The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

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 01:00PM

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 01:02PM

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 01:03PM

This post has been deleted.

DB74 · 18-12-2017 01:04PM

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 01:04PM

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 01:17PM

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 01:23PM

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 01:37PM

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 01:49PM

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 02:03PM

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 02:05PM

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 02:17PM

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

bruschi · 18-12-2017 02:20PM

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 · 18-12-2017 02:22PM

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 · 18-12-2017 02:26PM

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 · 18-12-2017 03:04PM

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

Hazys · 18-12-2017 03:31PM

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 · 18-12-2017 03:52PM

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 · 18-12-2017 03:58PM

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 · 18-12-2017 04:06PM

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 · 18-12-2017 04:11PM

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 · 18-12-2017 04:12PM

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.

The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

Comments