Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

13

Comments

  • #62
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭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.


  • #63
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #64
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭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.


  • #65
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #66
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #68
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭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.


  • #69
    coco0981
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • #70
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #71
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    adrian522
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #73
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #74
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭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.


  • #75
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #76
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #77
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #78
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭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).


  • #79
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #80
    boccy23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭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.


  • #81
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #83
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #84
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭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.


  • #85
    raze_them_all_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭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


  • #86
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭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.


  • #87
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • #88
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #89
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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


  • #90
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭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


Advertisement