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!
Who sees a distinct difference between these two catches? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Uncle Grandpa
- Start date
Uncle Grandpa
Footballguy
I'm not a giants fan, nor do I care if OBJ scored 6 less points, so not sure what you're getting at.
buck naked
Footballguy
Don't even try to understand it. NFL cannot even interpret their own rule consistently.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Can you add a third option that neither should have been a catch?
Uncle Grandpa
Footballguy
I really hope they fix this s--t this offseason. When you've got the announcers complaining week after week that the rules aren't clear, despite supposedly being trained by the rules officials this past offseason, there's a problem.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Calvin Johnson vs. the Bears was 5+ years ago. It's only gotten worse.
They could have fixed it then, or that off season. Instead they have spent six seasons trying to justify/tweak a bad rule.
They could have fixed it then, or that off season. Instead they have spent six seasons trying to justify/tweak a bad rule.
Quez
Footballguy
I just jump at every opportunity to use that smiley. As far as your post, yeah the NFL is pretty hypocritical. Nothing new.I'm not a giants fan, nor do I care if OBJ scored 6 less points, so not sure what you're getting at.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I think the line the NFL uses is that Tate caught the ball and started to turn, then someone swatted it. Obj was still at the very end of the process of catching the ball, and hadn't started to turn, and a defender kept him from completing the process.
So these two plays are literally the least possible difference between catch and not catch. Does the ball gets to the hands, do the hands wrap around it, do the hands go down a little as they secure the ball? Check, check and check. Does he turn? Tate did, Obj didn't.
I'll grudgingly add that it's also consistent with the falling to the ground rule. You can't make a football move, or now that they've stopped calling it that, you can't become a runner, when you are still falling down. Tate became a runner when he stayed to bring the ball in and turned. Obj was a fraction of a second from doing the same.
It's a ridiculous standard. But they applied it correctly. If they actually stick to this standard, after seeing those two plays side by side and all the going to the ground plays over the years, I honestly think I finally understand what they think a catch is and isn't. It's not the definition I would have used, but I understand their definition.
So these two plays are literally the least possible difference between catch and not catch. Does the ball gets to the hands, do the hands wrap around it, do the hands go down a little as they secure the ball? Check, check and check. Does he turn? Tate did, Obj didn't.
I'll grudgingly add that it's also consistent with the falling to the ground rule. You can't make a football move, or now that they've stopped calling it that, you can't become a runner, when you are still falling down. Tate became a runner when he stayed to bring the ball in and turned. Obj was a fraction of a second from doing the same.
It's a ridiculous standard. But they applied it correctly. If they actually stick to this standard, after seeing those two plays side by side and all the going to the ground plays over the years, I honestly think I finally understand what they think a catch is and isn't. It's not the definition I would have used, but I understand their definition.
Uncle Grandpa
Footballguy
If the rule was simply, "secure ball, two feet down" regardless of the situation and where they are on the field, what circumstances, if any, would make the viewer say, "Oh no. He didn't catch that." If you have any video examples, that would be helpful.
I do think there's a difference.
OBJ gets it, feet down, then slapped out.
Tate got it and the DBs hand is on it same time like 3 hands on the ball. DB won, that came out, and IMO that's Tate's fault and I don't like that TD.
I don't like the rule at all.
If I were a ref, I think ODB TD and as far as Tate I'd be like that's a fumble and the other refs would be saying well to fumble he has to have had it first and I'd be all torn there. More I watch it, the more it looks like a fumble so I'd begrudgingly give him the TD.
It'd sure help if WRs had a "my ball" mentality and we didn't consistently have to look to rules to help weak efforts. Not so much here, but time and time again it's a smaller guy with smaller muscle frame taking it away from a supposed beast. We almost never see this with TEs too. TEs make it look like you're trying to steal their cookie jar. Thus every team has a fine example to point to as to how to secure a ball. They need a drill like the RBs getting it punched out, where the DBs slap it away. It's a bad bad habit in the NFL.
The difference is they ruled tate was a runner before entering end zone.. Thus once the ball broke plane... It was a td ...play over. Obj play was catch in end zone so not same situation. I consider myself an avid NFL fan and pretty knowledgeable about most rules... Right now though I have no clue on most of these catch/no catch plays. It's a weird feeling to not know what you are watching
Green and Gold
Footballguy
I thought OBJ's was a touchdown and Tate's was a pick when I saw them live. I don't know. 
Warrior
Footballguy
So by twisting your torso about 10 degrees to one side, it's now considered a completion?
Gotcha.
Moronic.
heckmanm
Footballguy
So Tate made love to the ball for a split second, and that constitutes "completion"?
He swears that's never happened to him before ...
Ironman2131
Footballguy
Because someone running with the ball over the plane is obviously a "runner", but someone catching the ball needs to complete the entire catch motion. Personally, I think the rule should be changed so that a pass-catcher only has to establish two feet down plus do pretty much anything else to complete the motion of the catch. That "anything" would include falling out of bounds after planting both feet inbounds to catch the ball, or even taking one full step after the initial two feet.
If a defender can knock the ball away or a WR loses it before that one additional step, it's not a catch. If the WR plants both feet in the end zone and then takes a step turning away while still holding the ball, or falls on his butt, where contact with the ground knocks it away, or makes an attempt to reach out across for a TD (like Eifert earlier this season or Dez in the playoffs last year), it's a TD, since the receiver obviously knows what he's doing at that point and has fully established possession.
BTW, based on the rule above, ODB never took another step after getting two feet down (his foot was almost down after he turned, but it hadn't yet touched the ground), so it would have been ruled incomplete. Oh, and just for reference, on the oft-referenced Calvin "catch" he clearly takes another step (and more) before losing the ball, so that would be a touchdown.
If a defender can knock the ball away or a WR loses it before that one additional step, it's not a catch. If the WR plants both feet in the end zone and then takes a step turning away while still holding the ball, or falls on his butt, where contact with the ground knocks it away, or makes an attempt to reach out across for a TD (like Eifert earlier this season or Dez in the playoffs last year), it's a TD, since the receiver obviously knows what he's doing at that point and has fully established possession.
BTW, based on the rule above, ODB never took another step after getting two feet down (his foot was almost down after he turned, but it hadn't yet touched the ground), so it would have been ruled incomplete. Oh, and just for reference, on the oft-referenced Calvin "catch" he clearly takes another step (and more) before losing the ball, so that would be a touchdown.
Agreed. Like a receiver could be standing still in the EZ, have the ball thrown right at him, not move a muscle after catch = TD
GregR
Footballguy
The obvious difference is Beckham doesn't control the ball for as long after getting 2 feet down. Tate loses the ball right about the time he's completing a 3rd step. Beckham was never close to completing another step with the ball in his control.
Beckham's is very clearly incomplete by the rules. Tate's might also be incomplete by rule and precedent, but it's a LOT closer to the borderline.
I think the NFL got Tate's call wrong, but it was a tougher call. The review was definitely not irrefutable, so the call on the field should have stood at the very least.
RBM
Footballguy
Not on a handoff from inside the one where he goes airborne and almost simultaneously gets the ball knocked away AS SOON as the tip nips the goal line.
TD
MattFancy
Footballguy
ragnarok628
Footballguy
Some of y'alls definitions really give the defense no shot to make a play in the endzone. Just get a hand on it and 2 feet down? How can it not matter what happens with the football after that in order to call it a catch? There is some period of time where the ball has been touched but we can't yet call it a catch, because 'catching' the ball implies some duration of possession has to have occured; otherwise the ball is 'caught' the instant the receiver touches it with his hands. So once you accept that there is a time element to a catch (as any reasonable person must) you are in this situation where as soon as the receiver touches the ball you've got 'Schroedinger's Catch'... we don't know whether it's actually a catch until the process is completed. During this timespan, lots of things could happen: Defender knocks it away, Receiver bobbles or drops, ball is knocked loose by the ground. This is why the 'going to ground' rules are kind of screwy, it's impossible to objectively define a point in that process where the catch is completed, so it stays a Schroedinger's Catch until whatever happens on ground impact has happened.
The thing with this comparison is it's not a 'going to ground' situation, it just cuts really finely down to the edges of when the ball is determined to have been 'caught' by rule. I don't really know the details in the rulebook on this but there is some instant which must occur *after* initial contact, wherein the ball is actually 'caught'. With ODB, they determined that the defender knocked the ball out before that instant, which prevented the catch, and to me that's pretty defensible; didn't look to me like he was done catching that football. The Tate situation, looks like he has completed the catch when it's knocked out, that instant had already passed, so it would have been a fumble; and then of course if he 'fumbles' in the end zone, he must have already been possessing the ball in the endzone, so: touchdown.
The thing with this comparison is it's not a 'going to ground' situation, it just cuts really finely down to the edges of when the ball is determined to have been 'caught' by rule. I don't really know the details in the rulebook on this but there is some instant which must occur *after* initial contact, wherein the ball is actually 'caught'. With ODB, they determined that the defender knocked the ball out before that instant, which prevented the catch, and to me that's pretty defensible; didn't look to me like he was done catching that football. The Tate situation, looks like he has completed the catch when it's knocked out, that instant had already passed, so it would have been a fumble; and then of course if he 'fumbles' in the end zone, he must have already been possessing the ball in the endzone, so: touchdown.
ragnarok628
Footballguy
ok but can you define what you mean by 'catching and letting go of the ball', and how it is different than committing a drop in the endzone?
GregR
Footballguy
If a receiver gets control of the ball in the end zone but only gets 1 foot in bounds, is it a touchdown? The ball is across the plane after all.
No, because he never established possession of the ball. The fact the ball is in the end zone without either team in possession of it doesn't matter. This is no different.
You have to complete all elements of the catch before you have possession of the ball. Including either clearly becoming a runner, or controlling it all the way through going to the ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
MattFancy
Footballguy
Well of course you have to have 2 feet in bounds for it to be a catch. But why do you have to maintain control as you go to the ground when all you have to do when running it in, is get the tip of the ball on the goal line?
For a league that has done just about everything to get scoring to go up, they've made it impossible to figure out what is and isn't a catch anymore.
chad in Indy
Footballguy
Just the fact that there is a thread with this many posts is evidence enough that the rule needs fixed. If there is this much dispute between avid and educated football fans, how is any casual fan to know what is going on? Same thing for instant replay. There is far too much variance in each referee's determination when going to a replay. I'd rather have one eye in the sky making consistent calls (even if bad), then inconsistent decisions from the head referees on the field. It's getting to be similar to watching college officiating dependent on which conference the refs come from.
ragnarok628
Footballguy
because that's how they decided to define the point at which it becomes a catch. There must always be some period of time that the receiver is controlling the ball for it to be considered a catch (or else merely touching the ball would be a catch), and they use the act of becoming a runner as the line to mark when the catch is completed because presumably that's the least ambiguous thing to call on the field. once you control the football you have to become a runner or down the ball in order to have completed the catch, if you lose control before then it's a drop.
ragnarok628
Footballguy
That assumes that some kind of non-controversial rule could even exist for these edge cases. you could 'fix' it ever year and every year it would be controversial because the things this rule governs by nature have both a huge impact on the game and are close situations. You think you can come up with some good rules on this, be my guest
Simple....control the ball....get two feet down....its a catch....it really should be that simple....if you lose the ball by going to the ground after that he should be down right there since the ground can't cause a fumble...it shouldn't be incomplete....
bostonfred
Footballguy
You have to become a runner outside the end zone, too. That's how people run into the end zone. If you didn't have to become a runner then you'd never be able to run from outside the end zone into the end zone.
That's also why the Dez play wasn't a catch. Everyone keeps saying that the rules are different in the end zone but that catch showed that they really aren't. Dez made the catch outside the end zone, but he didn't establish himself as a runner before he crossed the plane. So even though he crossed the plane, he hadn't completed the process of making the catch.
Think of it this way, if he had wanted to, could he have handed the ball to the ref before it hit the ground? That's clearly possession. Could he have tossed the ball to the ref? Brought it up over his head? Brought it in to his body? Done anything smoothly to show that he had caught it and wasn't still bobbling?
The only thing tate did was turn slightly with the ball. But he redirected it so he could run with it. Dez was falling to the ground. He couldn't have tossed it to the ref, he was busy landing. And then the ball came out.
Obj was trying to complete the catch and someone chopped at it. He didn't turn to get out of the way, didn't bring the ball in to protect it, he was still gaining control. That's the standard they're using.
That's also why the Dez play wasn't a catch. Everyone keeps saying that the rules are different in the end zone but that catch showed that they really aren't. Dez made the catch outside the end zone, but he didn't establish himself as a runner before he crossed the plane. So even though he crossed the plane, he hadn't completed the process of making the catch.
Think of it this way, if he had wanted to, could he have handed the ball to the ref before it hit the ground? That's clearly possession. Could he have tossed the ball to the ref? Brought it up over his head? Brought it in to his body? Done anything smoothly to show that he had caught it and wasn't still bobbling?
The only thing tate did was turn slightly with the ball. But he redirected it so he could run with it. Dez was falling to the ground. He couldn't have tossed it to the ref, he was busy landing. And then the ball came out.
Obj was trying to complete the catch and someone chopped at it. He didn't turn to get out of the way, didn't bring the ball in to protect it, he was still gaining control. That's the standard they're using.
Marauder
Footballguy
Because the runner has already established control. Once a runner or a receiver has established control of the football and has crossed the plane (in either order) the play is dead and it is a TD even if the ball is knocked away a fraction of a second later. The debate here is about what constitutes establishing control. The fact that this happened in the end zone is really irrelevant. If the play had happened at the 50 yard line it would be the same situation. Either he had control long enough for it to be considered a catch or it is incomplete.
GregR
Footballguy
Why do you have to get 2 feet down when all a runner has to do is dive over the goal line? Because 2 feet down is a requirement for a catch, and without a catch you don't have possession.
The answer to your question is the exact same answer. Why do you have to control it if you go to the ground? Because doing so is a requirement for a catch, and without a catch you don't have possession.
A receiver who hasn't completed all parts of a catch has not yet gained possession of the ball. There's no comparing his situation to that of a player who already has possession.
The same rules apply to fumbles too. If you want to make such a comparison, compare the receiver to a fumble recovery who doesn't establish possession yet. In Miami's game there was a fumble recovery where the defender scooped the ball and got tackled immediately before he could "become a runner", and the ball came out when he went to the ground. It was ruled he never had possession of it. The goal line wasn't involved, but if he'd fallen over the goal line in being tackled, it would not have been a touchdown either. Because an unpossessed ball going into the end zone is not a touchdown.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
This, exactly.
It just doesn't matter what we think.
When will all the whiners get that through their heads?
The NFL needs to go back to "Two feet down and possession" and be done it. But that's not how it s so we just have to deal with it.
So a receiver catches a ball with his hands while standing still in the endzone. If he just stands there, is that a TD? No football move, no going to the ground. Of course it is. So those possession descriptors for a catch have less meaning in the endzone.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
I think probably the biggest disconnect people have is this. The rules that have been in place for a half dozen years now, the receiver has to maintain control for some period of time AFTER the 2nd foot comes down.
I think most people who have problems with the rules look at is as more like, "he has to control it for some amount of time I think is enough and also get 2 feet down". And in particular, they start counting that time element from the moment he has control, so they include the time he gets his 2 feet down.
So in the case of OBJ, the latter person thinks OBJ had the ball for plenty of time. I mean, he caught it and took 2 full steps, right?
But actually applying the rules and focusing on it from after his 2nd foot hit, he barely controls it a fraction of a second and did nothing during that time. The NFL has a few times now changed the wording of what has to happen after the 2nd foot is down, but the essence is the same. He has to maintain control for longer than players used to, and that time does not start until the 2nd foot is down.
If you actually apply the rules instead of expecting them to agree with your gut, you'll find you are rarely surprised by a call. Yes there are still bad calls. Like I said, I think Golden Tate should have been incomplete, because it is right on the cusp of whether he did something with it or not in taking that 3rd step/not quite taking the 3rd step. I think the bad call though was in overturning the play rather than staying with the call on the field when it's that close.
I think most people who have problems with the rules look at is as more like, "he has to control it for some amount of time I think is enough and also get 2 feet down". And in particular, they start counting that time element from the moment he has control, so they include the time he gets his 2 feet down.
So in the case of OBJ, the latter person thinks OBJ had the ball for plenty of time. I mean, he caught it and took 2 full steps, right?
But actually applying the rules and focusing on it from after his 2nd foot hit, he barely controls it a fraction of a second and did nothing during that time. The NFL has a few times now changed the wording of what has to happen after the 2nd foot is down, but the essence is the same. He has to maintain control for longer than players used to, and that time does not start until the 2nd foot is down.
If you actually apply the rules instead of expecting them to agree with your gut, you'll find you are rarely surprised by a call. Yes there are still bad calls. Like I said, I think Golden Tate should have been incomplete, because it is right on the cusp of whether he did something with it or not in taking that 3rd step/not quite taking the 3rd step. I think the bad call though was in overturning the play rather than staying with the call on the field when it's that close.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
If he "just stands there" for a tenth of a second and then drops the ball, he never completed the catch, does not have possession, and so it is not a TD. Nor would it be a catch at the 50 yard line. It is incomplete, and it being in the end zone is irrelevant.
If he "just stands there" for a long enough period of time that he can defend himself/become a runner/make a football move, then he completed the catch, and it is now a TD. It would also be a catch at the 50 yard line. It being in the end zone is still irrelevant as to whether it was a catch.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I don't think it is stupid. There have always been arguments over catch/no catch. I like the rules being more restrictive. Game has already gone too pass happy.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Super slow mo works great for determining a fumble before the knee or elbow touches. A good camera angle will show definitively if the ball crosses the plane. These are clearly defined objectives. Catching the ball used to be objective.I thought OBJ's was a touchdown and Tate's was a pick when I saw them live. I don't know.
It all goes back to that day in Chicago when Megatron didn't complete the process. We've gone through different iterations of the wording - football move, defining what is a football move, removing the football move language - but the bottom line is they made it subjective.
Go backwards. Fix it. Control of the ball, two feet down, catch/TD. Defender knocks it away, fumble in the field of play, TD in the end zone.
It's gotten so absurdly inconsistent. You can't have the rule be subjective.
Kilgore
Footballguy
Didn't look to me like Tate had sole possession of the football, in the endzone.
Re, Beckham's catch: Not sure why you need to get a third foot down, if you catch the ball in the endzone, but that seems to be what the rules mean by "become a runner".
According to the rules, neither should have been a catch. See the Lee Evans drop in the AFC Championship game about 5 years back, for the closest comparison to the Beckham catch.
I think a catch should be based on the amount of time you have control of it, with two feet on the ground. I don't know what the hell a "football move" is.
Re, Beckham's catch: Not sure why you need to get a third foot down, if you catch the ball in the endzone, but that seems to be what the rules mean by "become a runner".
According to the rules, neither should have been a catch. See the Lee Evans drop in the AFC Championship game about 5 years back, for the closest comparison to the Beckham catch.
I think a catch should be based on the amount of time you have control of it, with two feet on the ground. I don't know what the hell a "football move" is.
Last edited by a moderator:
ragnarok628
Footballguy
ok, what does it mean to 'control the ball'? how do you determine when control of the ball has been established? I mean, basically what you describe is what the rule actually *is*, with their interpretation on what controlling the ball means. If you don't define that term, then the refs can call whatever the hell they want, which is bound to be even more controversial and even more a source of confusion/contention/inconsistency.
