How Would You Re-Write The Catch Rule?

[Clyde]

The Dez play will most likely get the rules committee to re-examine the way the rule is worded and enforced.

 

However, changing it is easier said than done.

 

How would you write the rule so that it seems fair and accurate?

[LOOGY]

I think it's fair and accurate as it is. No need to change it at all IMO

[malachicrunch]

Maybe two feet on the ground with full possesion?

[malachicrunch]

I think it's fair and accurate as it is. No need to change it at all IMO

 

I disagree. I would classify Dezs catch a reception down on the 1 yd. line if the current rule was different.

[ColonelCrazy]

I don't know the actual language of the rule now, but in my opinion Dez made a "football move" when he extended the ball towards the goal line. To me, that's sufficient for possession of the football and qualifies as a "catch".

[Hellbird]

The Dez play will most likely get the rules committee to re-examine the way the rule is worded and enforced.

 

However, changing it is easier said than done.

 

How would you write the rule so that it seems fair and accurate?

Great topic.

 

I always liked the old concept of once a receiver "catches" the ball and makes 2 steps then it's a catch. The entire football move needs to be taken out because that is up to interpretation which will always cause issues.

 

I think the 2 steps is all needed, now unless you are going to the ground after getting the ball as in "jumping up" and getting the ball while you are in the air and as you are coming down you need to maintain control of the ball as you go to the ground.

 

If you make a catch and take 2 or more steps before being contacted and going to the ground and you go to the ground and the ball inevitably loses control but then gets control again then it is a complete catch.

 

So basically anything after 2 steps and then loss of control would then be a fumble.

[LOOGY]

To me Dez never made a football move. If you watch it full speed it looks like he just falls forward. To me he just fell forward, and only reached the ball out, which isn't a football move.

[malachicrunch]

Great topic.

 

I always liked the old concept of once a receiver "catches" the ball and makes 2 steps then it's a catch. The entire football move needs to be taken out because that is up to interpretation which will always cause issues.

 

I think the 2 steps is all needed, now unless you are going to the ground after getting the ball as in "jumping up" and getting the ball while you are in the air and as you are coming down you need to maintain control of the ball as you go to the ground.

 

If you make a catch and take 2 or more steps before being contacted and going to the ground and you go to the ground and the ball inevitably loses control but then gets control again then it is a complete catch.

 

So basically anything after 2 steps and then loss of control would then be a fumble.

 

What if the ground caused it after contact by a defender which would be the case yesterday. I say down by contact on 1 yd line, ground can't cause a fumble

[malachicrunch]

To me Dez never made a football move. If you watch it full speed it looks like he just falls forward. To me he just fell forward, and only reached the ball out, which isn't a football move.

 

Officials established that. That why it was overturned

[ColonelCrazy]

To me Dez never made a football move. If you watch it full speed it looks like he just falls forward. To me he just fell forward, and only reached the ball out, which isn't a football move.

 

In my opinion, stretching out & reaching the ball towards the goal line (or the 1st down marker) is a football move. You could tell that the WR clearly had control of the ball as he was going down to the ground & made an effort to get into the end zone.

 

To me, that's a catch.

[TheDeuce]

The only thing I MAY do is take the "football move" part of it out.

 

You have to maintain control through contact with the ground. Period.

[Hellbird]

[/b]

 

What if the ground caused it after contact by a defender which would be the case yesterday. I say down by contact on 1 yd line, ground can't cause a fumble

I say as it would be a catch if the rule was changed. I would allow those 3 steps to count as long as the ball wasn't moving around (like bobbling it) as soon as he got his hands on the ball.

[UKMustangFan]

In my opinion, stretching out & reaching the ball towards the goal line (or the 1st down marker) is a football move. You could tell that the WR clearly had control of the ball as he was going down to the ground & made an effort to get into the end zone.

 

To me, that's a catch.

 

That isn't clear at all. Dez stretched his arms out when he leapt in the air, and they stayed extended through the entirety of the play. There was no clear football move made. They got the call right.

[TheDeuce]

In my opinion, stretching out & reaching the ball towards the goal line (or the 1st down marker) is a football move. You could tell that the WR clearly had control of the ball as he was going down to the ground & made an effort to get into the end zone.

 

To me, that's a catch.

 

I don't think you can argue definitively that he gained possession before hitting the ground. And even if you could, it becomes incomplete once the ball pops out from hitting the ground.

[Hellbird]

Bottom line is, I would remove the entire language of "Football Move" out of the rule all together.

 

That is just stupid language that should never have been in there.

 

Let me explain.

 

If you have to make a football move, you need to describe what a "Football Move" is in the rules so you know what to look for. Example. If a receiver makes a catch and after 2 steps goes out of bounds....is simply taking 2 steps a "Football move" If so then why even say football move and just say must take 2 steps or have 2 feet in bounds before going out of bounds.

 

There isn't a "football move" made when you go out of bounds right after the catch unless you are toe tapping.

 

Football move would be gone.