ORLANDO – Just when the NFL finally got it right in clarifying what constitutes a catch, here comes another rule that is seemingly poised to ignite passionate debate.

Did that player intentionally lower his head? Was that contact unavoidable because it was a moving target? Was that helmet-to-helmet collision in the trenches initiated by the runner or the tackler? Run back that replay, please.

Outlawing the helmet as a weapon and the technique of using it by lowering the head is a noble and progressive idea in this era of heightened awareness of the long-term risks of concussions and well, risks associated with deep pocket liability.


Yet as the initial dismay from players and other observers suggests, administering this game changer of a rule in the name of safety promises to be more of a gray area when the full-speed games begin than it might have appeared when owners passed it without the typical public airing.

“Players haven’t had the chance to hear the discussions that we’ve had,”

Commissioner Roger Goodell explained Wednesday as the league’s annual meetings wrapped up.

He acknowledges more work needs to be done on the well-intentioned rule.

The league will move to make the helmet rule the first penalty to fall under the umbrella of allowable instant replay reviews. Standards need to be established to determine which infractions are 15-yard penalties and which warrant ejections, fines and suspension.

And yes, the players will need to be educated. Goodell said league officials will engage on a campaign that includes  visits to all 32 teams over the next 90 days. Maybe that’s why the competition committee didn’t table the issue until it was ready to address the other work needing to be done on the rule.

This all brings to mind what one head coach told me last week about how to measure whether a ruling passes muster: Will 50 drunks in a bar agree? We should have known that the newly christened “Dez Bryant Rule” would not squash controversy in the NFL on its own. Clarity is a moving target.

No, as hard as Goodell might try, confusion reigns — or rains hard — in the NFL, on and off the field.

Owners came and went last week without revising or reiterating policy on protests during the national anthem, carried out overwhelmingly by African- American players. The owners, who are supporting social initiatives by a coalition of players, engaged in “healthy discussion” about the protests.

Yet Colin Kaepernick still doesn’t have a job, and neither does safety Eric Reid, the former 49ers safety who took a knee alongside the quarterback. When Goodell dismisses that as the result of “the 32 teams make their individual decisions on players,” as he did Wednesday, he is refusing to acknowledge a fundamental perception, instead opting for what sounds like a prepared statement to withstand the type of collusion case that Kaepernick is pursuing against the league.

Meanwhile, the position of some  owners categorizing peaceful protests as unfit political statements for the NFL stage rings hollow when juxtaposed against the manner in which the league wraps itself in the flag.

And they shouldn’t forget: Fans, and viewers, come in all shapes, sizes and colors.

Then there’s the matter of Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, under investigation by the league for alleged workplace violations that are sexual and racial in nature … while he stands to sell the franchise for a record price expected to exceed $2 billion.

Goodell declared Wednesday that the findings of the Richardson investigation will be made public after the inquiry’s conclusion. We’ll see whether NFL lawyers dictate otherwise. Yet transparency might go far in bolstering the credibility of a league that has surely written the policies on matters of workplace ethics, gender sensitivity and racial equality but hasn’t always had clarity with its actions.

Take the Rooney Rule and how it was applied in the Raiders’ hiring of Jon Gruden.

The Raiders seemingly violated the rule by interviewing the minority candidates after team owner Mark Davis reached an agreement for Gruden to return, yet the league’s investigation found no violation.

Call it another layer of confusion that the rule wasn’t enforced.

The same is even suggested of the “old” catch rule, as NFL officiating director Al Riveron on Wednesday combated the notion that the “new” catch rule was effectively already in use during Super Bowl LII. The Eagles touchdowns by Corey Clement and Zach Ertz looked a lot like catches previously bound to be overturned on instant replay review.

Here’s to residual fuzziness. Riveron acknowledged there was slight movement of the football on the catches, “but not clear, indisputable evidence.”

That’s the NFL as we know it. Hardly anything is clear and indisputable.