It's not the same as being "down" when tackled. A receiver can be tumbling 10 yards out of bounds and if the ball comes out at any point before his body comes to rest, they will call it incomplete.
That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
- Thread starter NewEra 2014
- Start date
It's not the same as being "down" when tackled. A receiver can be tumbling 10 yards out of bounds and if the ball comes out at any point before his body comes to rest, they will call it incomplete.
You have to learn the rules before you rage against them.
In the above hypothetical, he would have maintained control of the ball long enough to "clearly become a runner." That's a catch and a TD.
In the case of today's game, James was a "player going to the ground." Different rule in play. A rule which clearly states that it applies even if you're in the end zone.
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/
Like others have said ... it may be a stupid rule, but the correct call was made, as the rules are written.
he did maintain posession of the ball....clearly. he catches the ball, brings it to his waist, then realizing he wasn't going to cross the goal line before hitting the ground, reaches out over the goal line.
As stated, had he caught the ball on the ten, it would be a TD. He CAGHT the ball, is there any question of that? He maintained possession when he pulled it to his waist, is there any question on that? He then changed the trajectory.
I’ll accept that the refs called it correctly. Doesn’t change that the rule is beyond ridiculous and stupid crap like it are a big reason why people are tuning out from the NFL.
Here's the actual rule and there's no mention of a "football move." But, the "turning up field" after having two feet down seems like it should have defined him as a "runner."
ARTICLE 7. PLAYER POSSESSION
Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.
Item 2. Possession of a Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
ARTICLE 7. PLAYER POSSESSION
Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.
Item 2. Possession of a Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
This is fair...I'd never argue that. There's a lot of dumb rules and this one is at the top of the list.
Except, you forgot the item about a catch that takes the player to the ground. There's a whole different set of rules for that and the process of the catch took James to the ground and thus, he had to maintain all the way through which he didn't. It's the same rule that burned Dez Bryant. It's the same rule that burned Andre Ellington a couple weeks ago in a game. It's the same rule that so comically burned Calvin Johnson of a TD years ago against the Bears. It's a garbage rule but unfortunately, it was applied correctly here.
LOL--well, if one person at CBS Sports and the NY Post disagree they clearly are right--lol
Great post, "knee hit with possession"...
so simple, so pure, so academic ...
Who knew the NFL & the NCAA are sharing the same brain.
Apologies your majesty. How dare MANY other people have a differing opinion other than yours.
I hate the rule, but anyone saying they don't know what a catch is under the current stupid rules hasn't been paying attention for the past decade.
If you're already on the way to the ground in any way when you catch it, you have to maintain control through the ground. It's stupid, but it's simple. The questions about "what if he catches it at the 15 and loses it after he crosses the goal line" complete ignore the very simple rule that control through the ground is only required where the catch is made while on the way to the ground.
If you're already on the way to the ground in any way when you catch it, you have to maintain control through the ground. It's stupid, but it's simple. The questions about "what if he catches it at the 15 and loses it after he crosses the goal line" complete ignore the very simple rule that control through the ground is only required where the catch is made while on the way to the ground.
People can have whatever opinion they want. Opinions are great when they can be supported. I wish you were all right and I was wrong. Unfortunately that's not the case this time. James should have held onto the ball as he went to the ground in the endzone per the current, stupid, rules that exist. He didn't and he, in part, cost his team a game. The good news is he'll have opportunities to make up for it over the next several weeks and hopefully against NE in the playoffs.
It is stupid, but I think the argument is that going to his knees then lunging to the goal line constitutes a football move. Just the nfl getting their own stupid rule wrong.
The rules should be "clear possession of the ball with 2 feet or 1 knee." Unfortunately the rule is awful, so that if you're on the way to the ground when you obtain possession, you have to maintain possession through the ground for it to be a catch.
But he possessed the ball while he was already on the way down. Under the dumb rule, it doesnt matter if you make 15 football moves on the way to the ground, you have to maintain possession through the ground if you came into possession of the ball while on the way down.
So going to his knee then lunging for the goal line prior to losing control doesn’t constitute a football move?
I don't even know what you're trying to say. You seem confused. He was coming down with the ball the entirety of the way. He could have grabbed the ball from the air, spelled out each letter of the alphabet with his hands, with the ball in his possession the entirety of the time before he touched the ground, and if the ball shook loose a little when it touched the ground, it isn't a catch, per the rules.
It sucks. In my mind, and my personal judgment, that's a catch. But per the rules, it isn't.
Check out a little discussion here, from a couple years ago, with a play involving the Bengals (second play shown) even closer, IMO, to what should be a "catch." But he was still judged as going to the ground while attempting to make the catch.
Last edited:
He never completed the catch, so he was never "down in the end zone" with a catch. If you catch it in the process of going to the ground, you have to maintain it through the ground, whether you make a football move or not.
You're asking the wrong questions. If he possesses it while in the process of going to the ground, which he was, he has to maintain control through the ground or it's not a catch. If you catch it standing upright, then control through the ground is irrelevant. But if you're going down when you catch it, you have to maintain control through the ground. It's been ruled that way consistently for a decade. I hate it, I think its the worst rule in sports, but its interpretation isn't confusing, IMO.
Correct because he was going to the ground as he caught it. He has to maintain control when he hits the ground. The call was right. The rule is stupid
It's unconscionable the NFL hasn't fixed this after the debacles of the past few years. A simple "2 feet or 1 knee with possession" is objective, simple, and everyone would agree it makes sense.
I don't like "football move" because it's so subjective. Let's reduce how much of it is someone's opinion as best we can. Control of the ball, with 2 feet or 1 knee down is a catch. End of story (acknowledge whether the person controlled the ball will still be subjective).
The theory of Darwin's eveloution makes more sense than this profound NFL rule. Maybe I'm wrong, monkeys "rule".
Good night, running out of battery & tolerance toward the new traditional thinking.
Good night, running out of battery & tolerance toward the new traditional thinking.
What's the question? A running back catching the ball while "falling to the ground"? Yes, it's the same, of course.
A running back just running the ball after a hand-off? No, it's different, because he's a "runner." They make a distinction between someone falling to the ground in the midst of trying to catch a ball, and someone who is a running with the ball, whether after a hand-off, or a catch.
But how long does it take to complete the catch? If he changes trgectory of the ball twice while controlling it is that not completing the catch?
But none of that completed the process of catching the ball while going to the ground.
Personally, I'd like to see replays outlawed. They've made the game rules far to technical. Officials get one shot, full speed, at making a call. Replay can be shown from several different angles. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
No. A running back running with ball need only break the plane. Player catching ball while going to ground must complete the catch/survive the ground however you want to phrase it. Since you are an engineer think of it as coming completely to rest without losing possession. Here the plane of the goal played no part.
You’re a moron. The rules suck and they keep ruining games. Most of the people on this board are pretty die-hard football types. If the rules are convoluted and smack of legalese so much so that those well versed in the subject don’t get it, then the problem is with the rules, not us dickweed. Morons who come back with, “rules are rules”, are nothing more than mindless peons.
It’s like someone screwing up on their taxes on some obscure rule, then saying, “that rule
has been in the tax code for years, idiot.” Strong logic.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football James Franklin offers update on Penn State DE Abdul Carter- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
