I finally agreed with Chris Collinsworth for once

[Vinatieri4]

I don't know how people think its a catch.  It was clearly knocked out of his hands, before he completely made "a football move." smh to the people who say "clearly a catch" 

[BullsColtsFan1]

The Pats got so lucky in this game.  Beckham never drops passes especially when he catches with two hands and Landon Collins should have secured that INT with 1:50 left.  He just landed wrong on his shoulder.  I knew when he dropped that INT that Brady was gunna get down in FG range to win.  As for the catch, I think it was a TD as well.  It seems as if the NFL picks and chooses on a week to week basis what is a catch and what isn't a catch.

[Tsarquise]

This one was not close. Not a catch. Have to complete the catch with possession.

He completed the catch with possession. Beckham snathced it out of the air, brought it down, but the defender slapped it out of his hands. It's a catch......

Lol and its funny you say it's not even close.

[amfootball]

He completed the catch with possession. Beckham snathced it out of the air, brought it down, but the defender slapped it out of his hands. It's a catch......

Possession is defined by two feet and a football move. He never did the latter and Butler slapped it right as the second foot hit.

[Tsarquise]

I don't know how people think its a catch. It was clearly knocked out of his hands, before he completely made "a football move." smh to the people who say "clearly a catch"

He snatched the ball out of the air. Turned around, and held the ball with two hands as he was slowing himself down. Two feet went down.

[Tsarquise]

Possession is defined by two feet and a football move. He never did the latter and Butler slapped it right as the second foot hit.

What is exactly is a football move? Does that mean you have to grasp it with one arm?

[amfootball]

What is exactly is a football move? Does that mean you have to grasp it with one arm?

I believe it means take a step and turn your hips with possession.

[Tsarquise]

He did that.

[bababooey]

It was a great play by Butler. Very similar to the Ravens playoff game where Moore chopped the ball out of Evans hands.

immediately thought of this as well, i don't think it was a catch. 

[Vinatieri4]

He snatched the ball out of the air. Turned around, and held the ball with two hands as he was slowing himself down. Two feet went down.

 

Under my impression you have to make a complete football move. You cant just get both feet down. At the end of the day the ball touched the ground as he was trying to complete his "football move." If he would of made the play it wouldn't of happened,  the defensive player just made a great play.  It could of gone either way, but I just don't see how it could be "a clear catch" like some are saying.  

 

A question for everyone who says its a clear catch is..

 

 

 

How can it be a clear catch if the Defensive back knocked it out of his arms as he was turning around? The ball touched the ground. 

[dw49]

Under my impression you have to make a complete football move. You cant just get both feet down. At the end of the day the ball touched the ground as he was trying to complete his "football move." If he would of made the play it wouldn't of happened,  the defensive player just made a great play.  It could of gone either way, but I just don't see how it could be "a clear catch" like some are saying.  

 

A question for everyone who says its a clear catch is..

 

 

 

How can it be a clear catch if the Defensive back knocked it out of his arms as he was turning around? The ball touched the ground. 

 

 

I think a catch in the end zone is a little different. If the WR has control of the ball and both feet hit the ground , it's a catch. If he's contacted before that happens , then he has to complete the catch as you describe ? I'm not sure on this , so maybe I stand to be corrected.

[dw49]

I think the "issue" here is some think it was a catch as they saw the first foot hitting the ground simultaneously with him securing the ball. The replay official and others saw that foot hitting the ground a mili second before he controlled the ball.. thus making the 3rd step the one that counted.

[Gavin]

What ref has come out and said that?

I have not specifically heard a current ref come out and say that but its obvious that some of them (maybe a lot of them) are. With that said former vice president of officials Mike Periera seems to think or at least questioned if they were to confusing. Granted that's not outright coming out and saying bluntly that they are but the fact that he questioned if they are tends to lead me to believe that they are or could be

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/24/mike-pereira-says-the-nfls-rulebook-is-too-thick/

[BloodyChamp]

You have to do a "football move" after touchdowns now? We've seen players score and immediately spike the ball faster than it took for him to catch that ball and land. That's where what I said about common sense comes in. I realize that by rule that might not have been a TD but them neither is it when a guy catches the ball and spikes it in .0000875 seconds. That makes no sense, even if it is technically the rule.

[aaron11]

I agree. The second foot was down before the ball was dislodged.

yeah but he didnt seem to have control.  i didnt watch the game, but from the gif i think the no catch call was correct, or at least consistant with other similar plays.

[chad72]

I think a catch in the end zone is a little different. If the WR has control of the ball and both feet hit the ground , it's a catch. If he's contacted before that happens , then he has to complete the catch as you describe ? I'm not sure on this , so maybe I stand to be corrected.

 

I agree.

 

I look at it like this - if Marvin Harrison making that circus catch does not have any more room to move after that circus catch in the 2006 regular season game vs Asante Samuel, does that mean he did not make a football move in the end zone?

 

Just because there is room for you to move does not mean you HAVE TO move in the end zone. Two feet and ball in hands is a catch in the end zone. You don't have to make a football move if it is already in the end zone.

 

A football move normally happens if you catch it before the end zone and have to move to get to the end zone. That is why Calvin Johnson had possession because of a football move that was knocked out by Kam Chancellor for a touchback earlier in the year because it was a possession followed by a fumble. Two feet and a football move outside the end zone with the ball, just two feet in the end zone with the ball. That is how I thought a catch was interpreted. What do I know? 

[chad72]

I think the "issue" here is some think it was a catch as they saw the first foot hitting the ground simultaneously with him securing the ball. The replay official and others saw that foot hitting the ground a mili second before he controlled the ball.. thus making the 3rd step the one that counted.

 

Unless the millisecond was a mega-millisecond, the call on the field should have stood. No other angle showed that millisecond magnified, IMO and the premise of overwhelming evidence wasn't there to overrule it, IMO. If it leaves enough grey area, it is not overwhelming, that is how I see it.

 

Inconsistency is something we see with the officials all the time, that is what peeves me. T.Y. lowers his helmet, and T.J.Ward goes for his chest and bang-bang, it was a 15 yard penalty. Yesterday, Emmanuel Sanders lowers his helmet and Sorensen, pretty much identical play, nothing called on the Chiefs and Sanders is evaluated for a concussion. Dwayne Allen gets interfered in the end zone in the Panthers game, almost every team gets a 1st and goal with a PI, Colts get robbed there.

 

All those years of countless non-holding calls on Freeney and Mathis, I don't even want to get started . 

[dw49]

Unless the millisecond was a mega-millisecond, the call on the field should have stood. No other angle showed that millisecond magnified, IMO and the premise of overwhelming evidence wasn't there to overrule it, IMO. If it leaves enough grey area, it is not overwhelming, that is how I see it.

 

That it was a  mili second " was my view and not one that slow motion replay proved. I thought it was too close to over turn but I don't necessarily think that they maybe didn't get it right. Seemed all three of the commentators didn't think that first foot had hit.... 

 

So while I don't have real issue with this call , what I do have issue with is the consistency with these replays. Sometimes they want clear and indisputable evidence that the original call was wrong. Then they overturn calls on what looks to not take the original call on the field into consideration.

[chad72]

That it was a  mili second " was my view and not one that slow motion replay proved. I thought it was too close to over turn but I don't necessarily think that they maybe didn't get it right. Seemed all three of the commentators didn't think that first foot had hit.... 

 

So while I don't have real issue with this call , what I do have issue with is the consistency with these replays. Sometimes they want clear and indisputable evidence that the original call was wrong. Then they overturn calls on what looks to not take the original call on the field into consideration.

 

Exactly. This, we clearly agree on .

[Superman]

I agree.

 

I look at it like this - if Marvin Harrison making that circus catch does not have any more room to move after that circus catch in the 2006 regular season game vs Asante Samuel, does that mean he did not make a football move in the end zone?

 

Just because there is room for you to move does not mean you HAVE TO move in the end zone. Two feet and ball in hands is a catch in the end zone. You don't have to make a football move if it is already in the end zone.

 

A football move normally happens if you catch it before the end zone and have to move to get to the end zone. That is why Calvin Johnson had possession because of a football move that was knocked out by Kam Chancellor for a touchback earlier in the year because it was a possession followed by a fumble. Two feet and a football move outside the end zone with the ball, just two feet in the end zone with the ball. That is how I thought a catch was interpreted. What do I know? 

 

I don't think it's that difficult, to be honest.

 

The Marvin Harrison play, for instance, Harrison maintained control of the ball, so it's not really comparable. The Calvin Johnson play against the Seahawks, he had control of the ball long before he fumbled. It's again not comparable.

 

Once a player loses control of the ball, there's some subjective judgment that comes into play. The NFL has tried to reduce that element as much as possible, but it will always be there. In this case, the question is whether OBJ established possession of the ball, with two feet down. And possession isn't just 'I have the ball under control for a fraction of a second.' As he went to stretch the ball out, he lost control of it. He didn't demonstrate control of the ball with two feet down. If he had stopped with two feet down and control of the ball, he would have demonstrated control of the ball, and the catch would be complete. He doesn't necessarily have to make a move, he just has to demonstrate control.

 

They could change the wording of the rule in order to make it more understandable. They tried that prior to this season, and there's still confusion among the fans and commentators. I'm not sure the confusion exists among the refs. The function of the rule is the same, and to me, it's not that hard to understand.

[chad72]

 

Once a player loses control of the ball, there's some subjective judgment that comes into play. The NFL has tried to reduce that element as much as possible, but it will always be there. In this case, the question is whether OBJ established possession of the ball, with two feet down. And possession isn't just 'I have the ball under control for a fraction of a second.' As he went to stretch the ball out, he lost control of it. He didn't demonstrate control of the ball with two feet down. If he had stopped with two feet down and control of the ball, he would have demonstrated control of the ball, and the catch would be complete. He doesn't necessarily have to make a move, he just has to demonstrate control.

 

They could change the wording of the rule in order to make it more understandable. They tried that prior to this season, and there's still confusion among the fans and commentators. I'm not sure the confusion exists among the refs. The function of the rule is the same, and to me, it's not that hard to understand.

 

To me, that bolded statement is subjective. You could micro-analyze lots of plays to say that for half a second he demonstrated control but not half a second later. That is why I felt that if there is room for subjective judgement, the element of overwhelming evidence has to take precedence for a call on the field, which did not happen in this case. 

[Superman]

To me, that bolded statement is subjective. You could micro-analyze lots of plays to say that for half a second he demonstrated control but not half a second later. That is why I felt that if there is room for subjective judgement, the element of overwhelming evidence has to take precedence for a call on the field, which did not happen in this case. 

 

It's definitely subjective. But just because you can argue it doesn't mean no one can ever reach a conclusion on it. People argue things that aren't remotely subjective all the time, so that can't be the benchmark. And the process of replay allows the officials to see things that they wouldn't have seen while calling the play live, so I don't like the idea of deferring to the call made on the field to begin with. The purpose of replay is to get it right.

 

To the idea that 'he demonstrated control for half a second, but not a half second later,' well, he demonstrated control. And while it's subjective, if the decision maker(s) feels he demonstrated control, it doesn't really matter for how long, so long as he had already put two feet down in bounds while he had control. (A different element comes into play if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of making the catch, making it even more convoluted.)

 

In this case, looking at the gif (https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zQVXKHfbGL3zn0Zxz134679okEw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4269505/odrop.0.gif), I don't think OBJ demonstrated control after he had two feet down. I think that as he went to move the ball (which he never should have done, as you stated earlier in this thread), the defender knocked it away. You could probably ask 100 people and get a split down the middle, but the decision is left up to the replay official. And I get why the replay official made the decision he made, and tend to agree with it.

 

I could also see the replay official determining that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. It's definitely borderline. I just understand what they saw, and think they made the right call.

[Btown_Colt]

I believe it means take a step and turn your hips with possession.

So when a receiver lays out for a ball and barley gets two feet in before going out of bounds, does he take a step and turn his hips?

[dw49]

It's definitely subjective. But just because you can argue it doesn't mean no one can ever reach a conclusion on it. People argue things that aren't remotely subjective all the time, so that can't be the benchmark. And the process of replay allows the officials to see things that they wouldn't have seen while calling the play live, so I don't like the idea of deferring to the call made on the field to begin with. The purpose of replay is to get it right.

 

To the idea that 'he demonstrated control for half a second, but not a half second later,' well, he demonstrated control. And while it's subjective, if the decision maker(s) feels he demonstrated control, it doesn't really matter for how long, so long as he had already put two feet down in bounds while he had control. (A different element comes into play if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of making the catch, making it even more convoluted.)

 

In this case, looking at the gif (https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zQVXKHfbGL3zn0Zxz134679okEw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4269505/odrop.0.gif), I don't think OBJ demonstrated control after he had two feet down. I think that as he went to move the ball (which he never should have done, as you stated earlier in this thread), the defender knocked it away. You could probably ask 100 people and get a split down the middle, but the decision is left up to the replay official. And I get why the replay official made the decision he made, and tend to agree with it.

 

I could also see the replay official determining that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. It's definitely borderline. I just understand what they saw, and think they made the right call.

 

 

Yeah it is subjective as you say. I did a little research and I was wrong thinking the second foot just has to hit. It's a "little more" but God only knows how much.I don't believe you have to make that "football move " as you do on a catch outside the end zone. But the receiver has to do more than just get the 2nd foot down. He has to do something like "exhibit that he controlled the ball after his 2nd foot hits for a reasonable period of time." So that said , I'll agree with Collingsworth.

[jvan1973]

Yeah it is subjective as you say. I did a little research and I was wrong thinking the second foot just has to hit. It's a "little more" but God only knows how much.I don't believe you have to make that "football move " as you do on a catch outside the end zone. But the receiver has to do more than just get the 2nd foot down. He has to do something like "exhibit that he controlled the ball after his 2nd foot hits for a reasonable period of time." So that said , I'll agree with Collingsworth.

How about a diving catch going OOB? Two feet drag and you land on the ground. No football move is needed

[dw49]

How about a diving catch going OOB? Two feet drag and you land on the ground. No football move is needed

 

 

Yep

[Superman]

How about a diving catch going OOB? Two feet drag and you land on the ground. No football move is needed

 

You have to maintain control of the ball.

 

No "football move" is needed in the end zone either. You can stand there like a statue if you want, but you have to demonstrate control of the ball. 

[Superman]

Yeah it is subjective as you say. I did a little research and I was wrong thinking the second foot just has to hit. It's a "little more" but God only knows how much.I don't believe you have to make that "football move " as you do on a catch outside the end zone. But the receiver has to do more than just get the 2nd foot down. He has to do something like "exhibit that he controlled the ball after his 2nd foot hits for a reasonable period of time." So that said , I'll agree with Collingsworth.

 

The whole 'football move' thing only comes into play when the receiver eventually loses control of the ball. And to me, it makes sense. It's just subjective, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

 

The play that Collinsworth was complaining about was pretty easy for me also. I don't say that to pat myself on the back, either. But while watching the play, I said 'that's not a catch.' It was a very close play, closer than the OBJ play IMO, and Michaels and Collinsworth were basically beside themselves. It's like they were looking for an opportunity to talk about the OBJ play, and here it was. But it was a so-called 'bang-bang play,' and the receiver didn't demonstrate control of the ball with two feet down. They let the play stand, as they should have.

 

I know it's convoluted, but I don't think it's all that difficult.

[IndyTrav]

I get that people don't like Collinsworth, and to each there own.

But I love him based on the fact I get to see him break down plays. They don't do hardly any breakdowns on the CBS or MNF broadcasts. But at least the guy goes thru what seems like every play, and tells you why something happened. He may be wrong. He may be right. But I at least get to learn something everytime he is broadcasting.

[dw49]

The whole 'football move' thing only comes into play when the receiver eventually loses control of the ball. And to me, it makes sense. It's just subjective, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

 

The play that Collinsworth was complaining about was pretty easy for me also. I don't say that to pat myself on the back, either. But while watching the play, I said 'that's not a catch.' It was a very close play, closer than the OBJ play IMO, and Michaels and Collinsworth were basically beside themselves. It's like they were looking for an opportunity to talk about the OBJ play, and here it was. But it was a so-called 'bang-bang play,' and the receiver didn't demonstrate control of the ball with two feet down. They let the play stand, as they should have.

 

I know it's convoluted, but I don't think it's all that difficult.

 

 

Not that its difficult but too subjective and I think needs more consistency . 

[Superman]

Not that its difficult but too subjective and I think needs more consistency . 

 

How do you make it less subjective? If you try to draw a hard line, you wind up with more catch and fumble plays when there's really not a "catch." It's just always going to be subjective, but I'd rather it be trained refs making the judgment calls than commentators and fans on the Internet. No offense...

 

And of course, it's nothing close to the NBA and fouls.

[HiltonTD]

Simultaneous with the 3rd foot maybe... Both feet appeared clearly down to me.

 

Its pretty clear in that gif someone posted above that the second his 2nd foot touched the ground the ball was hit out of his hands.  Need to have control of it for longer than that, I believe you need possession for 2 seconds or until you make an athletic movement.

 

Plenty of stuff to be bummed about from that game, but the refs calling that an incomplete isn't one of them

[IcEWoLF]

Attention folks!!! Patriots are being accused of CATCHGATE!

Priceless.

[HiltonTD]

I honestly don't even see how you could argue it was a catch. Might as well say that as long as the receiver touches the ball, it's a catch. If it wasn't in the endzone against the Patriots, this probably wouldn't even be discussed. 

 

I agree, I think the only reason this is even being discussed so much is because it was the Patriots and the Giants came close to ending their perfect season.  Believe me, there isn't anyone who enjoys seeing a Patriot's loss as much as me, but that was not a catch by any set of rules dating back 20 years

[HiltonTD]

I have a feeling in the offseason this rule will be changed. He clearly caught it then got his 2nd foot down even before the ball was knocked out. If by rule that isn't a catch it needs to be changed IMO. Dez's should've been a catch too last season. This may be the worse rule they have in Football. The problem I had with the play it was ruled a TD on the field even after the REFS all got together and they still reversed it. Had it been ruled incomplete to begin with then I wouldn't of had as much of a problem with it not counting.

 

The refs are going to call close plays like that a TD because they can get it correct on the automatic review.  Bottom line is, Beckham should have just held onto the ball and this would all be a moot point... the Giants would be celebrating a win and the Patriots would be licking their wounds with an 8-1 record.

 

Beckham blew it, Butler made a great defensive play

[dw49]

How do you make it less subjective? If you try to draw a hard line, you wind up with more catch and fumble plays when there's really not a "catch." It's just always going to be subjective, but I'd rather it be trained refs making the judgment calls than commentators and fans on the Internet. No offense...

 

And of course, it's nothing close to the NBA and fouls.

 

 

I would prefer something like 2 feet down with possession of the football. There is just too much stuff that makes you scratch your head. The Golden Tate play is a TD . He has the ball for about a third of a second and it's a TD. Another time if the receiver is contacted and goes to the ground , he needs to have control of the ball for the next 20 minutes. How would you have fans on the internet making calls ? Or maybe that's a shot at some that are not agreeing with you ?

[HiltonTD]

So when a receiver lays out for a ball and barley gets two feet in before going out of bounds, does he take a step and turn his hips?

 

No, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground to complete the catch

[dw49]

Attention folks!!! Patriots are being accused of CATCHGATE!

Priceless.

 

 

Silly

[WoolMagnet]

He was spot on when he said the NFL badly needs to after the season come up with a definitive rule on what is or isn't a catch. I'm not sure I know what a catch is anymore.

You lost me at "i agree with Chris Collinsworth".

[southwest1]

Attention folks!!! Patriots are being accused of CATCHGATE!

Priceless.

No, NE beat NY yesterday. I accept reality IWF. I just disagree with the zebra's interruption of what constitutes a catch. Brady will see Manning again in the playoffs & we'll see what happens when the game really matters.

 

Your team's undefeated status remains intact...for now my friend.