If you are like many and are bothered by the NFL's definition of a catch how would you write the rule?

No matter how you re-write it........there will always be some form of interpretation of what a catch actually is.

What drives me nuts is that when a play like the one that has prompted this discussion is ruled not a touchdown, and in other incidences with the breaking the plane/pylon rule how some ruled touchdowns barely resemble one.

Put me in the minority that thinks it is pretty clear and doesn't need changed. However, stretching for the endzone is a football move.

I have no problem with the rule if it is enforced consistently. By and large they have. Everyone knows the rule, you coach the rule. If not, that is on the team/you.

 

The harshest rule is the fumble through the end zone like Carr did Sunday. That one is the harshest in the NFL IMO.

"A catch is a catch if a player catches the ball".

The only issue I really have with it is the "survive the ground" part of it. As soon as the ball crosses the plane and is in possession of the receiver, inbounds, the play should be over, TD. JMO.

To me it's like the Supreme Court definition of porn, I just know it when I see it.

To me it's like the Supreme Court definition of porn, I just know it when I see it.

 

"The ruling on the field is a touchdown because it looked like it." Not sure how well that will go over when re-writing a rule :lol2:

A catch should be ruled a catch if the player clearly has possession and control of the ball when his feet, (2) in the NFL and (1) in college and high school, make contact with the ground. The ground should not be allowed to cause a fumble, or an incomplete pass. If his feet or his body make contact with the ground, or when the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, and he has control of the ball at that point, then it is a catch, even if the ball comes loose once his hands and arms hit the ground.

The only issue I really have with it is the "survive the ground" part of it. As soon as the ball crosses the plane and is in possession of the receiver, inbounds, the play should be over, TD. JMO.

 

Would this be a catch?

 

Super Bowl XII: Rodger Staubach 45-yard TD to Butch Johnson - NFL Videos

The only issue I really have with it is the "survive the ground" part of it. As soon as the ball crosses the plane and is in possession of the receiver, inbounds, the play should be over, TD. JMO.

Yes and no, unless you are fine redefining what a catch is to simply being a "player retaining a ball with two feet in bounds." Something doesn't feel right about a receiver coming down with two feet and in a millisecond following touching the ground the ball is jarred loose and it being deemed a fumble.

 

But I could live with it if that is what is decided... That rule benefits the defense, imo, which is something they could use.

Would this be a catch?

 

Super Bowl XII: Rodger Staubach 45-yard TD to Butch Johnson - NFL Videos

 

Absolutely not a catch.

So in essence everyone is contending James fumbled the ball on Sunday then, correct?

Would this be a catch?

 

Super Bowl XII: Rodger Staubach 45-yard TD to Butch Johnson - NFL Videos

 

Never established possession, IMO. So no.