I finally agreed with Chris Collinsworth for once

[amfootball]

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?

After going out of bounds he has to maintain control of the ball. So if he toe taps in and then loses the ball after taking a step it is incomplete. Same as if he drags his feet and falls to the ground. He has to maintain possession after he hits the ground. It is still about possession regardless of his feet being in.

[chad72]

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

Priceless.

 

Feeling convicted much? 

[JimJaime]

Feeling convicted much?

lol more like persecuted... WERE MAD AS HELL AND WE AINT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!! Lmbo

[Superman]

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 ?

 

To the bolded, my point was just because fans don't quite understand it doesn't mean that the subjective judgment of the refs is wrong. Especially with replay. And of course, that doesn't mean the refs always get it right, even with replay...

 

And to "2 feet down with possession," we still have to agree on a definition of 'possession.' At some point, it's going to be subjective, and we're going to be asking the refs to make the call.

 

The most egregious one I can remember is the Troy Polomalu interception of Manning in the 2005 playoff game. He goes to the ground while securing the ball, and then as he's getting up to run, he loses control. I believe it went to replay, and the refs determined that it was incomplete because he didn't maintain control throughout the process of the catch. That's one of those where, like you say, they want the player to maintain control forever before the catch is complete and the next process begins. 

[dw49]

To the bolded, my point was just because fans don't quite understand it doesn't mean that the subjective judgment of the refs is wrong. Especially with replay. And of course, that doesn't mean the refs always get it right, even with replay...

 

And to "2 feet down with possession," we still have to agree on a definition of 'possession.' At some point, it's going to be subjective, and we're going to be asking the refs to make the call.

 

The most egregious one I can remember is the Troy Polomalu interception of Manning in the 2005 playoff game. He goes to the ground while securing the ball, and then as he's getting up to run, he loses control. I believe it went to replay, and the refs determined that it was incomplete because he didn't maintain control throughout the process of the catch. That's one of those where, like you say, they want the player to maintain control forever before the catch is complete and the next process begins. 

 

 

Yes .. it's always going to be open to errors I guess. Just like any other sport other than Golf and bowling ? Problem is these officials should probably be a little better. I watched that Jack game and said out loud "no way they legally got that last play off." As it turns out , it wasn't even close and Jacksonville gets a gift from the officials. I mean Christ , all eyes should have been on those 11 guys to make sure all were set and not moving when the ball was snapped

[Superman]

Yes .. it's always going to be open to errors I guess. Just like any other sport other than Golf and bowling ? Problem is these officials should probably be a little better. I watched that Jack game and said out loud "no way they legally got that last play off." As it turns out , it wasn't even close and Jacksonville gets a gift from the officials. I mean Christ , all eyes should have been on those 11 guys to make sure all were set and not moving when the ball was snapped

 

I can sort of understand missing that Jacksonville play, with all the moving parts and so on. Seven refs, 11 offensive players, plus the clock. My question is why can't they go to replay to make sure they get it right? It's the final play of the game. It wouldn't be hard to see whether they were lined up right, whether they got the snap off in time, etc. Especially since there was a penalty called at the end of the play anyways.

[dw49]

I can sort of understand missing that Jacksonville play, with all the moving parts and so on. Seven refs, 11 offensive players, plus the clock. My question is why can't they go to replay to make sure they get it right? It's the final play of the game. It wouldn't be hard to see whether they were lined up right, whether they got the snap off in time, etc. Especially since there was a penalty called at the end of the play anyways.

 

 

That presents another pretty tough issue. How would you determine what plays get looked at ? Have another challenge available for coaches to be able to call randomly ? The review that would be needed to wipe out the mistake they made in the Jack game is not even reviewable. 

[Superman]

That presents another pretty tough issue. How would you determine what plays get looked at ? Have another challenge available for coaches to be able to call randomly ? The review that would be needed to wipe out the mistake they made in the Jack game is not even reviewable. 

 

Yup.

 

At the end of the game, it would make sense to make plays like that reviewable. But the Competition Committee has been very resistant to making penalties reviewable. 

[southwest1]

I accept the fact that NE defeated the Giants, but I found it amusing that Rich on the Rich Eisen Show said to Chris Brockman, a diehard Patriots fan, that Odell Beckham Jr. had a touchdown last night in the end zone because both his feet were down in bounds with his hands on the ball similar to a QB reaching over the goal line for a touchdown & then getting the ball knocked out. It's still good & worthy of 6 points. 

 

The Dez Bryant no catch last season is different because he had not entered the end zone & he had to complete the process of the catch to the ground. Had Dez made it to the endzone with the ball & then lost it...The Cowboys would have been given 6 points...As we learn in real estate, location, location, location of the mishap means everything. 

[dw49]

Yup.

 

At the end of the game, it would make sense to make plays like that reviewable. But the Competition Committee has been very resistant to making penalties reviewable. 

 

 

But I don't think you can just say "at the end of the game." Suppose with 3 minutes left in the game you have a team with a first and goal from the one. A defender is clearly off sides and hits the ball carrier in the backfield. He fumbles , the defense recovers it and returns it 98 yards . Certain 14 point swing that maybe turns a loss into a win. My question would be how do you determine which plays are the ones you make reviewable ? 

[dw49]

I accept the fact that NE defeated the Giants, but I found it amusing that Rich on the Rich Eisen Show said to Chris Brockman, a diehard Patriots fan, that Odell Beckham Jr. had a touchdown last night in the end zone because both his feet were down in bounds with his hands on the ball similar to a QB reaching over the goal line for a touchdown & then getting the ball knocked out. It's still good & worthy of 6 points. 

 

The Dez Bryant no catch last season is different because he had not entered the end zone & he had to complete the process of the catch to the ground. Had Dez made it to the endzone with the ball & then lost it...The Cowboys would have been given 6 points...As we learn in real estate, location, location, location of the mishap means everything. 

 

 

That's exactly what I posted to earlier and thought I had it correctly. Then I listened to someone on the NLF radio network saying that ' in the end zone a receiver doesn't have to make football moves and all that but he DOES have to hold on to the ball for more than a mili second after his second foot hits the ground." Other words they are saying that he clearly has to show that he made the catch and controlled the ball. I think back to that Golden Tate play where they gave him the TD and it didn't even look like he made the catch. But maybe the reason for Tate's being a catch and O.B.'s not is that Beckman was contacted as he was making the catch. I don't remember if Tate was or was not but if he wasn't that might explain it.

 

In any event as Superman and I discussed , these type calls are indeed subjective. In the case of the one we are discussing , the replay official must have thought it wasn't really close . It is suppose to be obvious that the call on the field was wrong. But that brings me to another question. Is it possible when the refs huddled up after that play , they were of different opinions and just decided to look at replay . So maybe in this case it didn't take as much evidence to overturn it ?

[Btown_Colt]

After going out of bounds he has to maintain control of the ball. So if he toe taps in and then loses the ball after taking a step it is incomplete. Same as if he drags his feet and falls to the ground. He has to maintain possession after he hits the ground. It is still about possession regardless of his feet being in.

I understand that. You said he has to have possession and make a football move and described what you thought a football move was. I was trying to say that a football move was not needed in this instance or when a receiver is toe touching going out of bounds. Possession is what matters and is what matter in ODB's case, which he clearly did not have.

[chad72]

That's exactly what I posted to earlier and thought I had it correctly. Then I listened to someone on the NLF radio network saying that ' in the end zone a receiver doesn't have to make football moves and all that but he DOES have to hold on to the ball for more than a mili second after his second foot hits the ground." Other words they are saying that he clearly has to show that he made the catch and controlled the ball. I think back to that Golden Tate play where they gave him the TD and it didn't even look like he made the catch. But maybe the reason for Tate's being a catch and O.B.'s not is that Beckman was contacted as he was making the catch. I don't remember if Tate was or was not but if he wasn't that might explain it.

 

In any event as Superman and I discussed , these type calls are indeed subjective. In the case of the one we are discussing , the replay official must have thought it wasn't really close . It is suppose to be obvious that the call on the field was wrong. But that brings me to another question. Is it possible when the refs huddled up after that play , they were of different opinions and just decided to look at replay . So maybe in this case it didn't take as much evidence to overturn it ?

 

We should know by now that Golden Tate is the poster child for favorable calls. He is as good as gold when it comes to getting the benefit of calls, whether he is a Seahawk or a Lion . 

[Superman]

But I don't think you can just say "at the end of the game." Suppose with 3 minutes left in the game you have a team with a first and goal from the one. A defender is clearly off sides and hits the ball carrier in the backfield. He fumbles , the defense recovers it and returns it 98 yards . Certain 14 point swing that maybe turns a loss into a win. My question would be how do you determine which plays are the ones you make reviewable ? 

 

I think we can start with end of game situations like that. And I know it's a slippery slope, but still.

 

It's like the Armando Galaraga perfect game a few years ago. First base ump gets it wrong on what would have been the final out of the game. Everyone knows he gets it wrong. MLB, instead of saying 'we know he got it wrong, it was the final out of the game, we're going to correct the wrong,' they say 'whoops, nothing we can do about it.' 

 

At the end of the game, when you have one play to consider, and the outcome of that one play will determine the result of the game, I don't see why you can't check for non-subjective issues, like the clock, illegal formation, etc. As a matter of fact, I think delay of game and illegal formation could be reviewable by coaches challenge throughout the game, just like 12 men on the field. But certainly, when time is expired and a deciding play happens, why shouldn't the replay official consider those violations? The purpose of replay is to get calls right.

[southwest1]

That's exactly what I posted to earlier and thought I had it correctly. Then I listened to someone on the NLF radio network saying that ' in the end zone a receiver doesn't have to make football moves and all that but he DOES have to hold on to the ball for more than a mili second after his second foot hits the ground." Other words they are saying that he clearly has to show that he made the catch and controlled the ball. I think back to that Golden Tate play where they gave him the TD and it didn't even look like he made the catch. But maybe the reason for Tate's being a catch and O.B.'s not is that Beckman was contacted as he was making the catch. I don't remember if Tate was or was not but if he wasn't that might explain it.

 

In any event as Superman and I discussed , these type calls are indeed subjective. In the case of the one we are discussing , the replay official must have thought it wasn't really close . It is suppose to be obvious that the call on the field was wrong. But that brings me to another question. Is it possible when the refs huddled up after that play , they were of different opinions and just decided to look at replay . So maybe in this case it didn't take as much evidence to overturn it ?

My apologies if I stole your thunder there dw49 or stole your viewpoint without giving you credit. It wasn't intentional. Sometimes, I proofread too fast. My bad. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I was rooting for Eli so I freely admit that the last thing I was here was impartial.   Great game all around minus the last 2 minutes, but I digress...

 

True, being a professional zebra is not easy...Seeing something unfold live only to find out that on replay it didn't withstand scrutiny. Such is life I guess. Oh well. Speaking of cameras, I'm always amazed that no football ever hits that large, black, spider camera on wires too. 

[dw49]

My apologies if I stole your thunder there dw49 or stole your viewpoint without giving you credit. It wasn't intentional. Sometimes, I proofread too fast. My bad. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I was rooting for Eli so I freely admit that the last thing I was here was impartial.   Great game all around minus the last 2 minutes, but I digress...

 

True, being a professional zebra is not easy...Seeing something unfold live only to find out that on replay it didn't withstand scrutiny. Such is life I guess. Oh well. Speaking of cameras, I'm always amazed that no football ever hits that large, black, spider camera on wires too. 

 

 

No apology needed. I was simply saying that I had thought the exact same as you did. Also I don't need "credit" for having it wrong.

[dw49]

I think we can start with end of game situations like that. And I know it's a slippery slope, but still.

 

It's like the Armando Galaraga perfect game a few years ago. First base ump gets it wrong on what would have been the final out of the game. Everyone knows he gets it wrong. MLB, instead of saying 'we know he got it wrong, it was the final out of the game, we're going to correct the wrong,' they say 'whoops, nothing we can do about it.' 

 

At the end of the game, when you have one play to consider, and the outcome of that one play will determine the result of the game, I don't see why you can't check for non-subjective issues, like the clock, illegal formation, etc. As a matter of fact, I think delay of game and illegal formation could be reviewable by coaches challenge throughout the game, just like 12 men on the field. But certainly, when time is expired and a deciding play happens, why shouldn't the replay official consider those violations? The purpose of replay is to get calls right.

 

 

Yeah I guess anything is better than hearing them come out with "we acknowledge that we made a major error .. bla bla bla." It's really getting old and it shouldn't be costing games when you have the technology to correct mistakes. However it's going to be tough not to have one team maybe getting a deserved win via replay while another team takes the shaft on what might be a way more egregious official error. Not saying your wrong but it's no doubt a pandora's box.

[ColtsBlueFL]

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

 

That's not enough.  Dean Blandino has been consistent on his calls.  I've tried to 'study' them to determine what is what.  Here's what I got. 

 

If you catch a ball, and was not contacted and not in the process of going to the ground, you get credit for the catch when - both feet have come down AND the player has made some type of action the establishes him as a runner (or enough time to perform one), and not be a guy that has just possessed a thrown ball.  Thus in the Giants game, Beckham had the ball slapped out just as/after the second foot hit, and the third step to establish as a runner was made after the ball knocked out.  The ball was already slapped out of his possession before he established (or enough time to) as a runner.  No TD awarded.

 

 

In Golden Tate's game, he caught the ball (just before contact, was not going to the ground), got both feet down, and took another step and carried the ball over the goal line.  The ball crossed the plane of the end zone just before his 3rd step came down.  But the taking (even if not fully completing) that 3rd step established Tate as a runner, thus a TD immediately as the ball had already touched the plane of the end zone. The Bears loosened it and slapped it up and eventually intercepted, but the play was already dead.  Interception call reversed.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000559571/Can-t-Miss-Play-Golden-Tate-s-wacky-touchdown

 

If contacted during the catch, Whether in end zone or on the field of play, then the receiver must maintain control and possession all throughout the process. In other words, have to hand the ball to the ref after getting up from the play.

 

So to me, look to see if he was contacted during the catch play, and if so, he must maintain all the way through the process. Essentially must get up and hand it to the official.  If not contacted during the catch, he must get both feet down and attempt some type of action that shows they are now a runner. Just stretching the ball out for more yardage or trying to get it over the end zone line does not constitute an action that establishes the receiver as a runner.  Taking and almost getting a 3rd step down does, etc...

 

Ever since I figured out this trick, I've been able to tell whether a call will be upheld or overturned almost without fail. 

 

And if the call is reviewed (challenge, turnover, or TD, whatever) Dean Blandino will be in the ear of the Ref, and Dean knows exactly what he wants and is consistent with it.  It gets less clear when the play isn't challenged or otherwise reviewed, whether the ref got it the way Blandino wants it.

 

** lightly edited for clarity **

[Superman]

That's not enough.  Dean Blandino has been consistent on his calls.  I've tried to 'study' them to determine what is what.  Here's what I got. 

 

If you catch a ball, and was not contacted and not in the process of going to the ground, you get credit for the catch when - both feet have come down AND the player has made some type of action the establishes him as a runner, and not one that has just possessed a thrown ball.  Thus in the Giants game, Beckham had the ball slapped out just as/after the second foot hit, and the third step to establish as a runner was made after the ball knocked out.  The ball was already slapped out of his possession.  No TD awarded.

 

 

In Golden Tate's game, he caught the ball (just before contact, was not going to the ground), got both feet down, and took another step and carried the ball over the goal line.  The ball crossed the plane of the end zone just before his 3rd step came down.  But the taking (even if not fully completing) that 3rd step established Tate as a runner, thus a TD immediately as the ball had already touched the plane of the end zone. The Bears loosened it and slapped it up and eventually intercepted, but the play was already dead.  Interception call reversed.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000559571/Can-t-Miss-Play-Golden-Tate-s-wacky-touchdown

 

If contacted during the catch, Whether in end zone or on the field of play, then the receiver must maintain control and possession all throughout the process. In other words, have to hand the ball to the ref after getting up from the play.

 

So to me, look to see if he was contacted during the catch play, and if so, he must maintain all the way through the process. Essentially must get up and hand it to the official.  If not contacted during the catch, he must get both feet down and attempt some type of action that shows they are now a runner. Just stretching the ball out for more yardage or trying to get it over the end zone line does not constitute an action that establishes the receiver as a runner.  Taking and almost getting a 3rd step down does, etc...

 

Ever since I figured out this trick, I've been able to tell whether a call will be upheld or overturned almost without fail. 

 

And if the call is reviewed (challenge, turnover, or TD, whatever) Dean Blandino will be in the ear of the Ref, and Dean knows exactly what he wants and is consistent with it.  It gets less clear when the play isn't challenged or otherwise reviewed, whether the ref got it the way Blandino wants it.

 

I take exception to the underlined and italicized portion. 

 

Brings to mind the Dez Bryant play in the playoffs. They determined that he lost control of the ball as he was stretching it forward. Had he maintained control through that process, he would have been considered a runner. It's more complicated because he was both touched and going to the ground.

 

Either way, like you said, as I saw that play live, I didn't think it would be ruled a catch.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I take exception to the underlined and italicized portion. 

 

Brings to mind the Dez Bryant play in the playoffs. They determined that he lost control of the ball as he was stretching it forward. Had he maintained control through that process, he would have been considered a runner. It's more complicated because he was both touched and going to the ground.

 

Either way, like you said, as I saw that play live, I didn't think it would be ruled a catch.

 

I know that italicized part is one which most all of us seem to have issue with.  But it has come directly from Dean Blandino's mouth- reaching out with the ball is not an action that establishes that a receiver has become a runner.  In essence, stretching out the ball on a catch where the receiver was contacted only increases the chance of it not being possessed, and thus being incomplete.  If he is contacted and stretches it out, but does not lose possession, he will get forward progress of stretch, not because he was a runner, but because he maintained possession all throughout the process.

 

Use this filter on next 'was it a catch' play.  Compare the results on field ref's get, vs. the decision of D. Blandino on replay reviews, and the items I mention above.

[Superman]

I know that italicized part is one which most all of us seem to have issue with.  But it has come directly from Dean Blandino's mouth- reaching out with the ball is not an action that establishes that a receiver has become a runner.  In essence, stretching out the ball on a catch where the receiver was contacted only increases the chance of it not being possessed, and thus being incomplete.  If he is contacted and stretches it out, but does not lose possession, he will get forward progress of stretch, not because he was a runner, but because he maintained possession all throughout the process.

 

Use this filter on next 'was it a catch' play.  Compare the results on field ref's get, vs. the decision of D. Blandino on replay reviews, and the items I mention above.

 

That makes sense. The ball is usually not stretched out unless the receiver is going down or out of bounds, or unless he's already established himself as a runner (like Doyle against Denver). Gotta remember to keep those issues separate.

 

But if the ball is stretched out, the receiver has to maintain control of the ball, unless he's already established himself as a runner.

[ColtsBlueFL]

^ ^ ^ Yes. ^ ^ ^   Ever since I used this criteria, I get calls right a lot . 100% if it is reviewed (along with Blandino in NY).

 

Doesn't mean I agree with  the catch rules, just means I finally figured them out and won't be so upset once I get a clear look at replay, and can determine those items above.

[Dustin]

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.

"Football move" is no longer in the rules.

[ColtRider]

Read this thread thoroughly. Many members here have made some great points. All I want out of the NFL & it's officiating is constant-steady play calls. I don't think it's too much to ask for consistency from all the officials in every game and venue. That's the problem. What's a catch? What's a football move? What's runner establishment? What's control? etc. etc. I know the rules are in place. I understand all of them as it pertains to the game. However, inconsistency is the ridiculous part about all of this. Isn't it? This is not rocket science 101. (as hard as that is) It's calling plays the same way in every game that pertains to the same situation. Dunno. It's definitely a head-scratcher to me at times.

[Superman]

Read this thread thoroughly. Many members here have made some great points. All I want out of the NFL & it's officiating is constant-steady play calls. I don't think it's too much to ask for consistency from all the officials in every game and venue. That's the problem. What's a catch? What's a football move? What's runner establishment? What's control? etc. etc. I know the rules are in place. I understand all of them as it pertains to the game. However, inconsistency is the ridiculous part about all of this. Isn't it? This is not rocket science 101. (as hard as that is) It's calling plays the same way in every game that pertains to the same situation. Dunno. It's definitely a head-scratcher to me at times.

 

The problem is that every play is different. As plenty of posters in this thread have demonstrated, there are a half dozen catch/no catch situations over the last season that are all different, so asking for a consistent ruling isn't going to happen.

 

What the league has done is centralized reviews, so that the HQ crew is involved in each play that gets reviewed. That way, there will be some sort of consistency once a play is reviewed. 

[ColtRider]

The problem is that every play is different. As plenty of posters in this thread have demonstrated, there are a half dozen catch/no catch situations over the last season that are all different, so asking for a consistent ruling isn't going to happen.

 

What the league has done is centralized reviews, so that the HQ crew is involved in each play that gets reviewed. That way, there will be some sort of consistency once a play is reviewed.

Yeah. I get it. I really do. Sometimes the officiating infuriates me. And yes, for the most part, they usually get it right. However, I've seen a lot of plays that coulda/woulda/shoulda changed outcomes of games. Maybe I need to get better schooled at these plays. Cause, frankly, sometimes I still don't get it. And really, that's not a bad idea. I'm gonna go to officiating school via the NFL rule book. That way, maybe, I won't be so uptight about some of these calls.

[coltsfeva]

Yeah there was talking about catches where two feet are down and the receiver makes what they call a football move. That was after the Dez Bryant catch-non catch after last season was over and at the start of this season. It seems the rule is now a judgment call from game to game just like it's always been. I know the refs have a hard time watching and seeing everything but I was under the impression that is what the replay booth in New York was suppose to do to get the calls correct. It also seems there is a problem with refs using judgment calls on what a possession is. Does the receiver have possession if he is holding the ball with two hands or does it have to tucked away against the body? Some receivers catch with their hands while some use their bodies.

The difference between this catch and Dez's is that Odell clearly had possession and Dez never did, before he reached.

 Odell had possession, planted the first and second foot and then the slap took place. That being said, the Giants should have made the play on the int or kept the Pats from making the 4th and 10

[ColtsBlueFL]

The difference between this catch and Dez's is that Odell clearly had possession and Dez never did, before he reached.

 Odell had possession, planted the first and second foot and then the slap took place. That being said, the Giants should have made the play on the int or kept the Pats from making the 4th and 10

 

The difference is Dez was contacted in the air forcing a different set of criteria for the catch to be considered made; maintain possession all the way through... IOW, don't drop or fumble it into and incompletion.  For Beckham Jr. , he caught the pass uncontested, was not going to the ground, and got both of his feet down.  All needed now was an action (or reasonable amount of time that would allow such an action) that establishes him as a runner and not as a guy that just had a ball land in his mitts. But the ball was slapped away from him before that action was made (the taking of the third step) or time to accomplish such had passed.

 

I promise you if OBJ had gotten that 3rd step halfway to 2/3 completed before Butler swatted that ball free, Blandino would have given it (TD catch) to him. But it was not. That second foot down and the swat was bang bang- clearly not time enough to allow establishment as a runner.  I've spent watching listening, and assessing Dean Blandino on these and he is consistent (but not all Refs are).  Because of that, I figured him out on these calls..  I spelled out the criteria above.  Use it next time and see how it plays out, notably on a play that is sent for review, where Dean Blandino will clearly be involved in assessing the play.

[crazycolt1]

The difference is Dez was contacted in the air forcing a different set of criteria for the catch to be considered made; maintain possession all the way through... IOW, don't drop or fumble it into and incompletion.  For Beckham Jr. , he caught the pass uncontested, was not going to the ground, and got both of his feet down.  All needed now was an action (or reasonable amount of time that would allow such an action) that establishes him as a runner and not as a guy that just had a ball land in his mitts. But the ball was slapped away from him before that action was made (the taking of the third step) or time to accomplish such had passed.

 

I promise you if OBJ had gotten that 3rd step halfway completed before Butler swatted that ball free, Blandino would have given it (TD catch) to him. But it was not. That second foot down and the swat was bang bang- clearly not time enough to allow establishment as a runner.  I've spent watching listening, and assessing Dean Blandino on these and he is consistent (but not all Refs are).  Because of that, I figured him out on these calls..  I spelled out the criteria above.  Use it next time and see how it plays out, notably on a play that is sent for review, where Dean Blandino will clearly be involved in assessing the play.

The problem I have with this rule is it is not called the same all over the field. Take the sideline catch. As long as both feet are inbounds and the receiver keeps possession it is a catch. No so called football (runner) moves are needed. IMO the end zone should not be an exception. A runner does not even have to cross or touch the end zone for a TD to be awarded. A receiver should have the same benefit.

[ColtsBlueFL]

The problem I have with this rule is it is not called the same all over the field. Take the sideline catch. As long as both feet are inbounds and the receiver keeps possession it is a catch. No so called football (runner) moves are needed. IMO the end zone should not be an exception. A runner does not even have to cross or touch the end zone for a TD to be awarded. A receiver should have the same benefit.

 

It is clear Blandino will only allow a 'runner' to score a TD, not a receiver where a ball landed in his hands with both feet in, but it was either immediately dropped or swatted away.   If you catch the pass get two feet down  and move toward the end zone line, you are a 'runner' and a TD occurs and the play is dead the second the ball touches/crosses the end zone plane.  That's easy, we all get that.  (Golden Tate TD play)

 

Now if a receiver catches the ball in the end zone, is not hit, and gets both feet down, he only needs to make an action ( or enough time elapses that would allow such action ) and he will be awarded the TD. Getting 1/2 - 2/3 way through a third step coming down (or enough time to do that) established that receiver as a 'runner', and now it is a TD,  (OBJ did not get to do this, no TD on the play)

 

Now Receiver catching ball falling out of bounds on a sideline catch-

 

A. Receiver catches ball in air, gets hit by a defender while in the air.  Receiver gets both his feet in bounds and falls out of bounds.  His elbow hits the ground and the ball pops loose.  Incomplete pass will be called. Must maintain possession all throughout the process / play.

 

B. Receiver catches ball in air, is not contacted.  He now lands uncontested with both feet in bounds.  Defender now hits and pushes him out of bounds.  His elbow hits ground upon impact with ground and the ball pops loose.  Completed catch is awarded.  Since he was not hit in the air catching it, nor going to the ground because of it, once a legal part of his body hits the ground, he is down by contact.  The ground cannot force a fumble.  Plays is dead, catch awarded.  EDIT!!  Incorrect info! Also must  maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete   (Article 3 Item 2)

 

Every catch has its particulars and the criteria for a successful completion all depends upon exactly what took place as the ball was brought in by the receiver, what happened with the defender and when, and where he is on the field.

[crazycolt1]

It is clear Blandino will only allow a 'runner' to score a TD, not a receiver where a ball landed in his hands with both feet in, but it was either immediately dropped or swatted away.   If you catch the pass get two feet down  and move toward the end zone line, you are a 'runner' and a TD occurs and the play is dead the second the ball touches/crosses the end zone plane.  That's easy, we all get that.  (Golden Tate TD play)

 

Now if a receiver catches the ball in the end zone, is not hit, and gets both feet down, he only needs to make an action ( or enough time elapses that would allow such action ) and he will be awarded the TD. Getting 1/2 - 2/3 way through a third step coming down (or enough time to do that) established that receiver as a 'runner', and now it is a TD,  (OBJ did not get to do this, no TD on the play)

 

Now Receiver catching ball falling out of bounds on a sideline catch-

 

A. Receiver catches ball in air, gets hit by a defender while in the air.  Receiver gets both his feet in bounds and falls out of bounds.  His elbow hits the ground and the ball pops loose.  Incomplete pass will be called. Must maintain possession all throughout the process / play.

 

B. Receiver catches ball in air, is not contacted.  He now lands uncontested with both feet in bounds.  Defender now hits and pushes him out of bounds.  His elbow hits ground upon impact with ground and the ball pops loose.  Completed catch is awarded.  Since he was not hit in the air catching it, nor going to the ground because of it, once a legal part of his body hits the ground, he is down by contact.  The ground cannot force a fumble.  Plays is dead, catch awarded. Incorrect, Edited in above post

 

Every catch has its particulars and the criteria for a successful completion all depends upon exactly what took place as the ball was brought in by the receiver, what happened with the defender and when, and where he is on the field.

I understand the rule but it still don't cover a receiver who catches a sideline catch, gets two feet down and goes out of bounds without a football move or being touched by a defender.

[jvan1973]

I understand the rule but it still don't cover a receiver who catches a sideline catch, gets two feet down and goes out of bounds without a football move or being touched by a defender.

It doesn't matter if you hold onto the ball. The only time a football move comes into play is when the reciever loses possession of the ball

[crazycolt1]

It doesn't matter if you hold onto the ball. The only time a football move comes into play is when the reciever loses possession of the ball

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. How can a player make a football move if he hasn't caught the ball? I guess I am also not getting what you mean either? lol

[jvan1973]

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. How can a player make a football move if he hasn't caught the ball? I guess I am also not getting what you mean either? lol

He can't make a football move if he hasn't caught the ball yet.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I understand the rule but it still don't cover a receiver who catches a sideline catch, gets two feet down and goes out of bounds without a football move or being touched by a defender.

 

That is because the play is dead immediately when the player touches any part of the field that is out of bounds.  And it is no longer in the rules a player needs to make a football move.  It is now - "until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2)."

 

If the player was bobbling the ball or it was moving around loosely as he went out of bounds, it will be ruled as him not having possession when the the play became dead (touching field out of bounds). Incomplete.

 

Otherwise, If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.  OK, I must amend my first case non hit scenario above.  It is after the contact with the ground, either way.  I'll add edit notes above. I'm glad I go back and check myself against latest rules at times.

 

If he steps out of bounds after having both feet in after the catch, that is an action that established him as a runner and play is dead immediately as he touches out of bounds with possession. (that action is seen as avoiding impending contact of a defender).

 

And the NFL true definition of becoming a runner is - "A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent."

[ColtRider]

That is because the play is dead immediately when the player touches any part of the field that is out of bounds.  And it is no longer in the rules a player needs to make a football move.  It is now - "until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2)."

 

If the player was bobbling the ball or it was moving around loosely as he went out of bounds, it will be ruled as him not having possession when the the play became dead (touching field out of bounds). Incomplete.

 

Otherwise, If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.  OK, I must amend my first case non hit scenario above.  It is after the contact with the ground, either way.  I'll add edit notes above. I'm glad I go back and check myself against latest rules at times.

 

If he steps out of bounds after having both feet in after the catch, that is an action that established him as a runner and play is dead immediately as he touches out of bounds with possession. (that action is seen as avoiding impending contact of a defender).

 

And the NFL true definition of becoming a runner is - "A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent."

Got it. And thanks, ColtsBlueFL, for the correct info and update. Now, when I see an officiating call that's questionable to me, I'm heading right to the rule book. Just makes a lot more sense. And man, I really try to achieve that on a regular basis in my life.

[amfootball]

"Football move" is no longer in the rules.

Yes. It looks like it has morphed into "become a runner."  That is better and clearer.

[amfootball]

That is because the play is dead immediately when the player touches any part of the field that is out of bounds.  And it is no longer in the rules a player needs to make a football move.  It is now - "until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2)."

 

If the player was bobbling the ball or it was moving around loosely as he went out of bounds, it will be ruled as him not having possession when the the play became dead (touching field out of bounds). Incomplete.

 

Otherwise, If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.  OK, I must amend my first case non hit scenario above.  It is after the contact with the ground, either way.  I'll add edit notes above. I'm glad I go back and check myself against latest rules at times.

 

If he steps out of bounds after having both feet in after the catch, that is an action that established him as a runner and play is dead immediately as he touches out of bounds with possession. (that action is seen as avoiding impending contact of a defender).

 

And the NFL true definition of becoming a runner is - "A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent."

Thanks for all the info you have provided in this thread with the rule book. Helps to clarify things a lot.

[shakedownstreet]

Collinsworth's nasally voice sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard

[coltsfeva]

The difference between this catch and Dez's is that Odell clearly had possession and Dez never did, before he reached.

 Odell had possession, planted the first and second foot and then the slap took place. That being said, the Giants should have made the play on the int or kept the Pats from making the 4th and 10

 

 

The difference is Dez was contacted in the air forcing a different set of criteria for the catch to be considered made; maintain possession all the way through... IOW, don't drop or fumble it into and incompletion.  For Beckham Jr. , he caught the pass uncontested, was not going to the ground, and got both of his feet down.  All needed now was an action (or reasonable amount of time that would allow such an action) that establishes him as a runner and not as a guy that just had a ball land in his mitts. But the ball was slapped away from him before that action was made (the taking of the third step) or time to accomplish such had passed.

 

I promise you if OBJ had gotten that 3rd step halfway to 2/3 completed before Butler swatted that ball free, Blandino would have given it (TD catch) to him. But it was not. That second foot down and the swat was bang bang- clearly not time enough to allow establishment as a runner.  I've spent watching listening, and assessing Dean Blandino on these and he is consistent (but not all Refs are).  Because of that, I figured him out on these calls..  I spelled out the criteria above.  Use it next time and see how it plays out, notably on a play that is sent for review, where Dean Blandino will clearly be  

 Thanks for the explanation; I guess I had assumed (incorrectly)the possession and two steps would be enough, much as a runner only has to get the ball past the front of the goal line and the play would be dead. If in fact, the rules require a receiver to possess the ball, take two steps and make a football move, that would disqualify OB's catch as a touchdown.