What is it about this statement?

This phrase "came to me" when I awoke from a dream (there’s a reason why, based on the dream, but it’s not relevant):

Not catching a ball is not a crime.

A rather simple sentence, and easy enough to understand. But it struck me as very unusual, in its way.

It seems awkward in its use of "double negatives." It seems simple, yet somehow complex in its own way; maybe I’m wrong – I’m not an expert in the technical aspects of English – , but I was under the impression that true complex sentences (in the literal sense) contain a comma.

Normally, statements that use a negative (often as a euphemism) are more concisely expressed as positive statements. For example, "it was not difficult" is more straightforward (and shorter) as "it was easy."

But how can the statement "not catching a ball is not a crime" be expressed in a more clear and concise way without using "not"? I, for one, cannot come up with one. "To catch a ball enhances civic order." Nah/yuck… and it’s not even really true.

So I’m confused about "what I’ve got here."

Is there a word or phrase that describes this type of statement, where "not [verb]ing a [noun] is not a [thing – specific subtype of noun]?