 yards to the sideline and watch a replay on a little screen under a hood, have an NFL official who knows the rules watching in a comfy New York war room on a big screen with all the different camera angles and replays available.

Let him decide whether the call was right, just as they do in MLB and in the NHL. It saves time. There's a better chance it will be right. And the official doesn't have to waste all that energy running around.

• In college football, when the booth sees the wrong call on the field, or thinks it might be wrong, they can buzz the officials on the field and let them know they're looking at it. Again, there's a better chance of getting it right, so why doesn't the NFL adopt the same policy?

• Expand replay to let coaches challenge penalties, including judgment calls like pass interference. The CFL did it and it has worked very well. Coaches may challenge a called pass interference or challenge that a PI was missed by the officials.

In the Grey Cup last Sunday night, a pass interference wasn't called late in the game. Edmonton challenged the missed call, it was reversed and instead of an incomplete pass, Edmonton was awarded the ball on the Ottawa 10-yard line and won the game in the final minutes.

• Make a catch look like a catch again. Make it simple. All snark aside, no one has a clue and it makes the game hard to watch and enjoy. You have to wait after every play to see what the officials will decide after they get together and flip a coin.

We understand Goodell doesn't care what anyone thinks about anything as long as he's pulling down $40 million a year and the owners are piling up profits.

But it's almost as if the NFL is trying to ruin the games and make us miserable. It's as if it's intentional.

These fixes, however, would not be difficult and it might even make the product better, in which case the NFL might even make more money.

So give us a break, huh?

brozner@dailyherald.com

• Hear Barry Rozner on WSCR 670-AM and follow him @BarryRozner on Twitter.