The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

bruschi

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

So in your opinion then the Steelers scored on that play.

by the current rules, no they didnt.

I dont agree with the current rules

bruschi

phatkev wrote: »

but if he caught the ball and fumbled it means he had to have possession of the ball at some stage. if he has possession of the football is he not technically a runner? and if he is a runner he should just have to break the plain

I'm arguing the point that some think simply crossing the plane should be enough to warrant the score. Under the current rules, it is not.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

bruschi wrote: »

I'm arguing the point that some think simply crossing the plane should be enough to warrant the score. Under the current rules, it is not.

My biggest gripe with the catch rules is the lack of consistancy on crossing the plane. Should be the same for both a catch and a running back. IE the ground can not cause an incompletion or a fumble.

adrian522

Moved posts on this topic from 2 different threads. Let's keep posts on this topic to this thread.

Hazys

I understand that overturning the call had a huge impact on the game and on the playoff seeding but that was one of the most clear cut applications of the rule. James' catch fails on the first part of the catch rule.

This is the rule:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

For me, the confusing part of the rule as it can be open to interpretation is part 2 and 3 but in this case, part 2 and 3 are irrelevant.

For part 2, its irrelevant to this case as he's nowhere near out of bounds and breaking the plane is irrelevant when its a catch. If James had caught the ball and let it hit the ground on the 20 yard line and not the goal line, it would have been still ruled a non catch.

For part 3, James clearly isn't on his feet to complete a football move although you can argue he's making a move to extend his arms to the goal line but you need to be on your feet for it to apply it to the rule. During the catch he is falling to the ground and he loses the ball in the eyes of the rule, extending his arms is irrelevant.

As i said parts 2 and 3 are open to interpretation which makes it confusing. There are more egregious calls for parts 2 and 3 to be fixed. For part 2, the interpretation comes down to when the player secures the ball and both feet or a body part are in-bounds. We've often seen guys juggle the ball and try and get two feet in bounds. In this scenario, the ref has to make a call as when the player has possession, before or after he steps out of bounds.

Part 3 the "Football Move", is very much open to interpretation. I was watching i think the Cardinals Seahawks game on TNF and the Cardinals WR caught the ball, ran for about 3 feet, the Seahawks player punches out the ball out and Seahawks recovered. The play was overturn on review as the Cardinals WR made a "Football Move" which in my opinion was garbage.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Sorry I cant agree with you that James catch fails on the "secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground"

He clearly had control of the ball and then second effort reached across the goal line to break the plane and score. If your saying he didn't have control in his hands I call bullsh1t on that. He clearly had control and then second effort reached across to break the plane.

Hazys

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Sorry I cant agree with you that James catch fails on the "secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground"

He clearly had control of the ball and then second effort reached across the goal line to break the plane and score. If your saying he didn't have control in his hands I call bullsh1t on that. He clearly had control and then second effort reached across to break the plane.

The second effort is not a "football move", the second effort is considered part of the catch so he loses the ball during the catch when it hits the ground.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Hazys wrote: »

The second effort is not a "football move", the second effort is considered part of the catch so he loses the ball during the catch when it hits the ground.

I disagree.

Regardless it doesnt really matter. In my opinion the rules should be the same with regard to a catch or a running play with regard to breaking the plane. If the ball is in the receiver's possession crossing the plane, which it clearly was in this case, its a td.

Podge_irl

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

My biggest gripe with the catch rules is the lack of consistancy on crossing the plane. Should be the same for both a catch and a running back. IE the ground can not cause an incompletion or a fumble.

There is no lack of consistency though. In both cases a TD is scored when the ball crosses the plane while the player has possession. In the receiving scenario it is simply judged that the player never gained possession of the ball. Claiming he "clearly" had possession is wildly misunderstanding what is defined as possession and in the case of receiving a pass it has never started the second the ball is in the receiver's hands.

You can argue about whether the definition of gaining possession should change - but you'll see a lot more catch and fumbles in open play under different criteria.

Hazys

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

I disagree.

Regardless it doesnt really matter. In my opinion the rules should be the same with regard to a catch or a running play with regard to breaking the plane. If the ball is in the receiver's possession crossing the plane, which it clearly was in this case, its a td.

Are you disagreeing with the application of the rule last night? If so, you are wrong as it was applied correctly.

If you are disagreeing with the rule itself and it needs to change? Fair enough.

Hazys

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is no lack of consistency though. In both cases a TD is scored when the ball crosses the plane while the player has possession. In the receiving scenario it is simply judged that the player never gained possession of the ball. Claiming he "clearly" had possession is wildly misunderstanding what is defined as possession and in the case of receiving a pass it has never started the second the ball is in the receiver's hands.

You can argue about whether the definition of gaining possession should change - but you'll see a lot more catch and fumbles in open play under different criteria.

I agree that the rule needs to be improved but its not going to be easy as what people are advocating for in this instance is the "football move" definition to extended to plays like last night where James is on his knees, falling and extending the football at the same time. That to me is adding even more interpretation to the rule and like you said we will see a lot more catch and fumbles as a result.

The rule needs to be overhauled but it won't be easy to come up with the "perfect" rule.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is no lack of consistency though. In both cases a TD is scored when the ball crosses the plane while the player has possession. In the receiving scenario it is simply judged that the player never gained possession of the ball. Claiming he "clearly" had possession is wildly misunderstanding what is defined as possession and in the case of receiving a pass it has never started the second the ball is in the receiver's hands.

You can argue about whether the definition of gaining possession should change - but you'll see a lot more catch and fumbles in open play under different criteria.

There is a clear lack of consistency.

If a runner extends the ball for a first down out the field and loses control because of the ground then it's a fumble. If he does the same thing in the end zone it's a dead ball as the ground cant cause a fumble in the end zone.

If the ground cant cause a fumble in the end zone for a running play then personally I believe it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion. The receiver has control when he extends through the plane like last night.

Their is an arguable case to be made that last night he made the catch then made a football move by extending his arms to break the plane and score the td. Therefore the ball hitting the ground was a fumble recovered by the receiver and the td counts.

Hazys

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Their is an arguable case to be made that last night he made the catch then made a football move by extending his arms to break the plane and score the td.

To make a "Football Move" you need to be on your feet, its not an arguable case.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Hazys wrote: »

To make a "Football Move" you need to be on your feet, its not an arguable case.

Incorrect actually as definied by the rules. He catches the ball , his knee is down the ball gets pulled in then extended out to break the plane.

Its arguable, regardless of how you would like to say its not.

j8wk2feszrnpao

When I saw the replay second time around, I knew they would revert the decision (based on previous calls).
As he comes to ground, his left elbow hits the ground, his left hand comes off the ball, and the ground is used to maintain possession. I thought it was one of the easier calls.

The commentary didn't help the situation, as they took a lot of replays (saying it was a TD) before they eventually caught on as to why they kept reviewing it.

It was a tough break for Pittsburgh, who they went and shot themselves in the foot. Crazy last few mins. Felt a bit for Pittsburgh cause they probably deserved to win the game.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

munstermagic11 wrote: »

When I saw the replay second time around, I knew they would revert the decision (based on previous calls).
As he comes to ground, his left elbow hits the ground, his left hand comes off the ball, and the ground is used to maintain possession. I thought it was one of the easier calls.

The commentary didn't help the situation, as they took a lot of replays (saying it was a TD) before they eventually caught on as to why they kept reviewing it.

It was a tough break for Pittsburgh, who they went and shot themselves in the foot. Crazy last few mins. Felt a bit for Pittsburgh cause they probably deserved to win the game.

Just for arguements sake. He catches the ball as his knee hits the ground he brings it in towards his body and in the second movement(arguably a football move he extends his arms out through the plane to score the td) at that point it doesnt matter about the ground. Just for arguments sake.

Without a doubt a crazy few mins, I doubt Pittsburgh will spend much time worrying about it , it's done and dusted. And if they have to face the Patriots again I doubt there will be any fear going up against that defence.

j8wk2feszrnpao

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Just for arguements sake. He catches the ball as his knee hits the ground he brings it in towards his body and in the second movement(arguably a football move he extends his arms out through the plane to score the td) at that point it doesnt matter about the ground. Just for arguments sake.

Without a doubt a crazy few mins, I doubt Pittsburgh will spend much time worrying about it , it's done and dusted. And if they have to face the Patriots again I doubt there will be any fear going up against that defence.

If he completed the catch as he went to ground, then extended out; it's a TD.
In this case, he extends as he goes to ground, left hand comes off the ball and uses the grounds to maintain possession. So incomplete.
It does kinda stink, but based on previous calls, this one was easy for the officials.

I don't think any team fears our D. Thing is, the Steelers has the ball for an extra 10mins, and still gave up 27pts. Not like their D were impressive either.

But it is a mental strike against Steelers. The way they gaffed it at the end was really poor.

coco0981

Don't think there is any doubt that they made the right call last night. Have to maintain control throughout the process

People are asking for the rule to be changed but no matter what they change it to there will be flaws.

Podge_irl

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

There is a clear lack of consistency.

If a runner extends the ball for a first down out the field and loses control because of the ground then it's a fumble. If he does the same thing in the end zone it's a dead ball as the ground cant cause a fumble in the end zone.

If the ground cant cause a fumble in the end zone for a running play then personally I believe it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion. The receiver has control when he extends through the plane like last night.

Their is an arguable case to be made that last night he made the catch then made a football move by extending his arms to break the plane and score the td. Therefore the ball hitting the ground was a fumble recovered by the receiver and the td counts.

There is nothing special about the ground in the end zone not being able to cause fumbles for a runner. The play is simply already over when the ball in their possession crosses the plane of the goal line. What happens afterwards is irrelevant.

In the case of the pass, the receiver doesn't have possession of the ball when it crosses the plane of the goal line. As soon as he has possession and the ball is across the plane of the goal line the play is over and the result is a TD

There is no inconsistency. Your issue is with the broader concept of when possession begins. A receiver having possession has never been defined as simply having the ball in his hands. As things stand the same rule applies on the goaline as in the open field. You are the one trying to bring in an inconsistency by changing that.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is nothing special about the ground in the end zone not being able to cause fumbles for a runner. The play is simply already over when the ball in their possession crosses the plane of the goal line. What happens afterwards is irrelevant.

In the case of the pass, the receiver doesn't have possession of the ball when it crosses the plane of the goal line. As soon as he has possession and the ball is across the plane of the goal line the play is over and the result is a TD

There is no inconsistency. Your issue is with the broader concept of when possession begins. A receiver having possession has never been defined as simply having the ball in his hands. As things stand the same rule applies on the goaline as in the open field. You are the one trying to bring in an inconsistency by changing that.

Your right its the possession part thats the problem here. How is what happened sunday night different to a running back diving for the endzone? The receiver caught the ball turned and extended to break the plane. Are you saying he didnt have possession? Because he clearly did. He didnt use the ground in the act of the catch and there are two clear motions where he catches pulls it in and then extends it out.

So the definition of a catch and possession here in this instance is what i have an issue with.

It'll be a tough one to get right regardless of what the NFL do. But the rule was changed after controversy over Bryant's catch and people can say what they want about that play but to me that was a catch , all day every day.

adrian522

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Your right its the possession part thats the problem here. How is what happened sunday night different to a running back diving for the endzone? The receiver caught the ball turned and extended to break the plane. Are you saying he didnt have possession? Because he clearly did. He didnt use the ground in the act of the catch and there are two clear motions where he catches pulls it in and then extends it out.

So the definition of a catch and possession here in this instance is what i have an issue with.

It'll be a tough one to get right regardless of what the NFL do. But the rule was changed after controversy over Bryant's catch and people can say what they want about that play but to me that was a catch , all day every day.

Imagine that had happened in the middle of the field somewhere, it still would have been ruled incomplete. He never completed the catch (by the NFL rules of what constitutes a catch).

I think the whole idea of a runner crossing the goal line isn't a valid comparison at all. If he'd caught the ball at 5 yard line, taken 2 steps then crossed the plain of the goal line it would have been a TD as he would then be classed as a runner.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

adrian522 wrote: »

Imagine that had happened in the middle of the field somewhere, it still would have been ruled incomplete. He never completed the catch (by the NFL rules of what constitutes a catch).

I think the whole idea of a runner crossing the goal line isn't a valid comparison at all. If he'd caught the ball at 5 yard line, taken 2 steps then crossed the plain of the goal line it would have been a TD as he would then be classed as a runner.

Thats your opinion and I'm fine with that. I simply disagree. I think the goal line changes everything, because in my opinion if it happens out the field he pulls that ball into his chest and makes the catch.

j8wk2feszrnpao

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

The receiver caught the ball turned

Having the ball in your hands does not complete the play.
If thrown deep into the end zone and you catch it, if you are knocked out of bounds before you get your feet down, then it's not completed.
If you catch the ball in the end zone, come down on one leg awkwardly which results in you dropping the ball before the second foot comes down, it's not a TD.

And he did use the ground before completing the play. He left hand came off the ball, and used the ground to keep possession.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Having the ball in your hands does not complete the play.
If thrown deep into the end zone and you catch it, if you are knocked out of bounds before you get your feet down, then it's not completed.
If you catch the ball in the end zone, come down on one leg awkwardly which results in you dropping the ball before the second foot comes down, it's not a TD.

And he did use the ground before completing the play. He left hand came off the ball, and used the ground to keep possession.

Just to be pedantic, I don't think the left hand ever comes completely off the ball but the ground caused the ball to move.

You must be a Patriots fan because this necessity for this to be the right call seems to be the only reason you are in this discussion.

There are several different types of catch in a game and I am talking about this one in particular where the receiver is catching the ball and then extending to break the plane. I'm only taking about that sort of instance. Where its a double move.

I think actually its not possession but the "football move" part that I have the problem with here. The receiver on Sunday night IMO clearly makes a football move by extending through the plane for the TD.

Podge_irl

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Thats your opinion and I'm fine with that. I simply disagree. I think the goal line changes everything, because in my opinion if it happens out the field he pulls that ball into his chest and makes the catch.

And if he stretched out for a first down the outcome would have been exactly the same - an incomplete pass. He didn't pull the ball into his chest, that is just a weird hypothetical path to be going down.

Are you saying he didnt have possession? Because he clearly did. He didnt use the ground in the act of the catch and there are two clear motions where he catches pulls it in and then extends it out.

Yes, I'm saying he didn't have possession. There are numerous examples of incomplete passes where the ball is caught and then dislodged from the receiver's hands before he has completed a football move. If you would rather they were all classed as fumbles then fine, we can change the rules. But that is basically what you are requiring.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Podge_irl wrote: »

And if he stretched out for a first down the outcome would have been exactly the same - an incomplete pass. He didn't pull the ball into his chest, that is just a weird hypothetical path to be going down.



Yes, I'm saying he didn't have possession. There are numerous examples of incomplete passes where the ball is caught and then dislodged from the receiver's hands before he has completed a football move. If you would rather they were all classed as fumbles then fine, we can change the rules. But that is basically what you are requiring.

IMO on Sunday night his extension to break the plane could be seen as a football move.

Therefore he completed the catch and the ball touching the ground is irrelevant as he broke the plane.

j8wk2feszrnpao

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Just to be pedantic, I don't think the left hand ever comes completely off the ball but the ground caused the ball to move.

You must be a Patriots fan because this necessity for this to be the right call seems to be the only reason you are in this discussion.

There are several different types of catch in a game and I am talking about this one in particular where the receiver is catching the ball and then extending to break the plane. I'm only taking about that sort of instance. Where its a double move.

I think actually its not possession but the "football move" part that I have the problem with here. The receiver on Sunday night IMO clearly makes a football move by extending through the plane for the TD.

Yes a Pats fan. Yes think it's the right call. Yes think Steelers were unlucky cause they deserved to win.

Everyone that disagrees with you on this must be a Pats fan?
Maybe you just have an issue with the Pats (Pat hater) for you to be in this discussion (using your logic)?

To keep it to this instance, he didn't complete the catch as per the rules. You may not like it, but they called the rule correctly (which is all I'm saying).

Podge_irl

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

IMO on Sunday night his extension to break the plane could be seen as a football move.

Therefore he completed the catch and the ball touching the ground is irrelevant as he broke the plane.

Fair enough.

The issue at hand here is that is that he was already going to ground when he caught the ball. Under those circumstances it is judged that the catch is not complete until the reaches the ground. If the catch is not complete until the reaches the ground then he doesn't have possession until he reaches the ground. Again though - I don't see what the goal line has to do with anything. That is the same rule that is applied up and down the field. The comparison to a runner is just not valid as they already have possession.

It just didn't look any different to me than incomplete passes you see up and down the NFL every week. If Joe Bloggs receiver catches the ball in midfield while in the air and then the ball bobbles as they go to ground should that be a catch?

boccy23

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

IMO on Sunday night his extension to break the plane could be seen as a football move.

Therefore he completed the catch and the ball touching the ground is irrelevant as he broke the plane.

But as Mike Perrera said yesterday, the ground trumps everything. Full stop. Doesn't matter where it is on the field.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Yes a Pats fan. Yes think it's the right call. Yes think Steelers were unlucky cause they deserved to win.

Everyone that disagrees with you on this must be a Pats fan?
Maybe you just have an issue with the Pats (Pat hater) for you to be in this discussion (using your logic)?

To keep it to this instance, he didn't complete the catch as per the rules. You may not like it, but they called the rule correctly (which is all I'm saying).

I dont like it and like I've said before I believe the extension is a football move. His knee being down makes him a runner and the extension being the football move.

They called the rule the way they saw it, which is fine. I don't have an issue with the referee's as you could interpret the play a number of different ways. As evidenced by the differing opinions on it.

If I was to be a Pats hater I would just go to the interception on the end and the clear pass interference that's missed by the officials.

Dez Bryant's catch a number of years ago IMO was a catch and likewise on Sunday night I thought that was a catch and an extension having looked at it a number of times over the last couple of days.

To be honest initially I was looking at it and said similar to yourself yeah that's going to be called an in-completion because the ball moved. But I've changed my opinion on looking at it again numerous times.

dfx-

Podge_irl wrote: »

Fair enough.

The issue at hand here is that is that he was already going to ground when he caught the ball. Under those circumstances it is judged that the catch is not complete until the reaches the ground. If the catch is not complete until the reaches the ground then he doesn't have possession until he reaches the ground. Again though - I don't see what the goal line has to do with anything. That is the same rule that is applied up and down the field. The comparison to a runner is just not valid as they already have possession.

It just didn't look any different to me than incomplete passes you see up and down the NFL every week. If Joe Bloggs receiver catches the ball in midfield while in the air and then the ball bobbles as they go to ground should that be a catch?

How I see it:

He catches the ball
Then his knee is down and the ball is in full control. Why isn't the catch complete at this point?
He pulls the ball in and then stretches out for the goal line (which must surely be a football move).
Then he fumbles it in the endzone and recovered by Steelers (James himself).

This isn't like going up for a contested aerial catch in the endzone for me.

Podge_irl

dfx- wrote: »

How I see it:

He catches the ball
Then his knee is down and the ball is in full control. Why isn't the catch complete at this point?

Because he was already going to ground when he caught it, not on his feet. If you are already going to ground when you catch the ball you have to complete the process of going to ground without losing control of the ball.

Hazys

For it to be a "Football Move" you need to be on your feet not on a single knee. I don't know why people keep trying to argue that James extending the ball is a "Football Move", it's not, it's considered part of the catch.

The call was the most clear cut application of the rule that we've seen in awhile. It's silly we are still arguing about it, i'm going to save my discussion on this for when there is a real ambiguous catch call, which will probably be next week.

raze_them_all_

Hazys wrote: »

For it to be a "Football Move" you need to be on your feet not on a single knee. I don't know why people keep trying to argue that James extending the ball is a "Football Move", it's not, it's considered part of the catch.

The call was the most clear cut application of the rule that we've seen in awhile. It's silly we are still arguing about it, i'm going to save my discussion on this for when there is a real ambiguous catch call, which will probably be next week.

one arse cheeck counts as two feet though

Hazys

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

one arse cheeck counts as two feet though

That was a clear cut TD too. I think the commentators acting like idiots and not knowing the rules sways people too much. I was watching that game and it was infuriating listening to the commentators harp on that there was no way that is a TD and then when the call was overturned, they acted like it, it was the greatest injustice in football.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Hazys wrote: »

For it to be a "Football Move" you need to be on your feet not on a single knee. I don't know why people keep trying to argue that James extending the ball is a "Football Move", it's not, it's considered part of the catch.

The call was the most clear cut application of the rule that we've seen in awhile. It's silly we are still arguing about it, i'm going to save my discussion on this for when there is a real ambiguous catch call, which will probably be next week.

You do not need to be on your feet for a football move. And this is part of the ambiguity of the move as described by dfx. His knee is down he brings the ball down and in. Obviously in control then turns and extends it out to break the plane. To say it's clear cut is being facitious IMO. As there has been nopthing but discussion about it all week.

Regardless though whats done is done. I'm sure there will be lots of debatable calls this weekend as well.

bruschi

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

You do not need to be on your feet for a football move. And this is part of the ambiguity of the move as described by dfx. His knee is down he brings the ball down and in. Obviously in control then turns and extends it out to break the plane. To say it's clear cut is being facitious IMO. As there has been nopthing but discussion about it all week.

Regardless though whats done is done. I'm sure there will be lots of debatable calls this weekend as well.

to be honest, the catch rule comes up every week I reckon, just not in as high profile or important time/game as what happened Sunday which amplifies it. This is the second time a catch/fumble rule has happened the Patriots this year. The previous one, IMO, was way worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8LjvHDGzBE

And I think the touch back rule on a fumble is a ridiculous rule too. Carr reaching for the pylon and then not only fumbling, but losing possession altogether is ridiculous. If you fumble over the sideline, you just get the ball from where you fumble, but you fumble into the endzone and you lose possession. Makes no sense.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

bruschi wrote: »

to be honest, the catch rule comes up every week I reckon, just not in as high profile or important time/game as what happened Sunday which amplifies it. This is the second time a catch/fumble rule has happened the Patriots this year. The previous one, IMO, was way worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8LjvHDGzBE

And I think the touch back rule on a fumble is a ridiculous rule too. Carr reaching for the pylon and then not only fumbling, but losing possession altogether is ridiculous. If you fumble over the sideline, you just get the ball from where you fumble, but you fumble into the endzone and you lose possession. Makes no sense.

Agree completely on the fumble at the pylon. I cant understand that one either. Makes no sense.

also that Jenkins TD call was ridiculous. Explain how that could even be overturned? Just makes ZERO sense

bruschi

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Agree completely on the fumble at the pylon. I cant understand that one either. Makes no sense.

also that Jenkins TD call was ridiculous. Explain how that could even be overturned? Just makes ZERO sense

Jenkins caught it and established the catch. He then as he was crossing the plane fumbled the ball a bit, it bobbled. So he did not have control of it going over the endline. When he regained control, he did so off the field of play so therefore it was ruled a touchback.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

bruschi wrote: »

Jenkins caught it and established the catch. He then as he was crossing the plane fumbled the ball a bit, it bobbled. So he did not have control of it going over the endline. When he regained control, he did so off the field of play so therefore it was ruled a touchback.

Again another one I disagree with. Looked on all the replays like he lost control or bobbled it for a second but had his hand back on it in control by the time he hit the ground and broke the plane. IMO.

But the rule that it's a touchback is ridiculous, IMO

bruschi

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Again another one I disagree with. Looked on all the replays like he lost control or bobbled it for a second but had his hand back on it in control by the time he hit the ground and broke the plane. IMO.

But the rule that it's a touchback is ridiculous, IMO

to be honest, the furore over the whole catch rule is one thing, but at least you keep the ball. Losing possession of the ball because its fumbled out makes little or no sense to me whatsoever and is a worse ruling and worse consequence than a no catch rule/call. At least the Steelers had more chances, the Jets and then on Sunday night the Raiders had the ball at the one and all of a sudden they hand it over because it was fumbled and recovered out of bounds.

TOss Sweep

Going to be a fun 2018 season

The new rules defining a catch include:

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
» A third step;
» Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
» Or the ability to perform such an act.

The key change to the rule eliminated the "going-to-the-ground" element of the previous rule.

BizzyC

It's definitely a step in the right direction.
The interesting thing to see going forward though will be how many plays that were previously defined as dropped passes now become fumbles by the WR....

bruschi

BizzyC wrote: »

It's definitely a step in the right direction.
The interesting thing to see going forward though will be how many plays that were previously defined as dropped passes now become fumbles by the WR....

absolutely.

also, how does it affect the "bobble" on sideline catches. Ones where a catch is made, 2 feet in bounds, but then the ball bobbles a bit and the old "didnt have full possession" rule. Is that still applicable? Same as if they catch it fall out of bounds and dont maintain it in full out of bounds but never lose possession of the ball. Is that now a catch?

BizzyC

bruschi wrote: »

BizzyC wrote: »

It's definitely a step in the right direction.
The interesting thing to see going forward though will be how many plays that were previously defined as dropped passes now become fumbles by the WR....

absolutely.

also, how does it affect the "bobble" on sideline catches. Ones where a catch is made, 2 feet in bounds, but then the ball bobbles a bit and the old "didnt have full possession" rule. Is that still applicable? Same as if they catch it fall out of bounds and dont maintain it in full out of bounds but never lose possession of the ball. Is that now a catch?

If they satisfy 1 & 2, but lose the ball going to ground in the catch without #3, then I still expect an incomplete.
If they can manage some sort of attempted football move and lose possession on the ground afterwards, then I'd now expect a catch.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

BizzyC wrote: »

If they satisfy 1 & 2, but lose the ball going to ground in the catch without #3, then I still expect an incomplete.
If they can manage some sort of attempted football move and lose possession on the ground afterwards, then I'd now expect a catch.

Is surviving the ground still a thing?

From those recommendations it's not clear. Surprise surprise.

Knex*

I never had an issue with the previous rule. I thought it was clear, and the main problem was around commentators and such not actually reading up on the specifics.

At first glance, this new rule is ambiguous and unhelpful.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Knex. wrote: »

I never had an issue with the previous rule. I thought it was clear, and the main problem was around commentators and such not actually reading up on the specifics.

At first glance, this new rule is ambiguous and unhelpful.

On first glance its not any more ambiguous than the previous rule IMO.

But as with everything we'll have to see how the referees interpret it.

TOss Sweep

For me it was inconsistency all round when it came to the previous rule.

The rule itself made sense but the inconsistency of the refs apply the rule caused certain commentators and certain fans to argue the rule badly and just plain wrong because they just didn't want to understand the rule. I think had the refs stuck to their guns and called it right from the get go there would never have been any debates on its

This change is going to lead to the same debates because there will still be controversial inconsistent calls by refs and the same people who wanted it changed will be the ones telling us how awful the catch rule is.