The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

TOss Sweep

Oh sh1t brace yourselves **** NFL rule on its way?

phatkev

such a stupid rule

Say Your Number

Your head would melt trying to figure out whats a catch and what's not.

Mental finish.

TOss Sweep

I feel for the Steelers but the rules are the rules and as bullsh1t as it is completed catches at times that ball moved and the rule is the rule. But what a game both teams had opportunities to put this game away.

raze_them_all_

Can someone explain to me how the packers catch was a fumble and how that wasn't a fumble recovery at the least

phatkev

EagererBeaver wrote: »

That was an absolutely bull**** call.

Its a bull**** rule, not a bull**** call unfortunately

99 Bortles of Beer

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Except no it's not the rules . It's ****. One rule for everyone else. One rule for pats

I think that's very harsh. That "catch" rule has benefitted plenty of teams over the past few years, not just the Patriots. This week it's the Pats and it just happens to be the biggest game of the season. It'll be someone else next week and someone else the week after.

EagererBeaver

I understand the rule and agree with it being bull****. My problem is that I disagree he lost control of it. The ball moving is not a sign of lossy of control ffs. His right hand was on it and didn't move throughout the whole process of the catch.

Anyway, the final play - what was the actual play call? A spike our a fake one? Looked to me like the call might have been to spike but Ben pushed it and went for the fake.

madalig12

So, that catch thing....yeah it happened again...

Mysterypunter

What a stupid rule. I watched it live, the receiver caught it and was going to ground, was not touched, and moved the ball into the end zone. How could he do that if he had not possessed the ball? It was either a catch down at the 1, or a catch, fumble and recovery in the end zone. He was not touched so can advance. He could not have made a second movement if he was not in control of the ball. It looked to me like a wrong call

TOss Sweep

Mysterypunter wrote: »

What a stupid rule. I watched it live, the receiver caught it and was going to ground, was not touched, and moved the ball into the end zone. How could he do that if he had not possessed the ball? It was either a catch down at the 1, or a catch, fumble and recovery in the end zone. He was not touched so can advance. He could not have made a second movement if he was not in control of the ball. It looked to me like a wrong call

Your scenario works great if it was a completed catch in the first place. As a WR you have to establish possession which he did not as per NFL rules. That is the problem here.

You say he moved it into the endzone but at that point the ball hit the ground and bobbled making it an incomplete catch as per the rule.

Dean Blandino‏Verified account @DeanBlandino 3h3 hours ago

Just in case you can't see the twiiter post Blandinos take on it:

That’s the rule and it’s a bright line. If you are going to the ground to make the catch you have to hold onto the ball when you land. He isn’t a runner until he completes the catch so goal line is not a factor. It’s an incomplete pass.

Hazys

What i think doesn't help is the commentators have no clue what the rule is and the joke about it to ham it up more that they are the common man and they don't have a clue.

As i write this the Cowboys just challenged a Raiders catch at the start of the 4th quarter. It was also a catch and rightly ruled that but Chris Collinsworth and Al Michaels are acting like this catch thing is a complete enigma and they are hilarious for having no clue what the rule is. Jesus shut up you clowns. It was the same during the Panthers Packers game, that TD was clearly a catch to me but the commentators we acting like it was the biggest injustice in the history of the sport.

At least during the Steelers Pats game, Tony Romo half heartily said it might not be a catch but still watching the replay, if you know the rule its clearly not a catch, its just frustrating that the commentators wont just commit to it and it drives the controversy. Disagree with the rule if you wish as its not the clearest rule but in the Steelers Pats instance it was an obvious overturn and correctly called.

Knex*

madalig12 wrote: »

So, that catch thing....yeah it happened again...

I thought this one was the right call tbh. Ball very clearly wobbled and control was not maintained, imo.

Was more surprised that it took Nantz and Romo so long to realise that's what the officials were looking at.

brinty

Knex. wrote: »

I thought this one was the right call tbh. Ball very clearly wobbled and control was not maintained, imo.

Was more surprised that it took Nantz and Romo so long to realise that's what the officials were looking at.

Have to agree his hands slipped visibly

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

While it may have been called correctly the rule is still ****. Personally I think once the ball breaks the plane in possession it should be a touchdown, dont know why there is a difference with catching and running the ball in. Once it breaks the plane in possession that should be that.

Regardless though the Steelers lost this one themselves. Tomlin was poor and some of the Steelers decisions were unbelievably bad including not giving the ball to Bell in the last three minutes. He's your workhorse and get it done with him, he's averaging over 4 a carry let him get that 10 yards and the first down. Steelers no one to blame but themselves.

phatkev

madalig12 wrote: »

So, that catch thing....yeah it happened again...

and will continue to happen until something is done about the rules!

boccy23

phatkev wrote: »

and will continue to happen until something is done about the rules!

But it clearly wasn't a catch IMO.
I have been flabbergasted by other decisions this year, but not that one.
Ball clearly moved when he hit the ground.

DB74

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

While it may have been called correctly the rule is still ****. Personally I think once the ball breaks the plane in possession it should be a touchdown, dont know why there is a difference with catching and running the ball in. Once it breaks the plane in possession that should be that.

But under the rule he never established possession because the ball moved when it hit the ground. That's why it is ruled an incomplete pass.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

DB74 wrote: »

But under the rule he never established possession because the ball moved when it hit the ground. That's why it is ruled an incomplete pass.

But what .. i didn't say anything about the call. I said I dont agree with the rule.

You catch it and reach for the endzone if you break the plane and the balls in your possession, which it clearly was , it's a touchdown. Same as a Quarterback or running back diving with it to the endzone and it getting knocked out by the ground.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

DB74

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

But what .. i didn't say anything about the call. I said I dont agree with the rule.

You catch it and reach for the endzone if you break the plane and the balls in your possession, which it clearly was , it's a touchdown. Same as a Quarterback or running back diving with it to the endzone and it getting knocked out by the ground.

It's completely different. A QB or RB (or WR for that matter) running into the endzone is totally different from trying to catch the ball to establish possession in the first place

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let me just be clear here, I'm not saying the call last night was incorrect.

What I am saying is IMO once the receiver catches the ball and breaks the plane it should be a td. The ground in this instance made it bobble, nothing else.

DB74

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

He had possession. Made the catch and dived for the endzone, the ground made it bobble nothing else.

Well how do you define possession then?

EDIT - as in how WOULD YOU define possession then?

phatkev

He did have possession though, he didnt lose possession until after he crossed the plain. how else could he have reached out for the endzone if he didnt have possession

DB74

phatkev wrote: »

He did have possession though, he didnt lose possession until after he crossed the plain. how else could he have reached out for the endzone if he didnt have possession

Forward momentum

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

DB74 wrote: »

Well how do you define possession then?

EDIT - as in how WOULD YOU define possession then?

Yep I stated from the start that IMO once he breaks the plane with the ball in possession it should be a td.

He made the catch last night and lost the ball when it hit the ground while reaching out to break the plane. There is no doubt. He wasnt bobbling it as he reached out. It was 100% in his control. Hence the reason , IMO , the rule is ****.

DB74

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Yep I stated from the start that IMO once he breaks the plane with the ball in possession it should be a td.

He made the catch last night and lost the ball when it hit the ground while reaching out to break the plane. There is no doubt. He wasnt bobbling it as he reached out. It was 100% in his control. Hence the reason , IMO , the rule is ****.

But the decision here was not about breaking the plane, it was about whether he had made the catch and established possession before breaking the plane or whether he had not yet established possession while going to the ground.

IMO the rule itself is fine, the problem here lies with defining whether the player has possession or not but you're always going to have judgement calls like that no matter how the rule is phrased

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

DB74

Also if you tweak the possession rule again to mean that there are more completions then we will have many more fumbles

ArmaniJeanss

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Yep I stated from the start that IMO once he breaks the plane with the ball in possession it should be a td.

He made the catch last night and lost the ball when it hit the ground while reaching out to break the plane. There is no doubt. He wasnt bobbling it as he reached out. It was 100% in his control. Hence the reason , IMO , the rule is ****.

If the rules called that a touchdown catch then wouldn't you also have to rule it a catch anywhere else on the field. This would lead to loads of current incomplete passes being ruled as catches & fumbles.

So the rule is actually maintaining consistency.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

DB74 wrote: »

But the decision here was not about breaking the plane, it was about whether he had made the catch and established possession before breaking the plane or whether he had not yet established possession while going to the ground.

IMO the rule itself is fine, the problem here lies with defining whether the player has possession or not but you're always going to have judgement calls like that no matter how the rule is phrased

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

I didnt say it was. I said the incident last night was ruled correctly but I personally think it's a **** rule. If you are a runner or qb and you extend the ball over the plane its a td should be the same in the catch. Clearly last night he had possession and broke the plane. IMO the rules need to be tweaked to make that a TD.

MrKingsley

Its the rule that needs to change I think.

Let's say that he is touched by a defender before he reaches then he is down by contact and the catch would stand yeah?

It was said in a post at the top of this page about the difference between runners and receivers when crossing the plane. I think the second the ball does that it should be a TD