I think for it to be a good catch you have to have control and take the ball to the ground after making a football move. He caught the ball, stuck it across the goal line in a football move but failed to complete the catch by fumbling before hitting the ground.

 

The rule should say that if you have clear possession as the ball crossed the goal line it's a TD regardless of it being a run or a pass.

 

A few scenarios based on your rule:

 

1. WR drives from the 2 and catches the ball mid-air and lands in the EZ untouched. Ball comes loose.

 

2. WR coming across the back of the EZ catches the ball(clear possession) in the air and comes down with 2 feet. At the split second he touches with both feet the safety lights him up and he drops the ball.

A few scenarios based on your rule:

 

1. WR drives from the 2 and catches the ball mid-air and lands in the EZ untouched. Ball comes loose.

 

2. WR coming across the back of the EZ catches the ball(clear possession) in the air and comes down with 2 feet. At the split second he touches with both feet the safety lights him up and he drops the ball.

 

It's an either or, IMO. I would change the rule to make them catches in the end zone but you have possession past the goal line. Based on the 'catch' rule, neither would be good catches. They've got to make it one or the other.

It's an either or, IMO. I would change the rule to make them catches in the end zone but you have possession past the goal line. Based on the 'catch' rule, neither would be good catches. They've got to make it one or the other.

 

Are you saying you would have different rules for a catch in the EZ vs outside of the EZ?

No.

NFL = No Flippin' Logic

I am not looking at video right now but from memory, he caught the ball, he had two feet on the ground and he turned/extended the ball across the goal line. If that isn't a catch I have no idea what a catch is. I know some of you will quote the rules blah blah blah but that was a catch.

 

From Mike Pereira:

 

“The most confusing part of the game right now: What is a catch and what is not a catch?” Pereira said. “Even I, in my role, I’m not even confident anymore in knowing when someone has possession long enough.”

 

Pereira’s comments come a day after Bengals tight end Tyler Eifert was denied an apparent touchdown because, according to NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino, Eifert didn’t have the ball for long enough before lunging it across the goal line and then dropping it in the end zone. There seems to be general confusion among players, coaches and fans as to what constitutes having the ball long enough to constitute a catch. That confusion even extends to those whose jobs revolve around analyzing the NFL’s rules.

 

Pereira calls catch rules the most confusing part of the game | ProFootballTalk

 

He caught it but when going to the ground he didn't maintain control there for according to the rules it was not a catch.

 

Exact same thing Dez Bryant did and same

Thing Johnson did the year before.

 

Stupid rule but according to

The rule it was an incomplete pass.

He caught it but when going to the ground he didn't maintain control there for according to the rules it was not a catch.

 

.

 

That oversimplifies the rule a tad. What if caught the ball, took 5 steps, dove, and THEN lost control?

That oversimplifies the rule a tad. What if caught the ball, took 5 steps, dove, and THEN lost control?

then it would have been a fumble.

 

The fact he only took two steps and was going down makes it all "part of the catch"

 

It is simple because the rule makes it simple. I think it's a stupid rule but as long as the rule is a rule the it's an incomplete pass.

then it would have been a fumble.

 

The fact he only took two steps and was going down makes it all "part of the catch"

 

It is simple because the rule makes it simple. I think it's a stupid rule but as long as the rule is a rule the it's an incomplete pass.

 

My point is your wording is too simple. You said he "caught it" but didn't "maintain control."

 

My examples had a "caught ball" but "didn't maintain control."

 

It's the part that's in between that matters and why I said your rationale was too simple.

 

It's why I asked earlier how we would word it to cover all situations appropriately.

My point is your wording is too simple. You said he "caught it" but didn't "maintain control."

 

My examples had a "caught ball" but "didn't maintain control."

 

It's the part that's in between that matters and why I said your rationale was too simple.

 

It's why I asked earlier how we would word it to cover all situations appropriately.

I believe the wording in the rule book is two steps and then a "football move" whatever a football move is haha but that is what I always heard. Just like Dez who also took two steps while being hit he went to the ground just like Eifert did and as both went to the grind lost control of the ball which is an incomplete pass. The two steps only is very important in this scenario.

I believe the wording in the rule book is two steps and then a "football move" whatever a football move is haha but that is what I always heard. Just like Dez who also took two steps while being hit he went to the ground just like Eifert did and as both went to the grind lost control of the ball which is an incomplete pass. The two steps only is very important in this scenario.

 

They removed the "football move" wording from the rule book.

 

I don't follow the "two steps only " comment.

They removed the "football move" wording from the rule book.

 

I don't follow the "two steps only " comment.

 

What's hard to follow? 2 steps is 2 steps. Basically getting 2 feet down. Sorry for your confusion.

 

If you're so confused maybe you should read the rule book on that then. I understand the rule when they say you must control the ball when going to the ground after a catch. It's not hard to understand.

 

 

Here you go.

 

N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: Going to the ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

He caught it but when going to the ground he didn't maintain control there for according to the rules it was not a catch.

 

Exact same thing Dez Bryant did and same

Thing Johnson did the year before.

 

Stupid rule but according to

The rule it was an incomplete pass.

 

But he wasn't going to the ground. He put two feet down and made a football move as dive on his own, he wasn't falling.

 

Then after his voluntary dive he broke the end zone before the foot of the defender dislodged the ball. Once the ball breaks the line of the end zone the play should be dead.

 

Again he wasn't falling , it was a voluntary dive .

 

What we are trying to establish is when he became a runner. This would of never been a fumble because the ball broke the plain before the ball was dislodged.

I hate this rule..what does a receiver have to do catch it, hit the ground, roll over twice, stand up anf do the Hokey Pokey before it's ruled a legit catch?

 

He made the catch and broke the plane so the play should've been dead and a TD called. It's no different than when a runner breaks the plane and then gets pushed out of bounds or pulled back. Just my 2 cents.

It seemed to me that he did' date=' because if extending the ball across the goal line isn't a football move I don't know what is, however as soon as I saw a replay I told the people I was with they were going to take it away from him.[/quote']

 

I thought they took that "football move" part out of the rule...