Incidently, the ground always could cause afumble in the NFL. It was misleading when folks said that. The ground can't cause a fumble if you are contacted by a defensive player. If you are not contacted as an offensive player and you go to the ground and lose control of the ball on a completion or a hand-off, it is a fumble. That hasn't changed.

 

I think the refs blew the call yesterday in Pittsburgh. A catch with two steps is a completion according to the rule book, I believe.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by born2reign

Incidently, the ground always could cause afumble in the NFL. It was misleading when folks said that. The ground can't cause a fumble if you are contacted by a defensive player. If you are not contacted as an offensive player and you go to the ground and lose control of the ball on a completion or a hand-off, it is a fumble. That hasn't changed.

 

I think the refs blew the call yesterday in Pittsburg. A catch with two steps is a completion according to the rule book, I believe.

Not when the defensive player is making a play on the pass receiver. It wouldn't have mattered if the other 10 guys had hit him as well, he had to maintain the possession after he hit the ground. The rule is fairly clear.

Not when the defensive player is making a play on the pass receiver. It wouldn't have mattered if the other 10 guys had hit him as well, he had to maintain the possession after he hit the ground. The rule is fairly clear.

 

So then when does it become a catch? In other words, if the receiver runs for ten yards then get tackled and loses the ball, it is not an incompletion, it is a completion. That is why the catch and two feet inbounds rule is so important. The Pittsburgh receiver caught the ball, obviously had two feet inbounds and maintained control of the ball until he hit the ground. That is a completion. If he was juggling the ball going down, then control can be questioned. This wasn't the case, so to me and my interpretation of the rules it is a completion.

Is there any video on this out on the web? I have been looking for it, but I can't find any.I think seeing it again may help provide perspective for both sides of the argument.

The issue was that he was being tackled IMO. Had he made the catch and then been contacted, different call. He was being contacted when he caught the ball, the rule, if I'm not mistaken, says he must maintain possession through the catch which includes landing. Frankly, he had 3 points of contact if you include the hand down as he extended to cross the goal line. In hind sight, it would have been nice to simply cradle it and land on his back at the 1/2 yd. line. But he was trying to make a play, can't fault the guy for that. At least he didn't let it slip right thru his fingers.:irked:

 

:thumb:

 

Yup, dumb rule, but for people to say it wasn't the right call is silly, it's one of those rules that no one realizes is the rule until it's enforced, and then everyone's ticked. I agree it's dumb, but it's still the rule; and unfortunately the right call.

So then when does it become a catch? In other words, if the receiver runs for ten yards then get tackled and loses the ball, it is not an incompletion, it is a completion. That is why the catch and two feet inbounds rule is so important. The Pittsburgh receiver caught the ball, obviously had two feet inbounds and maintained control of the ball until he hit the ground. That is a completion. If he was juggling the ball going down, then control can be questioned. This wasn't the case, so to me and my interpretation of the rules it is a completion.

 

Not by NFL rules, if he's being hit by a defender it's almost like he's being forced out of bounds(guess they really want these guys to be skilled). He's hit while catching so he has to come up with it, or keep it while he's down, can not lose possession at any point, doesn't matter what cuases him to do so. God could've stuck his hand out and it still would've been ruled the same.

So then when does it become a catch? In other words, if the receiver runs for ten yards then get tackled and loses the ball, it is not an incompletion, it is a completion. That is why the catch and two feet inbounds rule is so important. The Pittsburgh receiver caught the ball, obviously had two feet inbounds and maintained control of the ball until he hit the ground. That is a completion. If he was juggling the ball going down, then control can be questioned. This wasn't the case, so to me and my interpretation of the rules it is a completion.

 

It wasn't the 2 steps or whether he was juggling the ball that was in question. The 2 steps would have been fine if he had caught the ball, taken 2 steps and THEN been hit and lost the ball while stretching it out. Instead the defender was in contact with him at the time of the catch and stayed in contact with him all the way to the ground. According to the CORRECT interpretation of the rules if that is the case the receiver has to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground which, in this case he did not do because he stretched the ball out to get it over the goal line. Had the defender not been in contact with him the play would have been over when he stretched the ball out and it broke the plane of the goal line. Instead, it was required that he keep control all the way to the ground and he lost control when the ball in his hand hit the ground. I don't like the rule but it was the correct call according to the way it is written.

It wasn't the 2 steps or whether he was juggling the ball that was in question. The 2 steps would have been fine if he had caught the ball, taken 2 steps and THEN been hit and lost the ball while stretching it out. Instead the defender was in contact with him at the time of the catch and stayed in contact with him all the way to the ground. According to the CORRECT interpretation of the rules if that is the case the receiver has to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground which, in this case he did not do because he stretched the ball out to get it over the goal line. Had the defender not been in contact with him the play would have been over when he stretched the ball out and it broke the plane of the goal line. Instead, it was required that he keep control all the way to the ground and he lost control when the ball in his hand hit the ground. I don't like the rule but it was the correct call according to the way it is written.

Exactly.:clap:

 

And I bet it took awhile because not only were they trying to establish the original l.o.s. but they were probably looking at it and for all purposes, to the eye it looks like a catch, but by rule it's not. Just like the tuck rule looks just like a fumble, but by rule it's not.

NFL is always fixing things that is not broke... :ohbrother:

He makes the catch and takes 2 steps, I think that is a completion...

 

:thumb:

 

Catch and take two steps...if a player is in the end zone, the play should be over at that point and a TD. Even if it's not in the end zone, it should be a catch.

 

The only way that rule comes into play is if the receiver doesn't get his feet down, which means his body landing is the equivalent of getting his feet down...in that case, he should have to hold on.

 

Bad call...

:thumb:

 

Catch and take two steps...if a player is in the end zone, the play should be over at that point and a TD. Even if it's not in the end zone, it should be a catch.

 

The only way that rule comes into play is if the receiver doesn't get his feet down, which means his body landing is the equivalent of getting his feet down...in that case, he should have to hold on.

 

Bad call...

 

You can't say it was a bad call because it wasn't. If you have a problem with the outcome, be mad at the rule not the call. The ref got it 100% correct. It is an incompletion by rule.

You can't say it was a bad call because it wasn't. If you have a problem with the outcome, be mad at the rule not the call. The ref got it 100% correct. It is an incompletion by rule.

 

Bad rule then...

 

I didn't even see the play. Just going by the thread...if a guy catches a pass and gets two feet down, it should be a catch. Period.

 

If not, why was it ruled a catch when McGahee got lit up by Ryan Clark...all he did was catch the ball and take two steps...?

Bad rule then...

 

I didn't even see the play. Just going by the thread...if a guy catches a pass and gets two feet down, it should be a catch. Period.

 

If not, why was it ruled a catch when McGahee got lit up by Ryan Clark...all he did was catch the ball and take two steps...?

 

Like we said earlier there was a big difference in those two plays. McGahee caught the ball took 2 steps and THEN got hit. Holmes was in contact with the defender WHILE he was making the catch and stayed in contact with the defender all the way to the ground. By rule if the receiver is engaged like that while making the catch he has to maintain possession of the ball all the way to the ground. I don't like the rule either but it was the correct call and much different from the McGahee play.

Like we said earlier there was a big difference in those two plays. McGahee caught the ball took 2 steps and THEN got hit. Holmes was in contact with the defender WHILE he was making the catch and stayed in contact with the defender all the way to the ground. By rule if the receiver is engaged like that while making the catch he has to maintain possession of the ball all the way to the ground. I don't like the rule either but it was the correct call and much different from the McGahee play.

 

:thumb:

It was a completed pass, as much as I hate to admit it. He did take 2 steps, had possession of the ball, and was tripped up. The ball came out when he hit the ground. But in my opinion it was a completed pass.