But still, according to the dumb rule... It doesn't matter. Because Dez was not running after the catch. .

 

Agreed. Just pointing out that the wrist is considered to be "down" like the elbow is.

Agreed. Just pointing out that the wrist is considered to be "down" like the elbow is.

That you are 100% correct on... And it surprises me how many people don't know that one.

Lots of debate on the rule as it exists now. Thread asks what would you change?

I truly am surprised that there is all this debate on a "catch" where a receiver fell down and the the ball hit the ground and was knocked out of the receiver's hands. The ball hit the ground and was knocked from his hands. That can never be a catch.

I truly am surprised that there is all this debate on a "catch" where a receiver fell down and the the ball hit the ground and was knocked out of the receiver's hands. The ball hit the ground and was knocked from his hands. That can never be a catch.

 

Has to be wording to define it. What if he took 5 steps? 7? No steps and knocked OOB? Lunging ?

Has to be wording to define it. What if he took 5 steps? 7? No steps and knocked OOB? Lunging ?

 

My definition is in post #42 above. Falling down while making catch, steps nor anything else matters - you have to control the ball and the ground can't knock it out of your control. If not falling down, the third step after gaining control of the ball makes it a catch.

I truly am surprised that there is all this debate on a "catch" where a receiver fell down and the the ball hit the ground and was knocked out of the receiver's hands. The ball hit the ground and was knocked from his hands. That can never be a catch.

 

So a runner gets tripped, ball hits ground and is knocked out of hands has to be a fumble then?

My definition is in post #42 above. Falling down while making catch, steps nor anything else matters - you have to control the ball and the ground can't knock it out of your control. If not falling down, the third step after gaining control of the ball makes it a catch.

 

We know the rule. Question was posed. What would you change?

We know the rule. Question was posed. What would you change?

 

I wouldn't change anything. It seems pretty clear as it is, and I see nothing wrong with the current rule.

Has to be wording to define it. What if he took 5 steps? 7? No steps and knocked OOB? Lunging ?

 

I agree Clyde. After 3 steps (or 2) in my mind it's a catch no matter what. After that it's a fumble.

I wouldn't change anything. It seems pretty clear as it is, and I see nothing wrong with the current rule.

 

A lot of people including myself disagree with that.

A lot of people including myself disagree with that.

 

Cool. :lol2:

My definition is in post #42 above. Falling down while making catch, steps nor anything else matters - you have to control the ball and the ground can't knock it out of your control. If not falling down, the third step after gaining control of the ball makes it a catch.

 

So a runner gets tripped, ball hits ground and is knocked out of hands has to be a fumble then?

 

We know the rule. Question was posed. What would you change?

 

To restate it again for you:

 

1. Eliminate the "football move" language. That is too subjective.

2. Clarify that if you are falling down while catching the ball, you must control the ball till the end of the play and the ball cannot be knocked from your control by the ground. Make it clear that if the ball hits the ground and you lose control, it is incomplete.

3. Put in the third step definition I outlined above in post #42.

I don't think it needs to be changed. It is pretty clear what a receiver needs to do to complete the catch. If you make it two or three feet down without completing it there will be lots of fumbles when the receiver actually did not catch the ball. momentum can cause a player to take more than three steps. This rarely happens, but when it does in a big moment everybody wants to change it. They won't change it IMO. They discussed it at length after C Johnson did his thing and the Rules Committee kept it in place and that one clearly looked like a catch more than Dez's.

I don't think it needs to be changed. It is pretty clear what a receiver needs to do to complete the catch. If you make it two or three feet down without completing it there will be lots of fumbles when the receiver actually did not catch the ball. momentum can cause a player to take more than three steps. This rarely happens, but when it does in a big moment everybody wants to change it. They won't change it IMO. They discussed it at length after C Johnson did his thing and the Rules Committee kept it in place and that one clearly looked like a catch more than Dez's.

 

It doesn't bother me if they don't change it because I think all the calls under the current rule have been correct calls - not just by the letter of the rule but also correct in that they should not be called catches. I will never buy in to it being a catch when the ball hits the ground and knocks it out of the receiver's hands.