Can anyone articulate what a catch is any more?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I'm going to bump this thread back up, because the Matavius Bryant touchdown in last night's wild card game was yet another example of the catch rules being applied inconsistently. The rule again is:

ARTICLE 3
.
COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled,
until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.


If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch

And the way that's' always been called on sideline catches that I've seen has been that those are consecutive requirements. Secure control then touch feet inbounds then maintain control to the ground. Bryant touched both feet in bounds, but he was clearly still bobbling the ball against his calf afterwards and only secured it after the feet had touched (in my view, when he reaches around with his left hand behind his leg and grabs it again with both hands). To me it just looked like the refs decided it was too awesome not to give him the catch.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...azing-td-catch

[Jr.]

Yeah I really don't understand how that was considered a catch at all. And it was overturned INTO a catch, too. It boggles the mind.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

Yeah I really don't understand how that was considered a catch at all. And it was overturned INTO a catch, too. It boggles the mind.

No it was called a catch on the field, you can see the ref in the replay making the TD signal.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by IlluminatusUIUC

No it was called a catch on the field, you can see the ref in the replay making the TD signal.

Ohh ok, I was told it was overturned. Well, that's a little better. Still seems like a bad missed call, but I guess I can understand if it was called a catch on the field.

[kehlis]

The ruling should have been changed. Based on the way they've called catches recently there is no way that was a catch.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

It seems to me that based on the "He must lose control of the ball in order to rule there has been a loss of possession" part, Bryant's catch is a catch. He established control initially and then although the ball moved some in going from both hands to one hand and the leg, he never lost control of the ball so therefore, his initial touching of two feet counts and it's a catch.

It's different than bobbling the ball where they actually lose the ball for a second. He never really did; it just moved a little.

You could also argue that he pins the ball against his leg, establishing control, and then gets both feet down.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by IlluminatusUIUC

I'm going to bump this thread back up, because the Matavius Bryant touchdown in last night's wild card game was yet another example of the catch rules being applied inconsistently. The rule again is: ARTICLE 3 . COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2). Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch And the way that's' always been called on sideline catches that I've seen has been that those are consecutive requirements. Secure control then touch feet inbounds then maintain control to the ground. Bryant touched both feet in bounds, but he was clearly still bobbling the ball against his calf afterwards and only secured it after the feet had touched (in my view, when he reaches around with his left hand behind his leg and grabs it again with both hands). To me it just looked like the refs decided it was too awesome not to give him the catch. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...azing-td-catch

Yep, as one defending the "rule" for them, I have no idea how that was considered a catch.

YTG, when he had control he only had one foot down... never got the second foot down again.

[fugazi]

The NFL is dumb...let's just admit it.
They barely keep it together at this point.