I finally agreed with Chris Collinsworth for once

[ruksak]

The NFL favors offense enough as it is. I say err on the side of defense if the receiver failed to hold on to the ball through the entire process of the catch. 

 

Not a catch. 

[ColtRider]

Collinsworth's nasally voice sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard

At one time in Cincinnati, at the start of his broadcasting career, he was known as "Collinsworthless!" He's achieved a lot of respect over the years and has become a good analyst IMO. But, every now & then he'll make a bone-headed comment. Don't we all?

[ColtsBlueFL]

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.

No football move is needed. Just both feet down, and enough time to (almost) get another step, or attempt a shake n bake dodge move, anything satisfies the need to be established as a runner. One could catch it with both feet down and just stand there long enough that he could have attempted such moves before getting the ball jarred loose. He doesn't explicitly have to perform it if enough time elapses.

[southwest1]

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 **

Great analysis of both the Lions & Giants play CBFL. So basically, what your saying is in the end zone a WR or TE must get both feet in bounds or drag the 2nd foot & maintain control of the ball after the contact with a DB is made then. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Nice write up BTW! 

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

 

I think it's a TD. It was ruled on the field as a TD. He was in the endzone. He had both feet touching. He didn't drop it -- it was jarred from his hands by a defender AFTER both feet touched the endzone. He had also turned his hips, so if we want to go back to last season and call that a "football move," that was basically him turning up-field and looking to run away from the defender.

 

Just hang onto the ball finish the play . People want to complain & blame the refs WEAK , Just play with in the rules & big boys don't cry they just get the job done .

 

 

"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 after he touches 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. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Basically what that means is simple. If a player goes to the ground while in the process of making a catch, he must control the ball all the way through until his momentum from the fall ends. If at any point before his momentum stops he loses control of the ball and it touches the ground, the pass is incomplete.

[dw49]

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.

 

 

Just when you think you have it figured out ?

 

 

Roger Goodell said the league will again look at tweaking the much-maligned catch rule.

"I think what we’re really going to do is get some people who are really focused on evaluating every one of these," Goodell said, "because it’s a balance between what you think is a catch, what the officials can officiate on a consistent basis and what’s going to have what we call the unintended consequences." Among the unintended consequences Goodell referenced would be the potential for an increase in fumbles on bang-bang plays if the threshold for a catch is reduced. While many people would like to see the catch rule amended, those same people would likely be frustrated by an increase in "fumbles" on what should rightfully be called incomplete passes. Giving the referees the ability to use some common sense in each situation could be the best solution.

[ColtsBlueFL]

 

Just when you think you have it figured out ?

 

 

Roger Goodell said the league will again look at tweaking the much-maligned catch rule.

"I think what we’re really going to do is get some people who are really focused on evaluating every one of these," Goodell said, "because it’s a balance between what you think is a catch, what the officials can officiate on a consistent basis and what’s going to have what we call the unintended consequences." Among the unintended consequences Goodell referenced would be the potential for an increase in fumbles on bang-bang plays if the threshold for a catch is reduced. While many people would like to see the catch rule amended, those same people would likely be frustrated by an increase in "fumbles" on what should rightfully be called incomplete passes. Giving the referees the ability to use some common sense in each situation could be the best solution.

 

 

 

Oh I can see it now!  People will scream when that OBJ play now gets called a TD, but when the exact same play happens on the field and is not in the end zone, it is a fumble and the other team can recover.  As of this time, that play is incomplete both in the end zone and on the field of play. There is no way the NFL can win, it seems.  LOL!

[Superman]

Oh I can see it now!  People will scream when that OBJ play now gets called a TD, but when the exact same play happens on the field and is not in the end zone, it is a fumble and the other team can recover.  As of this time, that play is incomplete both in the end zone and on the field of play. There is no way the NFL can win, it seems.  LOL!

 

 

Just when you think you have it figured out ?

 

 

Roger Goodell said the league will again look at tweaking the much-maligned catch rule.

"I think what we’re really going to do is get some people who are really focused on evaluating every one of these," Goodell said, "because it’s a balance between what you think is a catch, what the officials can officiate on a consistent basis and what’s going to have what we call the unintended consequences." Among the unintended consequences Goodell referenced would be the potential for an increase in fumbles on bang-bang plays if the threshold for a catch is reduced. While many people would like to see the catch rule amended, those same people would likely be frustrated by an increase in "fumbles" on what should rightfully be called incomplete passes. Giving the referees the ability to use some common sense in each situation could be the best solution.

 

 

Yup, the increased fumbles is the exact reason the rule was tweaked to begin with.

 

And if you make these more subjective than they already are -- giving the refs the ability to use "common sense" -- there will still be just as much criticism when popular opinion doesn't line up. Just like now. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Oh I can see it now!  People will scream when that OBJ play now gets called a TD, but when the exact same play happens on the field and is not in the end zone, it is a fumble and the other team can recover.  As of this time, that play is incomplete both in the end zone and on the field of play. There is no way the NFL can win, it seems.  LOL!

What's so hard about just getting hte call right?  Just do it under all circumstances.  A catch is a catch is a catch.  Problem solved.  Glad we had this talk...

[ColtsBlueFL]

What's so hard about just getting hte call right?  Just do it under all circumstances.  A catch is a catch is a catch.  Problem solved.  Glad we had this talk...

 

Yup!  That's what I saw when I went to the NFL rules site.... no wait a minute.  no I did not.  LOL!

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/42391-ajs-shoulda-been-td-catch/page-2#entry1239375

 

It (and most of the world) doesn't work like that. and you likely know it more then anybody.  ;)

[OffensivelyPC]

Yup!  That's what I saw when I went to the NFL rules site.... no wait a minute.  no I did not.  LOL!

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/42391-ajs-shoulda-been-td-catch/page-2#entry1239375

 

It (and most of the world) doesn't work like that. and you likely know it more then anybody.  ;)

Yeah, was just being facetious.  Heck, anymore, I never know how the call will shake out (or what the right call is for that matter).  It's just a crap shoot it seems.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Yeah, was just being facetious.  Heck, anymore, I never know how the call will shake out (or what the right call is for that matter).  It's just a crap shoot it seems.

 

Of course I sniffed that out, that is why the Little winky / smiley at the end of my post.  ;)

 

I'm thinking of developing a 'Was it a Catch?' Flowchart ...

[OffensivelyPC]

Of course I sniffed that out, that is why the Little winky / smiley at the end of my post.  ;)

 

I'm thinking of developing a 'Was it a Catch?' Flowchart ...

You could, but the chart will look like the variety that scientists call the "No correlation" conclusion.