In Philadelphia, Super Bowl LVII will be remembered for a bad late-game penalty call that killed the Eagles’ chances. But there were two other important calls the referees got wrong that should push the NFL to change its rules, its processes, and, frankly, its philosophy.

Two Philadelphia Eagles catches were ruled noncatches after a replay. Both of them were called catches on the field. Both of these reversals materially affected the score. Both were the correct calls, given the NFL rules and what the officials saw on slow-motion replay.

THE DISAPPEARING TRANSIT RAIL BLUES

But on both plays, the Eagles receiver actually did catch the football. NFL rules on a catch, combined with the notes on that rule, add up to 350 words. Under those rules, neither DeVonta Smith in the first half nor Miles Sanders in the second half caught the ball.

But watch these plays. They were both catches in any normal understanding of the word.

and

The problem is not really that the NFL’s rules on a catch are wrong. The problem is that the NFL has made a philosophical error. Between slow-motion replays and detailed catch rules, the NFL is applying an inappropriate level of precision.

Aristotle, at the beginning of his great work on ethics, wrote, “Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions.”

A bit later, Aristotle wrote, “It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.”

The modern mind, being in love with itself and blind to its own natural and incurable inadequacies, believes that it can be perfectly precise in all aspects of life. NFL executives clearly believe that between technology and legalism, the league can correctly define a “catch.” Get enough camera angles, slow the replays down enough, and then write brilliant enough rules and interpretations of those rules, and you can truly and precisely determine what is and what isn’t a catch.

Yet we all know what a catch is without needing a definition. We’ve all known since we were children. There are gray areas and instances that will be disputed. The NFL wants to eliminate gray areas and solve all disputes with verbose legalism combined with slow-motion replays. But it can’t.

A catch is a catch, and the ambiguity on bobbled balls will always be there. The proper level of precision for discerning the truth of the claim “he caught the ball" inevitably includes some ambiguity.

If the NFL wants it, there’s room for instant-replay reviews on catches: Maybe the ball skipped off the turf, and the ref couldn’t tell because his line of sight was obstructed. Maybe the player got both feet in bounds, but the ref missed it.

But whether the player had possession of the ball is not something appropriately reviewed in slow motion, much less stop motion. Possession of the ball — again, something we basically know when we see it, even if it has no precise definition — is something that happens only over time. Holding something is, grammatically and philosophically, a progressive thing.

Fans and commentators are going to object that the NFL’s rules on a catch are wrong. The rules are wrong. If the NFL wants to get its rules right, it needs to stop trying to be so clever and so precise.

The NFL doesn’t need to hire better rule writers. NFL executives need to read their Aristotle.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER