What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How has catching the ball become so complicated? (1 Viewer)

jesseasi

Footballguy
Seems like every week there is controversy over what is and isn't a catch. How did it become so complicated?

What are the actual rules - because it does not seem like announcers, head coaches, or even the refs are sure themselves.

Thursday the Bears decided to try a fake punt. On the fake they threw the ball over the top to Adrian Peterson. He was hit as he caught the ball. As he came down the ball popped loose - and the refs ruled him down by contact. Seemed like in every replay I saw it was a catch and down by contact - if not maybe it was fumble. After review - they said incomplete pass. WHAT?

Yesterday Gonzo caught a TD pass from LJ - but he was being hit as he caught it. He caught the ball (no disputing that) - but as he was being knocked to the ground the ball came loose. Is this a catch? The announcers didn't think so. Reminded me of the play in the bears game. After review - it is a catch for TD.

Yesterday S. Holmes made a catch coming back to the ball. I have always thought the ball had to break the "imaginary" plane of the end-zone. On the field they ruled Holmes down at the 1/2 foot line. Seemed like the right call. After watching 10 different replays - I never saw any conclusive video showing the ball break any plane. When the refs came back - they ruled "He had both feet down in the endzone - touchdown". WHAT? Does this mean if a WR is in the endzone and a ball is thrown short - they can come back to the ball - keep both feet in bounds and catch the ball at the 3 for a TD?

Why did it suddenly become so complicated to make a ruling on a catch?

 
I didn't see the Bears play, but from your description it sounds like it should have been incomplete and they got it right after review. IMO the Gonzalez TD should not have been a catch. I always thought that you have to maintain control of the ball after hitting the ground for it to be a catch. He did not. I don't know why they reversed the call after review. The Santonio Holmes touchdown was also puzzling. I have no idea why they changed it to a touchdown. Maybe the ball doesn't have to cross the plane if both feet are in the endzone?

These examples are the reason that I hate instant replay with a passion. It seems like they only get the review right about half the time anyway, so what is the point? Certainly there are some no-brainer reversals that instant replay helps out on, but the time taken to review plays is exhorbitant and really hurts the pace of the game. Why does it seem that college handles instant replays so much better? I'm guessing it is because they don't rely on the head referee to go look at a screen somewhere on the sideline. Maybe the union is the cause.

 
for a pass, both feet have to be in the endzone. so if both feet are in the endzone, and he extends his arms and catches the pass outside of the endzone at the 1, or 2, thats a TD. if a player is running towards the goalline, the ball must break the plane. if your feet are in the endzone(on a passing play!), then the ball never has to cross the plane.

on a passing play, the player catching the ball must contain possession even after hitting the ground. on a running play, if the player losses possession of the ball after hitting the ground, it is down by contact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
for a pass, both feet have to be in the endzone. so if both feet are in the endzone, and he extends his arms and catches the pass outside of the endzone at the 1, or 2, thats a TD. if a player is running towards the goalline, the ball must break the plane. if your feet are in the endzone(on a passing play!), then the ball never has to cross the plane.
That's incorrect. The ball must always cross the goalline to be a TD.
 
The only time a receiver must maintain possession of the ball throughout his contact of the ground is when he catches the ball while he is in the air. If you catch a ball with your feet on the ground, then once you get two feet down and make a "football" move, you have possession. If you hit the ground and the ball pops loose, you're down by contact.

However, if you jump for the ball (I.e. both feet leave the ground), then you must maintain possession of the ball even AFTER you hit the ground.

That's why the Bears play was like that. The RB jumped for the ball (his feet were off the ground when he caught it). Therefore, for it to be a catch, he must come down with the ball and maintain possession throughout the play.

 
Holmes caught the ball in the endzone and fell out of it. Because he had possession in the endzone it was a TD. The call had nothing to do with his feet.

The only thing about that play that I have a hard time understanding is at what moment do they consider the ball to be "caught", because depending on your definition he could have caught it 4 inches past the endzone "plane", or 6 inches outside of it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
on a passing play, the player catching the ball must contain possession even after hitting the ground. on a running play.
This one is incorrect, too.If the catch is first made (two steps/football move), the ball can come out after hitting the ground and it is still a catch. It is only when the receiver doesn't establish the catch prior to contact by the defensive player that they must maintain possession even after hitting the ground for it to be a catch.
 
To me that the bigger issue this year is the sheer number of questionable (or non) calls by the refs this year. I don't have any numbers to back this up but it just feels to me that this year has been an especially bad one as far as the quality and consistency of play calling. It seems each week this season brings yet another controversy.

 
for a pass, both feet have to be in the endzone. so if both feet are in the endzone, and he extends his arms and catches the pass outside of the endzone at the 1, or 2, thats a TD. if a player is running towards the goalline, the ball must break the plane. if your feet are in the endzone(on a passing play!), then the ball never has to cross the plane.on a passing play, the player catching the ball must contain possession even after hitting the ground. on a running play, if the player losses possession of the ball after hitting the ground, it is down by contact.
Crossing the plane is a confusing term but to clear it up let me add that the ball must touch the imaginary vertical plane which is the white goal line which is the beginning of the end zone. The ball does not have to cross the entire width of the white goal line.In the Holmes TD, the officials ruled that he controlled the ball while it was in the end zone (touching the white goal line vertically) and that he was later able to bring two feet down to legalize the reception. The ball has to touch the goal line at some point and then the player can land two feet down (similar to a catch that is made on the side of the end zone where the ball crosses the goal line during the flight of the pass and is touched by the hands while it is vertically out but two feet are down for the catch). Concerning difference between two feet down and having made a football move,,,I've seen way too many officials rule it two different ways. It's about as subjective as the tuck rule or, is the arm going forward or in basketball is it a charge or a blocking foul. I've seen two feet down and a football move made be ruled incomplete after the tackle caused the fumble and I've seen two feet down without a football move made be ruled a fumble after the tackle caused the fumble. It's a great game that is never boring.
 
on a passing play, the player catching the ball must contain possession even after hitting the ground. on a running play.
This one is incorrect, too.If the catch is first made (two steps/football move), the ball can come out after hitting the ground and it is still a catch. It is only when the receiver doesn't establish the catch prior to contact by the defensive player that they must maintain possession even after hitting the ground for it to be a catch.
Seems like even football fanatics (assuming we all are since we are in the shark pool) don't have all the rules down.Two other rules I don't like - Forward progress when a player is trying to get OB to stop the clock. Seems like refs are calling forward progress at the very instant contact is made even though the ball carriers still has enough leverage / momentum to carry themselves out of bounds. Sometimes players even try to avoid contact by running "backward" and the refs will blow the whistle if the defender puts a hand on them. Why? How is this rule better?Push out Rule - why did they change this rule? Because it was too "judgemental?" Seems like teams still don't understand this rule as players on the sideline will signal "push-out" when it does not even matter.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top