...why has the rule evolved to be that you have to control the ball when you hit the ground after a catch?

I seriously, seriously don't like how these what-constitutes-a-catch rules have been modified these last few years.

The BC guy just now caught it, and it shouldn't matter what happens once he's out of bounds.

The Arizona St guy earlier today made a fantastic interception, but because the ground caused the ball to move slightly when he hit the ground, it's taken away from him.

I despise these damn rules. It takes away from the game, imo.

You have to establish possession of the ball first. The rule you are asking about refers to forcing fumbles not catching passes. The rules state that you can't use the ground to help secure the ball during a pass. After you have secured a pass and get tackled the defender must force the fumble with his body, not the force of your body hitting the ground.

Sheesh... USC interception just now... it "stood," but another unnecessary review if we were playing under traditional rules.

No offense, john, but like you, I know the two rules, and I understand them, and as long as the standard is equally applied to both teams, no one is actually harmed.

I'm only arguing for logical consistency... the rule changed, and I understand that they're simply trying to make it less of an official's judgment call by strictly saying the ground cannot AT ALL affect the reception/interception/catch... previously, there was human assessment of whether the ball was trapped, ie egregious assistance from the ground in making the catch.

But the principle that the ground cannot cause of fumble implies that a player ought to be able to make a catch in mid-air, bring it into his body, and then upon making contact with the ground, it shouldn't matter whether the player maintains control... the ball is dead upon contact.

Similarly... consider the fact that when a player RUNS OVER THE GOAL LINE, the ball is effectively dead AS SOON AS THE BALL BREAKS THE PLANE... but, but, but... if a player CATCHES the ball, brings it into his body, and falls to the ground, the ball still isn't dead UNTIL HE "COMPLETES" the play by maintaining control even after hitting the ground--even to the point, that when he hits the ground, if the ball even MOVES in his arms, we now call that an incomplete pass.

The principle should be the principle, and it should evident in how the rules are observed.

I just hate inconsistency, and especially when we end up watching these amazing catches that, for the first 40 or so years of my 45 or so years of watching this game, were called completions or interceptions... and now we have these nit-picky calls that eliminate some truly athletic plays from counting.

You still have it wrong. The only "change" to the rule was that that if you had control when it hit the ground it is still a catch. Prior to that, of the ball hit the ground AT ALL, under any circumstances during the process, it was incomplete.

The rules are different because as long as you have possession and hit the ground, you are just down and no fumble. If you are trying to gain possession, if he ball ever touched no catch, no possession, no ball.

(12-27-2014 10:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You still have it wrong. The only "change" to the rule was that that if you had control when it hit the ground it is still a catch. Prior to that, of the ball hit the ground AT ALL, under any circumstances during the process, it was incomplete.

Not so. The rule was made more strict.

The change has been significant... which is why the commentators continue to explain it over and over and over and over and over again.

(12-27-2014 10:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The rules are different because as long as you have possession and hit the ground, you are just down and no fumble. If you are trying to gain possession, if he ball ever touched no catch, no possession, no ball.

I think you might be missing my point. But I gave it my best shot.

(12-27-2014 09:57 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Sheesh... USC interception just now... it "stood," but another unnecessary review if we were playing under traditional rules.

No offense, john, but like you, I know the two rules, and I understand them, and as long as the standard is equally applied to both teams, no one is actually harmed.

I'm only arguing for logical consistency... the rule changed, and I understand that they're simply trying to make it less of an official's judgment call by strictly saying the ground cannot AT ALL affect the reception/interception/catch... previously, there was human assessment of whether the ball was trapped, ie egregious assistance from the ground in making the catch.

But the principle that the ground cannot cause of fumble implies that a player ought to be able to make a catch in mid-air, bring it into his body, and then upon making contact with the ground, it shouldn't matter whether the player maintains control... the ball is dead upon contact.

Similarly... consider the fact that when a player RUNS OVER THE GOAL LINE, the ball is effectively dead AS SOON AS THE BALL BREAKS THE PLANE... but, but, but... if a player CATCHES the ball, brings it into his body, and falls to the ground, the ball still isn't dead UNTIL HE "COMPLETES" the play by maintaining control even after hitting the ground--even to the point, that when he hits the ground, if the ball even MOVES in his arms, we now call that an incomplete pass.

The principle should be the principle, and it should evident in how the rules are observed.

I just hate inconsistency, and especially when we end up watching these amazing catches that, for the first 40 or so years of my 45 or so years of watching this game, were called completions or interceptions... and now we have these nit-picky calls that eliminate some truly athletic plays from counting.

I don't think it's inconsistent. In the middle of the field, if you catch the ball but don't maintain possession when you hit the ground, it isn't a legal catch. Likewise, in the endzone, it isn't a TD reception unless it's a legal catch, which means maintaining possession all the way to the ground. And a RB has to have possession of the ball when it breaks the plane of the endzone.

Today's Dez incident illustrates my point precisely. Under the rules we all grew up with, that was a catch. It still should be. To call that incomplete is just absurd. And if there is such a thing as football immorality, then that is immoral. The same ground that cannot cause a fumble should not be "part of a process"... you either have possession or you don't ... by all rights it should be that simple (just as it had been for decades).

(01-11-2015 06:24 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Today's Dez incident illustrates my point precisely. Under the rules we all grew up with, that was a catch. It still should be. To call that incomplete is just absurd. And if there is such a thing as football immorality, then that is immoral. The same ground that cannot cause a fumble should not be "part of a process"... you either have possession or you don't ... by all rights it should be that simple (just as it had been for decades).

Rules committee really does need to look at the rule. However it was correctly applied today just like it was agasint Detroit a few years ago. they are consistently applying the rule they have

(01-11-2015 07:06 PM)billings Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 06:24 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Today's Dez incident illustrates my point precisely. Under the rules we all grew up with, that was a catch. It still should be. To call that incomplete is just absurd. And if there is such a thing as football immorality, then that is immoral. The same ground that cannot cause a fumble should not be "part of a process"... you either have possession or you don't ... by all rights it should be that simple (just as it had been for decades).

Rules committee really does need to look at the rule. However it was correctly applied today just like it was agasint Detroit a few years ago. they are consistently applying a bad rule lol

As a Dallas fan can't complain because it was the correct call...but it still stings and this is now the Calvin Johnson/Dez Bryant Rule...

(01-11-2015 07:06 PM)billings Wrote:  Rules committee really does need to look at the rule.

That's my take.

It was a catch because:

1) he caught the ball
2) then he was touched by the defender
3) then he took three steps with the ball
4) then he stretched for the end zone
5) then he came down on the turf with multiple body parts
***** at this point he was down by contact *****
6) then he bobbled the ball as he crossed the goal line
7) then he regained possession of the ball

NFL needs to change the rule. It's just a bad rule. The Calvin Johnson call a couple of years ago was even worse than this one.

And, I think even if they interpreted the rule correctly today, they still got the call wrong. To overturn they had to have judged that Bryant was not making a 'football move' toward the end zone with the ball. It sure looked like to me he was. And regardless, it didn't seem to me to be anywhere near the "indisputable evidence" supposedly needed to overturn the call.

IMHO the NFL needs to change the way they use replay. They claim over and over "indisputable evidence" - which should mean that they review the call on the field to see if there is a reason to overturn it. If they can't tell - then that should mean there is no indisputable evidence. Confirm the call on the field.

But that's not what they usually do. Instead they use replay to reconstruct the play and then make the primary call. That's why we have these endless replays - and IMO, they still get a lot of them wrong.

It was a catch because:

1) he caught the ball
2) then he was touched by the defender
3) then he took three steps with the ball
4) then he came down on the turf with multiple body parts
***** at this point he was down by contact *****
5) then he bobbled the ball as he crossed the goal line
6) then he regained possession of the ball
[/quote]

Actually....according to the NFL Rules it wasn't a catch...go back and look at the Detriot - Chicago Game 3 years ago...Dumb Rule but it was unfortunately the correct call...

(01-11-2015 09:08 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 08:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  It was a catch because:

1) he caught the ball
2) then he was touched by the defender
3) then he took three steps with the ball
4) then he came down on the turf with multiple body parts
***** at this point he was down by contact *****
5) then he bobbled the ball as he crossed the goal line
6) then he regained possession of the ball

Actually....according to the NFL Rules it wasn't a catch...go back and look at the Detriot - Chicago Game 3 years ago...Dumb Rule but it was unfortunately the correct call...

So if:

1) you catch the ball and you're touched by a defender,
2) you run *** three*** steps and stretch for the end zone,
3) you fall to the turf with your entire body (arms, legs, and torso),
4) then the ball comes out

... that is not a catch?

(01-11-2015 09:14 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 09:08 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 08:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  It was a catch because:

1) he caught the ball
2) then he was touched by the defender
3) then he took three steps with the ball
4) then he came down on the turf with multiple body parts
***** at this point he was down by contact *****
5) then he bobbled the ball as he crossed the goal line
6) then he regained possession of the ball

Actually....according to the NFL Rules it wasn't a catch...go back and look at the Detriot - Chicago Game 3 years ago...Dumb Rule but it was unfortunately the correct call...

So if:

1) you catch the ball and you're touched by a defender,
2) you run *** three*** steps and stretch for the end zone,
3) you fall to the turf with your entire body (arms, legs, and torso),
4) then the ball comes out

... that is not a catch?

Yup...extremely dumb rule...it happened before...the Cowboys are not protesting...just saying it is a bad rule...hopefully they will fix it...Calvin Johnson incident was even worse....

This link will explain it better...

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/video/tough...2975555798

You know what touchdown i always thought was bull****...?
Super Bowl XII, Dallas vs Denver, Butch Johnson's "catch"...

Checkout the pass from Staubach at around the 28 second mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4

(01-11-2015 11:56 PM)billyjack Wrote:  You know what touchdown i always thought was bull****...?
Super Bowl XII, Dallas vs Denver, Butch Johnson's "catch"...

Checkout the pass from Staubach at around the 28 second mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4

Yep. With today's rules - that is not a touchdown.

As a packers fan I admit I hate that call I don't care what the technical rule is I hate it. Excited about NFC title game though

(01-12-2015 12:13 AM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 11:56 PM)billyjack Wrote:  You know what touchdown i always thought was bull****...?
Super Bowl XII, Dallas vs Denver, Butch Johnson's "catch"...

Checkout the pass from Staubach at around the 28 second mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4

Yep. With today's rules - that is not a touchdown.

Butch Johnson Pre California Quake TD Celebration...one of my finest memories as a Cowboys Fan....

My Boys got the shaft in that call! That rule needs to sleep with the fishes, with cement shoes.