Vincent Brown TD Reversed (1 Viewer)

[identikit]

Correct me if I'm getting the wrong impression, but I'm getting a sense maybe this is where the difference lies.

Group A is maybe looking at Brown as having made one attempt at a catch that started when he grasped the ball in his jump and ended with him grasping the ball in his lap. They are maybe thinking "this means an OOB defender can touch a ball as a receiver is catching it and it will be incomplete and that is wrong". Which if that is how the rules read I would agree with them. Luckily, they don't read that way.

Group B sees two different attempts at a catch. There was the first attempt where Brown lost control of the ball going to the ground. Then later there was a second attempt when he secured it in his lap. In between it was a loose ball. It doesn't matter if the ball was in his hands but moving out of control, if it was resting loose in his lap, or if the ball popped up 10 feet in the air before coming back down and being caught. During that time it was loose, and it wasn't until Brown again got control of it that a catch was being attempted for the 2nd time.

The rules read the way Group B is looking at it. Any control Brown had on the initial attempt, or having 2 feet down, are completely moot once the ball moves as he goes to the ground. If he is going to make a catch he has to completely satisfy anew all the criteria for a catch.

So, if my guess is correct about how Group A is looking at this, no, it isn't a case of touching a ball in the act of being caught makes it incomplete. The ball was down because an OOB player touched a LOOSE BALL. It was not down because an OOB player touched a ball that was under control in the act of being caught.

If Brown had retained control of the ball on the 1st attempted catch, it would not be out of bounds. Because an OOB player touching a ball in the possession of another player does not make the ball dead. Only touching a loose ball while OOB makes the play dead.

I don't know, does clarifying that distinction help anyone? The offense is not being unfairly taken advantage of. Conceptually what happened on the play is no different if the ball popped up 10 feet and Lito touched it during that time, versus if it was still against his body but not in his control when Lito touched it.

 

[Hoss Style]

Correct me if I'm getting the wrong impression, but I'm getting a sense maybe this is where the difference lies.

Group A is maybe looking at Brown as having made one attempt at a catch that started when he grasped the ball in his jump and ended with him grasping the ball in his lap. They are maybe thinking "this means an OOB defender can touch a ball as a receiver is catching it and it will be incomplete and that is wrong". Which if that is how the rules read I would agree with them. Luckily, they don't read that way.

Group B sees two different attempts at a catch. There was the first attempt where Brown lost control of the ball going to the ground. Then later there was a second attempt when he secured it in his lap. In between it was a loose ball. It doesn't matter if the ball was in his hands but moving out of control, if it was resting loose in his lap, or if the ball popped up 10 feet in the air before coming back down and being caught. During that time it was loose, and it wasn't until Brown again got control of it that a catch was being attempted for the 2nd time.

The rules read the way Group B is looking at it. Any control Brown had on the initial attempt, or having 2 feet down, are completely moot once the ball moves as he goes to the ground. If he is going to make a catch he has to completely satisfy anew all the criteria for a catch.

So, if my guess is correct about how Group A is looking at this, no, it isn't a case of touching a ball in the act of being caught makes it incomplete. The ball was down because an OOB player touched a LOOSE BALL. It was not down because an OOB player touched a ball that was under control in the act of being caught.

If Brown had retained control of the ball on the 1st attempted catch, it would not be out of bounds. Because an OOB player touching a ball in the possession of another player does not make the ball dead. Only touching a loose ball while OOB makes the play dead.

I don't know, does clarifying that distinction help anyone? The offense is not being unfairly taken advantage of. Conceptually what happened on the play is no different if the ball popped up 10 feet and Lito touched it during that time, versus if it was still against his body but not in his control when Lito touched it.

I totally understand the rule, although you explained it very well and I'm sure it helped to clarify it even better. I still don't agree that it's a great rule as it stands. Not a bad rule by any means. I think it just needs to be tweaked a bit (not that my sole opinion really matters, but hey...). Anyway, maybe my quarrel is more with that the rule deems a ball "loose" than with the actual rule we are discussing.Either way, I just feel there's something inherently wrong with a defender being able to invalidate a catch simply because he's flailing his arms at the WR while the WR is making the catch and the defender happens to have a foot out of bounds at some point while his finger is touching the ball (and the WR hasn't "secured" the ball yet). In Scenario B, above, I definately think that if a WR has touched the ball and is in the process of attempting to make that catch, even if he hasn't made it yet, that the defender touching it while out of bounds should not make the catch incomplete if the WR manages to secure the ball and complete the catch in bounds.

Again, maybe it's not this rule that I don't like - maybe it's the possession rule I'm not fond of. I'm not quite sure, yet. Maybe the WR, who has touched the ball and is in the act of making a catch, should have some sort of simple "possession" that allows him to finish the catch without a defender standing out of bounds being able to graze the ball with his finger and making it a dead ball.

I'm usually for letting the players determine the fate of a play and I think this rule takes away from that. Without using exaggerated examples to say why the rule is valid (I agree with those examples, by the way) I think the rule could stand to be looked at in the offseason by the NFL.

Maybe a good summary would be "If the player has touched the ball then he is allowed to attempt to complete the catch according to the rules even if the defender happens to touch the ball while standing out of bounds while the catch is still attempting to be made by the WR". Or something like that. Remember that this would only apply after the WR has touched the ball in the process of making the catch. If the defender touches it before the WR has then it's still a dead ball.