The official rule

[dolphinsneu]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with 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.


The Patriots actually have been on the wrong end of this rule on two separate occasions, ironically against both the Bronocs and the Steelers.

1) 2004 AFC championship game against the Steelers

2) 2015 AFC championship game against the Bronocs. It was the play before the controversial Gronk/Talib play. Edelman made the catch, then lost control of the ball after he hit the ground.

I think we can all agree now that it was the correct call.

[broncoslover115]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with 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.


The Patriots actually have been on the wrong end of this rule on two separate occasions, ironically against both the Bronocs and the Steelers.

1) 2004 AFC championship game against the Steelers

2) 2015 AFC championship game against the Bronocs. It was the play before the controversial Gronk/Talib play. Edelman made the catch, then lost control of the ball after he hit the ground.

I think we can all agree now that it was the correct call.

Actually, wasn't this rule defined in 2010 because of the catch made by Calvin Johnson? So I'm not sure you can count the the 2004 game against the Steelers. Could be wrong though.

And they were on the "right" side of the rule on two separate occasions, this year against the Jets and this year against Pit.

The rule needs to change. It's stupid, unclear, doesn't make sense and needs to go. Once the ball crosses the plane, it should be a TD. Period. End of story.

[#87Birdman]

And they were on the "right" side of the rule on two separate occasions, this year against the Jets and this year against Pit.

The rule needs to change. It's stupid, unclear, doesn't make sense and needs to go. Once the ball crosses the plane, it should be a TD. Period. End of story.

Eh yes and no. Breaking the plane doesn't mean much if you don't have possession. And some of the plays involve losing of possession going to the ground.

I think what usually leads to the biggest problem is when a football move is involved. Because 2 feet and a football move is considered a catch. Twisting the body and extending for the endzone should be considered a football move. Going up for a catch and coming down losing possession shouldn't be.

But I believe most of the problems come from plays that could be considered a football move was made.

[broncoslover115]

Stephen A just made a great point about this. He said even if it wasn't a TD, it still was a completed pass because his knee was down and he clearly caught the ball before he extended his arms across the plane.
He caught the ball with outstretched arms, he pulled the ball in, then he extended his arms; that's when the ball came loose. But his knee was down by then. - A completed catch.

Therefore if they call no TD, they still should have given him a completed pass and given PIT the ball at the 1 yard line. The refs completely wiped out both the TD and the catch. Shouldn't have been both.

[Spice 1]

Stephen A just made a great point about this. He said even if it wasn't a TD, it still was a completed pass because his knee was down and he clearly caught the ball before he extended his arms across the plane.
He caught the ball with outstretched arms, he pulled the ball in, then he extended his arms; that's when the ball came loose. But his knee was down by then. - A completed catch.

Therefore if they call no TD, they still should have given him a completed pass and given PIT the ball at the 1 yard line. The refs completely wiped out both the TD and the catch. Shouldn't have been both.

Well I've given up on knowing what a catch is anymore, so I don't even want to get into trying to figure this one out. I'll just point out that Stephen A is a front runner Steelers fan, so he'll say the same thing regardless. That's just what he does.

They opened Pandora's Box with the catch rule, and I don't know how they're supposed close it. They probably won't, and just keep on pretending that it works. They've got plenty of other rules to screw with, and that seems like the cool thing to do every offseason now. If they were honest, they'd get rid of kick offs, because they've made them obsolete anyway. Then, they'd get rid of offensive facemask, and ball carrier lowering the head into a hit, because those penalties aren't enforced. If they wanted to be fair about it, they'd get rid of ball carrier stiff arms to the helmet. Kind of funny how it's ok for a ball carrier to intentionally punch someone in the helmet, but a penalty when anyone else does it accidentally. I mean, if they expect a defensive back to make rule calculations in fractions of a second, it shouldn't be too much to ask for a ball carrier to stiff arm someone in the chest or shoulder rather than push them down the field by their face mask.

[CanDB]

I've listened to a few folks since the game, and some folks believe it was a TD, given he had possession, one knee down, and crossed the goal line with possession. And if that doesn't fit the rule, the rule is stupid. If you have possession at any point, and you cross the goal line, it's a TD.....in my warped world!

Boy, how about another rule that kicked in at the worst possible time....Carr losing the ball into the end zone. We all know that's a rule, but it sure is a tough one, especially in the last minute of a game. Heck, if the ball goes out of bounds one inch before the goal line, no biggee....

[Rastic]

Stephen A just made a great point about this. He said even if it wasn't a TD, it still was a completed pass because his knee was down and he clearly caught the ball before he extended his arms across the plane.
He caught the ball with outstretched arms, he pulled the ball in, then he extended his arms; that's when the ball came loose. But his knee was down by then. - A completed catch.

Therefore if they call no TD, they still should have given him a completed pass and given PIT the ball at the 1 yard line. The refs completely wiped out both the TD and the catch. Shouldn't have been both.

That's a great, interesting take but (and I hate trying to define a 'catch') but don't the rules of a catch govern it to the end of the play? In other words, though down by his knee, regardless of his arms extending, he is still in motion going to the ground where the bobble, movement, whatever a person wants to call it, happened.

I sort of think a better analog to this would be if he was going to the ground with a defender trying to strip the ball. If he had control prior to the knee hitting the ground then there is movement with a defender stripping the ball and the ball comes lose, 99% of the time (%1 because, you know, refs) the play would have been called down because the player's knee hit the ground before the ball moved and came lose.

Honestly, the whole 'catch' issue in the league now is ridiculous. Too many games have had dumb calls made when a catch wasn't a catch.

[Spice 1]

I've listened to a few folks since the game, and some folks believe it was a TD, given he had possession, one knee down, and crossed the goal line with possession. And if that doesn't fit the rule, the rule is stupid. If you have possession at any point, and you cross the goal line, it's a TD.....in my warped world!

Boy, how about another rule that kicked in at the worst possible time....Carr losing the ball into the end zone. We all know that's a rule, but it sure is a tough one, especially in the last minute of a game. Heck, if the ball goes out of bounds one inch before the goal line, no biggee....

I think they'll eventually change that to the ball going back to the team that fumbled it. I really don't have a problem with it, because of how they officiate runs around the goal line. When an offensive player's forward momentum is stopped around the goal line, they always let the play continue, which makes it very hard to stop a guy from regathering, rolling over somebody, or having a teammate push them in. It at least penalizes the offensive player for trying to sneak the ball across the goal line after the defense stops him.

I don't want to derail here though, so I will say that they don't look at the goal line as a dead ball situation until possession is obtained. That's basically what they ruled in the Pittsburgh game. That he was completing the process going to the ground, and his knee being down was not enough to establish possession. This is where the dreaded "football move" thing comes in, which has been all over the place since it was installed. Whether his hand was under the ball or not, I dunno. The reviewing official apparently did, or thought he did. One of the two. (I'm assuming that it was called a TD on the field?)

[CanDB]

I think they'll eventually change that to the ball going back to the team that fumbled it. I really don't have a problem with it, because of how they officiate runs around the goal line. When an offensive player's forward momentum is stopped around the goal line, they always let the play continue, which makes it very hard to stop a guy from regathering, rolling over somebody, or having a teammate push them in. It at least penalizes the offensive player for trying to sneak the ball across the goal line after the defense stops him.

I don't want to derail here though, so I will say that they don't look at the goal line as a dead ball situation until possession is obtained. That's basically what they ruled in the Pittsburgh game. That he was completing the process going to the ground, and his knee being down was not enough to establish possession. This is where the dreaded "football move" thing comes in, which has been all over the place since it was installed. Whether his hand was under the ball or not, I dunno. The reviewing official apparently did, or thought he did. One of the two. (I'm assuming that it was called a TD on the field?)

I appreciate the "catch" situation, but I think it goes back to another beef I have in general.....too many flags, too many reviews, too many disruptions to play.....resulting in lengthy games, perhaps more injuries. It is making the game less exciting for me. For me, if it looked like a good play when it actually happened, leave it be. Otherwise there is no ownership for the refs.....hey, make a call, then review it....or throw a flag just in case someone accidentally nudged someone.

LET EM PLAY.

And on that track....if you want to throw a flag or two, nail those whiny QBs or WRs whenever they claim there should be a flag.

As I say, another thread....but The NFL should seriously try to shave 15 minutes off games, on average.....don't care how, but all these foolish penalties would be a great start!

Then again, many of us detest The Pats, especially when they get breaks....even ones that were apparently legal.

[Denver Scores]

Stephen A just made a great point about this. He said even if it wasn't a TD, it still was a completed pass because his knee was down and he clearly caught the ball before he extended his arms across the plane.
He caught the ball with outstretched arms, he pulled the ball in, then he extended his arms; that's when the ball came loose. But his knee was down by then. - A completed catch.

Therefore if they call no TD, they still should have given him a completed pass and given PIT the ball at the 1 yard line. The refs completely wiped out both the TD and the catch. Shouldn't have been both.

The knee being down only matters in the NFL if the runner was touched by an opponent, which clearly did not happen. In hindsight, it would have been better if a Patriot touched Jesse James down and the replay was for the ball spot. As it was, I think that play should serve as another example of what's so wrong with the "to the ground" part and revisit the Calvinv Johnson Rule.

[broncoslover115]

The knee being down only matters in the NFL if the runner was touched by an opponent, which clearly did not happen. In hindsight, it would have been better if a Patriot touched Jesse James down and the replay was for the ball spot. As it was, I think that play should serve as another example of what's so wrong with the "to the ground" part and revisit the Calvinv Johnson Rule.

Ah, thanks for that. You're right.

[Denver Scores]

I've listened to a few folks since the game, and some folks believe it was a TD, given he had possession, one knee down, and crossed the goal line with possession. And if that doesn't fit the rule, the rule is stupid. If you have possession at any point, and you cross the goal line, it's a TD.....in my warped world!

Boy, how about another rule that kicked in at the worst possible time....Carr losing the ball into the end zone. We all know that's a rule, but it sure is a tough one, especially in the last minute of a game. Heck, if the ball goes out of bounds one inch before the goal line, no biggee....

Derek Carr was at fault and knows it. All he had to do was maining control of it. People make a big deal about those fumbles because they are not the players fumbling footballs.

[LSIGRAD09]

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/1...own-catch-rule

:brick::brick::brick::hammer::hammer:

[Denver Scores]

In my world, they got it wrong with Cooks.

[broncoslover115]

In my world, they got it wrong with Cooks.

Seems like that team always comes out on the "right" side of things. lol