Another BS catch rule screw up.

[Old Lion]

Why is it you can stretch the ball over the goal line and while you are in the air and have it knocked out of your hand and it is still a TD but make a catch and take 3 steps and have it slapped out is not a TD?

The retard refs got it wrong yet again. The league is still a joke. They are desperate to keep games close.

 

[fightinfunbags]

Why is it you can stretch the ball over the goal line and while you are in the air and have it knocked out of your hand and it is still a TD but make a catch and take 3 steps and have it slapped out is not a TD?

The retard refs got it wrong yet again. The league is still a joke. They are desperate to keep games close.

You got this wrong. A player going to ground has to survive the catch. At one point, both hands were off the ball. Chase doesn’t fully attain possession until later and he didn’t have two feet in.

 

[Southieinnc]

You got this wrong. A player going to ground has to survive the catch. At one point, both hands were off the ball. Chase doesn’t fully attain possession until later and he didn’t have two feet in.

The rule sucks. The outcome sucked. The NFL rules committee sucks.

 

[fightinfunbags]

The rule sucks. The outcome sucked. The NFL rules committee sucks.

K

 

[Southieinnc]

K

I forgot. You suck. The Eagles suck!

 

[Cincyfan78]

The rule here sucks because he had the ball, with 2 feet down, then went out of bounds WITH the ball...knee hits down, body hits down THEN the player pulls his arm away and the ball is loose....That's a HELL of a lot of action AFTER the catch that allows a defender to rip the ball away after multiple points of contact were made with control of the ball.

Since the ball cannot be advanced, or fumbled, in the endzone - the catch rule in the endzone needs to better reflect the rule for when a ball carrier crosses the goalline.

A receiver who catches the ball, with 2 feet down (or a knee, etc....) WITH control of the ball will be deemed to have possession of the ball AND be in bounds having crossed the barrier for a TD - the rest of the play doesn't matter because the ball can't be fumbled or advanced.

I get the rule, as stated, in the field of play - because the ball can be fumbled or advanced - so leave the rule as is for the field of play, but for a play in the endzone - the rule needs to be updated.

 

[fightinfunbags]

The rule here sucks because he had the ball, with 2 feet down, then went out of bounds WITH the ball...knee hits down, body hits down THEN the player pulls his arm away and the ball is loose....That's a HELL of a lot of action AFTER the catch that allows a defender to rip the ball away after multiple points of contact were made with control of the ball.

Since the ball cannot be advanced, or fumbled, in the endzone - the catch rule in the endzone needs to better reflect the rule for when a ball carrier crosses the goalline.

A receiver who catches the ball, with 2 feet down (or a knee, etc....) WITH control of the ball will be deemed to have possession of the ball AND be in bounds having crossed the barrier for a TD - the rest of the play doesn't matter because the ball can't be fumbled or advanced.

I get the rule, as stated, in the field of play - because the ball can be fumbled or advanced - so leave the rule as is for the field of play, but for a play in the endzone - the rule needs to be updated.

I disagree. He has to survive the ground all over the field. The end zone shouldn't be any different.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I disagree. He has to survive the ground all over the field. The end zone shouldn't be any different.

He did survive the ground...the player then ripped the ball out...at some point, the play has to stop...

If he hit the ground and the ball came out by itself, I'd be more inclined to agree....but that's not what happened.

 

[fightinfunbags]

He did survive the ground...the player then ripped the ball out...at some point, the play has to stop...

If he hit the ground and the ball came out by itself, I'd be more inclined to agree....but that's not what happened.

Milano's play on the ball unseated the ball. Chase recovered to "recatch" the ball but at a time that didn't allow for him to get two feet in bounds.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

The rule here sucks because he had the ball, with 2 feet down, then went out of bounds WITH the ball...knee hits down, body hits down THEN the player pulls his arm away and the ball is loose....That's a HELL of a lot of action AFTER the catch that allows a defender to rip the ball away after multiple points of contact were made with control of the ball.

Since the ball cannot be advanced, or fumbled, in the endzone - the catch rule in the endzone needs to better reflect the rule for when a ball carrier crosses the goalline.

A receiver who catches the ball, with 2 feet down (or a knee, etc....) WITH control of the ball will be deemed to have possession of the ball AND be in bounds having crossed the barrier for a TD - the rest of the play doesn't matter because the ball can't be fumbled or advanced.

I get the rule, as stated, in the field of play - because the ball can be fumbled or advanced - so leave the rule as is for the field of play, but for a play in the endzone - the rule needs to be updated.

For the record, Dez caught that fucking ball.

 

[calsnowskier]

The rule here sucks because he had the ball, with 2 feet down, then went out of bounds WITH the ball...knee hits down, body hits down THEN the player pulls his arm away and the ball is loose....That's a HELL of a lot of action AFTER the catch that allows a defender to rip the ball away after multiple points of contact were made with control of the ball.

Since the ball cannot be advanced, or fumbled, in the endzone - the catch rule in the endzone needs to better reflect the rule for when a ball carrier crosses the goalline.

A receiver who catches the ball, with 2 feet down (or a knee, etc....) WITH control of the ball will be deemed to have possession of the ball AND be in bounds having crossed the barrier for a TD - the rest of the play doesn't matter because the ball can't be fumbled or advanced.

I get the rule, as stated, in the field of play - because the ball can be fumbled or advanced - so leave the rule as is for the field of play, but for a play in the endzone - the rule needs to be updated.

The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it CAN cause an incompletion.

”Completing” the catch is part of the requirement to make it a completion. He did not “complete” the catch.

 

[Wazmankg]

For the record, Dez caught that fucking ball.

I agree. So did Calvin Johnson. But that's the rule.. if they're falling while catching they have to "survive the ground" to secure the catch. Megatron's & Dez's were particularly poor examples, but yesterday's seemed right to me.

 

[calsnowskier]

He did survive the ground...the player then ripped the ball out...at some point, the play has to stop...

If he hit the ground and the ball came out by itself, I'd be more inclined to agree....but that's not what happened.

The ball was spinning while he was still in the air. Then when he hit the ground, it came completely loose.

 

[Tainthappening]

The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it CAN cause an incompletion.

”Completing” the catch is part of the requirement to make it a completion. He did not “complete” the catch.

I agree... that was not a catch, think they got that one correct overturning it.

 

[Cincyfan78]

The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it CAN cause an incompletion.

”Completing” the catch is part of the requirement to make it a completion. He did not “complete” the catch.

My argument is that the ground did not cause the issue - Milano reached in, after the fact, and dislodged the ball.

Chase had the ball, bobbled, got control with his right arm/hand against his body, feet down, fell out of bounds, knee hits, body hits, Milano strips the ball/hand away causing the incompletion....in this instance, I think that is a catch.

It's also why I say that the "catch" rule on the field of play works, but in the endzone, it should be more reflective of the fact that it can't be advanced, or fumbled - so a catch, with 2 feet in bounds, should be sufficient here. The reason you want the "through the catch" in the field of play is to prevent a massive increase of incomplete catches that result in a ton of fumbles...not an issue in the endzone - just like when the ball breaks the barrier - ball is dead, can't be fumbled or advanced.

 

[eaglesnut]

Why is it you can stretch the ball over the goal line and while you are in the air and have it knocked out of your hand and it is still a TD but make a catch and take 3 steps and have it slapped out is not a TD?

The retard refs got it wrong yet again. The league is still a joke. They are desperate to keep games close.

It's about possession of the football.

If you are running from the field of play into the endzone then you already had possession of the football.

If you are trying to gain possession of the ball in the endzone then you don't already have possession.

 

[Cincyfan78]

It's about possession of the football.

If you are running from the field of play into the endzone then you already had possession of the football.

If you are trying to gain possession of the ball in the endzone then you don't already have possession.

But, 2 feet down, with the ball SHOULD be possession in the endzone.

The reason you want the "through the catch" on the field is to prevent 100 incompletions from being fumbles/turnovers or advancing the ball unfairly. In the endzone, this isn't an issue - so, the rule should be more reflective of that situation, IMO.

There isn't a need to have a "through the catch" stipulation in the endzone because you can't fumble or advance the ball in that scenario.

 

[ducky]

Does anyone have a link to the play in question?!?!

 

[eaglesnut]

But, 2 feet down, with the ball SHOULD be possession in the endzone.

The reason you want the "through the catch" on the field is to prevent 100 incompletions from being fumbles/turnovers or advancing the ball unfairly. In the endzone, this isn't an issue - so, the rule should be more reflective of that situation, IMO.

There isn't a need to have a "through the catch" stipulation in the endzone because you can't fumble or advance the ball in that scenario.

If he doesn't make the whole catch then how can it be a touchdown?

You have to get clear possession first. We are talking about 7 points here. Not just some sideline.

 

[Southieinnc]

Milano's play on the ball unseated the ball. Chase recovered to "recatch" the ball but at a time that didn't allow for him to get two feet in bounds.

Milano's play happened after Chase had already scored a TD!