Jump to content

RedRamage

Goodell wants clarity on catch rule.

Recommended Posts

In my opinion the first reviewed catch wasn't a catch based on current rules.  I disagree with the rules, but based on what we've seen regarding control or no control... the ball clearly moved with therefore no control therefore, no catch because he didn't have control and two feet down.

I my opinion the second reviewed catch was clearly a catch.  control, two feet down, then at least one more step (ie "football move") therefore runner, therefore he just needs to break the plane of the EZ and the play is instantly over.

(But there's a stupid for instance: What if he caught it on the run in the endzone but then the same thing happened?  Step, step, step, fall, ball comes out?  He didn't make a football move in the sense of trying to get into the endzone. He just took one more step in the process of falling down, right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just go back to the old rule. None of this "lunging," "football move" crap. 

Possession plus two feet down is a catch. Possession plus a butt/elbow is a catch. Keep it simple. 

That play last night was 3 steps and we still had an announcer saying it wasn't a catch. That shouldn't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

In my opinion the first reviewed catch wasn't a catch based on current rules.  I disagree with the rules, but based on what we've seen regarding control or no control... the ball clearly moved with therefore no control therefore, no catch because he didn't have control and two feet down.

I my opinion the second reviewed catch was clearly a catch.  control, two feet down, then at least one more step (ie "football move") therefore runner, therefore he just needs to break the plane of the EZ and the play is instantly over.

(But there's a stupid for instance: What if he caught it on the run in the endzone but then the same thing happened?  Step, step, step, fall, ball comes out?  He didn't make a football move in the sense of trying to get into the endzone. He just took one more step in the process of falling down, right?)

 

I agree with your take on both of these plays.  As to your "for instance," all year that scenario would have been an incompletion.  In yesterday's Super bowl, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the first one wasn't iffy to me under the current rules.  The ball moved and he didn't get two feet down after.  I really don't see any wiggle room there.

 

download-5-1-850x478$large.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Yoda said:

Just go back to the old rule. None of this "lunging," "football move" crap. 

Possession plus two feet down is a catch. Possession plus a butt/elbow is a catch. Keep it simple. 

That play last night was 3 steps and we still had an announcer saying it wasn't a catch. That shouldn't happen. 

Announcers suck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sagnam said:

 

I agree with your take on both of these plays.  As to your "for instance," all year that scenario would have been an incompletion.  In yesterday's Super bowl, who knows?

Seems like it would be a catch in the for instance also. If you run for close to five yards in the end zone I think that’s enough to say he became a runner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sagnam said:

Also, the first one wasn't iffy to me under the current rules.  The ball moved and he didn't get two feet down after.  I really don't see any wiggle room there.

 

download-5-1-850x478$large.jpeg

I think the wiggle room comes into play for deciding whether the ball moved enough such that control was lost. I could see it going either way, so in that sense I guess you’re stuck with the call on the field. 

I cant say for certain that he bobbled it too much to not be considered control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

Seems like it would be a catch in the for instance also. If you run for close to five yards in the end zone I think that’s enough to say he became a runner. 

 

 

I don't agree if the player is falling like in his scenario (I assume the steps are part of the falling, and not a trip over the 5 yard line after the steps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

I think the wiggle room comes into play for deciding whether the ball moved enough such that control was lost. I could see it going either way, so in that sense I guess you’re stuck with the call on the field. 

I cant say for certain that he bobbled it too much to not be considered control. 

 

So you see control in that frame?  And that was just one of a series of frames showing the ball floating.  Under the current rules I don't see how that can be considered control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sagnam said:

I guess they changed the rules. Cool. Glad I’m not a Pittsburgh fan.

 

The Ertz and James plays were nothing alike.  Ertz took 3-4 steps then reached over the goal line so he was clearly a runner whereas James caught and lunged in one motion.  The James call could be disputed as to whether or not he made a "football move" but the Ertz call was blatantly obvious and the fact that the review took so long shows just how clueless the league is.  Even more amazingly that two veteran announcers in Michaels and Collinsworth could get it so wrong thinking that the call could be overturned.

The bottom line is that the rule is garbage.  Once you catch the ball and touch the plane of the goal line, it should be a TD just like it used to be.  There was nothing wrong with the old rule, don't know why they felt the need to be cute and tweak it.

While they're at it, please change the stupid rule that a ball fumbled out of the end zone is awarded to the defense while a fumble anywhere else on the field is kept with the offense.  If the defense doesn't recover the fumble, they don't get the ball. Seems simple enough to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sagnam said:

 

So you see control in that frame?  And that was just one of a series of frames showing the ball floating.  Under the current rules I don't see how that can be considered control.

Actually, no. I wasn’t even looking at the ball in that frame. I was focused on the feet. 

It certainly looks like the ball is loose there. What I was remembering was the view from the other angle that showed the ball moving a little bit between the arms and the chest. I don’t remember seeing anything like the still you posted. 

That might change my mind. 

I still don’t know exactly what constitutes maintaining control. Is a bit of a bobble a loss of control and a reset of sorts? Or is it enough that the ball remains cradled and doesn’t pop loose upon impact with the ground? We know that some amount of movement of the ball is ok. I just don’t know where to draw the line. The picture you posted is the most damning for sure. Then again, it does appear to be between his forearm and his body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Seems like it would be a catch in the for instance also. If you run for close to five yards in the end zone I think that’s enough to say he became a runner. 

But the difference is that he didn't NEED to run anymore, so you can't call the third or fourth step a "football move." I know, this is dangerously close to a RRT (RedRamage Thread), but to me that makes the second one clearly a catch is that the receiver actively took a step towards the endzone in order to get there and try and score.  It wasn't just part of falling down... it was an overt, active move.

If you're already in the EZ, you don't need to take a third or fourth step, so does it muddy the waters on if it was really a step or just a natural culmination of coming down with the ball and falling to the ground?  I'd like to think that third step would be enough, but I honestly don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand your definition of a football move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

Playing devil's advocate here... 

So two players make nearly identical catches.  Both players jump for the ball, land on two feet and are immediately hit hard knocking them off their feet.  Both players lose control of the ball after their full bodies hit the ground.

Player A has a hand comes down first, but player B has a foot come down first.  The "three foot rule" would make this a catch for player B, yes?

That's a good case to look at. I suppose I would say the difference is your weight on your foot vs for instance a foot just being a point of contact as you fall. If you get hit but still land upright on your foot, you aren't actually even down yet are you? But that is why I don't think they would make the presumption as strong as my suggestion - there would be a lot more calls ruled fumble. I think that is the key here, the league doesn't want the randomness of too many turnovers injected into the game so they have tried to err on the side of calling more things no catch - but the result is that they have gone past where the good markers are to make the decision. They may not want to go as far as my suggestion, but now they are at a point where the boundaries are too vague for the rule to be consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×