The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

TOss Sweep · 18-12-2017 12:16am #1

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

phatkev · 18-12-2017 12:17am

such a stupid rule

Say Your Number · 18-12-2017 12:20am

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

Mental finish.

TOss Sweep · 18-12-2017 12:20am

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_ · 18-12-2017 12:22am

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

phatkev · 18-12-2017 12:22am

EagererBeaver wrote: »

That was an absolutely bull**** call.

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

99 Bortles of Beer · 18-12-2017 12:28am

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 · 18-12-2017 12:34am

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 · 18-12-2017 1:45am

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

Mysterypunter · 18-12-2017 3:00am

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 · 18-12-2017 3:48am

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 · 18-12-2017 4:05am

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* · 18-12-2017 9:59am

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 · 18-12-2017 10:03am

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 · 18-12-2017 11:25am

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 · 18-12-2017 11:47am

madalig12 wrote: »

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

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

boccy23 · 18-12-2017 11:51am

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 · 18-12-2017 11:54am

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 · 18-12-2017 12:00pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:01pm

This post has been deleted.

DB74 · 18-12-2017 12:03pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:04pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:05pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:05pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:08pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:09pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:16pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:18pm

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

ArmaniJeanss · 18-12-2017 12:18pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:23pm

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 · 18-12-2017 12:23pm

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

Christy42 · 18-12-2017 12:23pm

boccy23 wrote: »

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.

I think the point is that the rule is terrible. He caught the ball and it had a slight bobble after it was in the end zone and as he hit the ground. Go ask a random person if that ball was caught and they will say yes. He had control of the ball going into the endzone and the ball did not bobble a lot given he had just fallen into the ground.

phatkev · 18-12-2017 12:24pm

MrKingsley wrote: »

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

exactly, the call last night was correct, its the rule thats bo11ocks

bruschi · 18-12-2017 12:32pm

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

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.

if that happened out the field, and his over stretching was to get a first down for example, would you say that he maintained possession all the way through to get the first down or would you say it was incomplete because as he stretched he bobbled it and needed the ground to maintain possession?

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 18-12-2017 12:35pm

bruschi wrote: »

if that happened out the field, and his over stretching was to get a first down for example, would you say that he maintained possession all the way through to get the first down or would you say it was incomplete because as he stretched he bobbled it and needed the ground to maintain possession?

And if a running back stretches out for the first down and it hits the ground and comes out is that a fumble? Because it isnt in the end zone.

boccy23 · 18-12-2017 12:44pm

Christy42 wrote: »

I think the point is that the rule is terrible. He caught the ball and it had a slight bobble after it was in the end zone and as he hit the ground. Go ask a random person if that ball was caught and they will say yes. He had control of the ball going into the endzone and the ball did not bobble a lot given he had just fallen into the ground.

Don't agree. I think he dropped the ball and thus never had clear possession. But hey, that's just me. (oh yeah and the refs!)

bruschi · 18-12-2017 12:44pm

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

And if a running back stretches out for the first down and it hits the ground and comes out is that a fumble? Because it isnt in the end zone.

you keep saying running back. you are using 2 different sets of criteria. The running back is handed the ball, there is no catch. if he drops it at any stage from the hand off, its a fumble, even if he never has secure possession of the ball. A throw is not the same as a hand off.

the question I posed is to do with a receiver catching the ball from a throw by the QB. would you call it a fumble recovered or that he never had possession?

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 18-12-2017 12:51pm

bruschi wrote: »

you keep saying running back. you are using 2 different sets of criteria. The running back is handed the ball, there is no catch. if he drops it at any stage from the hand off, its a fumble, even if he never has secure possession of the ball. A throw is not the same as a hand off.

the question I posed is to do with a receiver catching the ball from a throw by the QB. would you call it a fumble recovered or that he never had possession?

Maybe your missing what I am saying. I said clearly that the call on Sunday night was correct, but IMO its a **** rule.

The reason I am saying running back is that for a running back once he breaks the plane the ground cannot cause a fumble. However for a WR the ground can cause an incompletion despite him breaking the plane with possession.

Clearly on Sunday the receiver had possession , broke the plane and then the ball moved when coming in contact with the ground. But he clearly had possession and broke the plane with the ball.

The rule is **** and needs to be made consistant for both.

Out the field the ground can cause a fumble for a running back so why can it not in the endzone.

bruschi · 18-12-2017 12:59pm

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Maybe your missing what I am saying. I said clearly that the call on Sunday night was correct, but IMO its a **** rule.

The reason I am saying running back is that for a running back once he breaks the plane the ground cannot cause a fumble. However for a WR the ground can cause an incompletion despite him breaking the plane with possession.

Clearly on Sunday the receiver had possession , broke the plane and then the ball moved when coming in contact with the ground. But he clearly had possession and broke the plane with the ball.

The rule is **** and needs to be made consistant for both.

Out the field the ground can cause a fumble for a running back so why can it not in the endzone.

I dont disagree it is a **** rule. So in the example I said above, would you rule that he fumbled the ball?

bringing the RB situation into it is not an apt comparison though. The ball is not in play for a receiver until the catch is made. The ball is always in play for a back once it is handed off. so once it crosses the plan of the goaline, it is ruled dead. You cant say it is ruled dead once it crosses the plan of a goal line for a catch until the catch is actually made and it becomes in play again. They are 2 very separate things and should be left separate.

If the rule needs to be changed, it needs to focus on the definition of a catch, not about discussions over running backs.

MrKingsley · 18-12-2017 1:00pm

I remember seeing one of the current or ex officials talking about how the ball is allowed to move when it hits the ground as long as control is maintained. It seems that there is too much room for interpretation for me personally

helimachoptor · 18-12-2017 1:02pm

Maybe i'm being too simplistic, but wasnt his knee down before he got the ball over the plane?

why all the furore over ball control?

OldMrBrennan83 · 18-12-2017 1:03pm

This post has been deleted.

DB74 · 18-12-2017 1:04pm

helimachoptor wrote: »

Maybe i'm being too simplistic, but wasnt his knee down before he got the ball over the plane?

why all the furore over ball control?

He wasn't touched at that stage

helimachoptor · 18-12-2017 1:04pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

ah cheers, I have only been watching the stuff thats complaining about the non- TD.

phatkev · 18-12-2017 1:17pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and had he been touched it would have been a completed catch

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 18-12-2017 1:23pm

bruschi wrote: »

I dont disagree it is a **** rule. So in the example I said above, would you rule that he fumbled the ball?

bringing the RB situation into it is not an apt comparison though. The ball is not in play for a receiver until the catch is made. The ball is always in play for a back once it is handed off. so once it crosses the plan of the goaline, it is ruled dead. You cant say it is ruled dead once it crosses the plan of a goal line for a catch until the catch is actually made and it becomes in play again. They are 2 very separate things and should be left separate.

If the rule needs to be changed, it needs to focus on the definition of a catch, not about discussions over running backs.

Yep its a **** rule I agree.

MrKingsley · 18-12-2017 1:37pm

phatkev wrote: »

and had he been touched it would have been a completed catch

Thats the bit that I really dont get and why I believe there is definitely scope to change the rule

bruschi · 18-12-2017 1:49pm

helimachoptor wrote: »

Maybe i'm being too simplistic, but wasnt his knee down before he got the ball over the plane?

why all the furore over ball control?

having a knee down also doesnt make a catch complete. you could be lying on the flat on your back catching the ball, but if you dont hold onto it it matters little as to where your body is.

unless they change to rule to say so. his knee was hitting the ground as he made his catch. so he didnt take any steps with the ball or anything, which is quite often the criteria for a successful catch.

to me, that rule there should have been a catch and fumble. not that he placed it over the goal line, but that it fumbled. Outstretching your arms to me is a football move as they like to call it. But crossing the plane isnt an automatic TD for a throw and catch.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 18-12-2017 2:03pm

bruschi wrote: »

having a knee down also doesnt make a catch complete. you could be lying on the flat on your back catching the ball, but if you dont hold onto it it matters little as to where your body is.

unless they change to rule to say so. his knee was hitting the ground as he made his catch. so he didnt take any steps with the ball or anything, which is quite often the criteria for a successful catch.

to me, that rule there should have been a catch and fumble. not that he placed it over the goal line, but that it fumbled. Outstretching your arms to me is a football move as they like to call it. But crossing the plane isnt an automatic TD for a throw and catch.

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

BizzyC · 18-12-2017 2:05pm

MrKingsley wrote: »

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

Actually no, even after contact the player still needs to maintain control of the ball through impact with the ground.
Regardless as to whether he was touched, it wasn't a TD according to the rule.
You can only be down by contact after establishing possession, which requires a "football move" at the end of a catch.
Personally I think that stretching the ball out should count, but it doesn't.

phatkev · 18-12-2017 2:17pm

bruschi wrote: »

to me, that rule there should have been a catch and fumble. not that he placed it over the goal line, but that it fumbled. Outstretching your arms to me is a football move as they like to call it. But crossing the plane isnt an automatic TD for a throw and catch.

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

The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

Comments