I'm amazed at how dumb that rule is and that they still haven't fixed it.

 

Two feet, knee, elbow, break the plane and incomplete.

Good column here:

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/262186/the-nfl-catch-rule-has-issues-but-steelers-survive-the-ground-call-was-right

 

I don't buy either reason for keeping as is, and actually think more fumbles is a reason to change it!

I was pretty sure that would be incomplete, assuming you mean the Pittsburgh play. He should have secured it better. That said, I think it was a catch. He had already established control.

I was pretty sure that would be incomplete, assuming you mean the Pittsburgh play. He should have secured it better. That said, I think it was a catch. He had already established control.

It was absolutely called correctly, no argument about that.

 

I think it is a baffling rule.

Right call, terrible rule.  Runners can get the nose across and fumble - receivers need to take the ball home with them for a week like one of those practice babies in high school without dropping it before it's a TD.

 

One or the other needs to change.

 

It was absolutely called correctly, no argument about that.

 

Right call

 

 

I disagree completely. I think it's quite clearly the opposite. 

 

How has it gotten so corrupted? no idea.

 

But, go back and parse the rule, and tell me what you think.  

 

 

Here's a take that didn't like the application of the rule:

 

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/12/17/16788458/jesse-james-touchdown-replay-overturned-steelers-patriots

This rule will be addressed and changed in the off-season for sure. As Levi said (welcome back btw!) there's a huge difference between rushing into the end zone vs. catching the ball in the end zone. It's ridiculous and provides zero benefit for the fans or the game.

They way I see it, the only way to overturn that call is that they are saying when his body comes down on the ball (at the very end of the play) he loses control a 2nd time. The first time there is not indisputable evidence that that the ball is on the ground.

IMO, when the overturn a call like that they should take the exact frame they used for indisputable evidence and display it, That is CYA for the NFL and officials.

Right call, terrible rule. Runners can get the nose across and fumble - receivers need to take the ball home with them for a week like one of those practice babies in high school without dropping it before it's a TD.

 

One or the other needs to change.

2 perfect examples last week against Carolina. I believe it was Stewart for Carolina that did a goal line leap, barely got the ball over the plane before it was punched out of his hands - Touchdown.

 

Adam Thielen catches the ball, knee down, elbow hits the turf, loses control of the ball for 0.5 seconds before resecuring it on his chest - incomplete pass.

 

2 perfect examples last week against Carolina. I believe it was Stewart for Carolina that did a goal line leap, barely got the ball over the plane before it was punched out of his hands - Touchdown.

Adam Thielen catches the ball, knee down, elbow hits the turf, loses control of the ball for 0.5 seconds before resecuring it on his chest - incomplete pass.

Didn't Thielen end up out of bounds? if he doesn't go out of bounds that is a catch.

 

Didn't Thielen end up out of bounds? if he doesn't go out of bounds that is a catch.

Correct. Ball never hit the ground there.

 

2 perfect examples last week against Carolina. I believe it was Stewart for Carolina that did a goal line leap, barely got the ball over the plane before it was punched out of his hands - Touchdown.

Adam Thielen catches the ball, knee down, elbow hits the turf, loses control of the ball for 0.5 seconds before resecuring it on his chest - incomplete pass.

There was another on in a recent game - possibly Bears-Lions - that I didn't understand why it was incomplete.  The receiver bobbled the pass but re-caught it as it was falling.  The point of the ball brushed the ground as he held it securely.  He then fell over on his side, and as he hit the ground the ball might have shifted in his hand a little before he re-secured it, but he was inbounds and the only time the ball touched the ground was that part when it was fully in his control.  The call on the field was incomplete, and the replay came back as confirmed (not stands.) 

 

There were two issues - the brush of the ground and the shift in his hands.  Either one would have allowed for a good catch, but put the two together and it's incomplete.  I'm not sure I understood that.

 

This rule will be addressed and changed in the off-season for sure. As Levi said (welcome back btw!) there's a huge difference between rushing into the end zone vs. catching the ball in the end zone. It's ridiculous and provides zero benefit for the fans or the game.

 

I'm not really back.

 

In any case, that's the central problem here - the rules for being eligible to score a touchdown as a runner and a receiver are just too different.  

 

Additionally, the rules for what constitutes a catch at the 40 yard line, suddenly go out the window in the end zone.  When Adam Thielen catches a drag route and goes out of bounds, he doesn't have to maintain possession back to the huddle.  Or if he turns, dives, and the ball jars loose when he hits the ground we don't call it incomplete.  We call it a catch and the runner is down by contact.

 

What constitutes a catch shouldn't change based on whether or not you're in the end zone - secure, demonstrate security with some kind of football move, have two feet down in bounds.  Then it's a catch.

Edited December 18, 20178 yr by TheLeviathan

If that exact play happens in the third quarter, and the receiver is lunging for a first down, Pittsburgh gets the first down and there's no fuss.

 

If that exact play happens in the third quarter, and the receiver is lunging for a first down, Pittsburgh gets the first down, and if New England challenges, New England probably loses the challenge. 

 

I have no idea how this got so corrupted. Only one of many things that is ruining the game of pro football.

Edited December 18, 20178 yr by Hosken Bombo Disco

Say what you will about the rule, but I think it is pretty universally enforced. It is just that you don't see receivers lunging like that at other parts of the field (the first down line is a lot harder for a receiver to guage, for example). You do see some incompletes along the sideline where the receiver doesn't maintain possession through the process of the catch.

 

Also, scoring plays are automatically reviewed, so the receiver's every move is going to get thoroughly analyzed around the end zone. If it happens midfield in the third quarter, it is going to come down to whether the team sees enough in a replay before the next snap, and considers it important enough to risk a timeout to challenge. Not that I care for the challenge replay system either, but I don't get the sense that officials are particularly inconsistent in these type of calls, accounting for these other factors.

Edited December 19, 20178 yr by spycake

I think spycake is right that the catch rule is mostly called correctly how it's written. I also think we as fans would all be happier if they eliminated "completing the process" from the rule.

Right, I don't take issue with the way it was enforced on Sunday.

 

What I've taken issue with how it's been written since the Calvin Johnson no-TD in Chicago.  And that was a long time ago.  

 

(Google that and re-live the absurdity)

Edited December 19, 20178 yr by TheLeviathan

 

Right, I don't take issue with the way it was enforced on Sunday.

 

What I've taken issue with how it's been written since the Calvin Johnson no-TD in Chicago.  And that was a long time ago.  

 

(Google that and re-live the absurdity)

 

I don't want to watch that play again. Awful. And it led to this rule. 

 

we miss you....

This is just another reason why baseball is superior to football. The football rules are too arbitrary and changed on a whim. Baseball is baseball and it seems most of the recent changes in baseball are for player safety (no barreling over the cathcer, no nasty slides into second base on the double play). There is an element of making it up as we go along with football rules.

 

This is just another reason why baseball is superior to football. The football rules are too arbitrary and changed on a whim. Baseball is baseball and it seems most of the recent changes in baseball are for player safety (no barreling over the cathcer, no nasty slides into second base on the double play). There is an element of making it up as we go along with football rules.

 

You joke, right? The loses contact with 2nd base on a steal for a milisecond rule is absurd.

If the goal line was not involved in that play, it would still be ruled an incomplete pass. The ball hit the ground and moved. He didn't have control. In all receiving situations, possession and control of a catch must be established no matter the location on the field.

 

The difference in this play and a runner crossing or diving across the goal line is the runner has or had possession prior to crossing the line. While a runner may fumble after crossing the line, the play is considered dead when he crosses. The receiver in this case had not yet established a catch with possession while crossing the line and the ball hit the ground. Even if he was fully in the endzone, the ball hit the ground and moved, confirming no control.

 

You joke, right? The loses contact with 2nd base on a steal for a milisecond rule is absurd.

 

Though it is not a new rule or even a clarification, and it a very clear on the base/off the base situation (and I agree it is absurd). But it is one of the many unfortunate consequences of expanded replay. 

 

If the goal line was not involved in that play, it would still be ruled an incomplete pass. The ball hit the ground and moved. He didn't have control. In all receiving situations, possession and control of a catch must be established no matter the location on the field.

 

 

I disagree.  I think they would have ruled his turn, extension of the ball, and dive as a "football move" and called it a catch.  The fact he loses control upon hitting the ground is a question of fumble or not a fumble.  

The game was ruined in 1906 when they instituted the forward pass. They're still sorting out the inconsistencies.

 

_{^{/ Sometimes, I talk like I'm older than Chief...}}

I disagree. I think they would have ruled his turn, extension of the ball, and dive as a "football move" and called it a catch. The fact he loses control upon hitting the ground is a question of fumble or not a fumble.

I don't think so. The rules, as much as we don't like them, are fairly clear about the receiver going to the ground, and I don't think they are frequently misapplied as you describe.

 

Of course, anywhere else on the field, with the clear goal line as his target, the receiver likely goes to the ground first, protecting the ball, before turning/extending. And anywhere else on the field, it's not an automatic review either -- keep in mind the refs on the field initially ruled this play exactly as you describe too. Both of those factors might be coloring our interpretation here.

 

Given the same level of review, I don't think you'd see much disparity in such calls with truly equivalent circumstances.

 

(Not to say that it's a good rule. Would be nice to see a looser possession standard for receptions.)

Interesting thought. Show me that rule.

Edited December 19, 20178 yr by Hosken Bombo Disco

 

Right call, terrible rule.  Runners can get the nose across and fumble - receivers need to take the ball home with them for a week like one of those practice babies in high school without dropping it before it's a TD.

 

One or the other needs to change.

Change the baby or the rule?

 

Change the baby or the rule?

 

Changing the baby has to be the priority.  Otherwise the fumes will lead to another catch rule written like this one.

Interesting thought. Show me that rule.

This is what I saw:

 

The NFL rule book states in Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1," A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete."

 

There's apparently more in the rule book too.

 

I am sure they aren't perfect at applying it, but I don't get the impression that inconsistency is the biggest problem, it is just that the rule itself sets a too-high, unnatural burden on receivers.