NFL Changes Catch Rule

[Spartacus]

1 minute ago, ThirtyOne-EightyNine said:

If that wasn't in the endzone would that be a fumble then?

That's the way I understand it however I think the refs will use some common sense when it comes to fumbles vs incomplete passes (I Hope). 

[childofpudding]

25 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Good change, and what I originally suggested a few months ago.

This will now be considered a catch.

Would it? I can't see his feet the whole way, but it looks like he first puts his right foot down, then turns and puts his left foot down, but the ball is knocked out before he gets that third step in.

[kramxel]

Just now, childofpudding said:

Would it? I can't see his feet the whole way, but it looks like he first puts his right foot down, then turns and puts his left foot down, but the ball is knocked out before he gets that third step in.

But he's extending the ball, maybe that could be considered a "football move"...

But seriously, who knows?!

[ThirtyOne-EightyNine]

2 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

That's the way I understand it however I think the refs will use some common sense when it comes to fumbles vs incomplete passes (I Hope). 

So since he was in the endzone when he caught it and established possession that is immediately a touchdown and not a touchback. I suppose that is consistent for when runners dive for the pylon and cross it before losing control, so I guess it's a better version of the rule.

[11sanchez11]

33 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Good change, and what I originally suggested a few months ago.

This will now be considered a catch.

That shouldn't be a catch. Hopefully it is not under the new rules.

[Broncofan]

 

 

34 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Good change, and what I originally suggested a few months ago.

This will now be considered a catch.

 

29 minutes ago, Danger said:

Still close, but yes I'd have to agree given the new language.

 

3 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Would it? I can't see his feet the whole way, but it looks like he first puts his right foot down, then turns and puts his left foot down, but the ball is knocked out before he gets that third step in.

 

2 minutes ago, kramxel said:

But he's extending the ball, maybe that could be considered a "football move"...

But seriously, who knows?!

 

Either way, that play will come down to section 3.   And it's almost certainly going to go with the call on the field.    Unless replay shows a 3rd step or extending the ball over a marker/first down.  

[dtait93]

3 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Would it? I can't see his feet the whole way, but it looks like he first puts his right foot down, then turns and puts his left foot down, but the ball is knocked out before he gets that third step in.

Yeah it would, he has possession, 2 feet, and makes a 3rd move by not only extending the ball, but also turning.

[TheKillerNacho]

I have a bad feeling about this.

[MacReady]

Just now, dtait93 said:

Good change, and what I originally suggested a few months ago.

This will now be considered a catch.

And a fumble out of the endzone, Patriots ball. 

[dtait93]

Just now, HorizontoZenith said:

And a fumble out of the endzone, Patriots ball. 

No because the ball crossed the plane. He possessed, established 2 feet, and extended (past the goal line) before Butler did anything. What Butler did was irrelevant.

[Soko]

1 minute ago, dtait93 said:

No because the ball crossed the plane. He possessed, established 2 feet, and extended (past the goal line) before Butler did anything. What Butler did was irrelevant.

He didn’t cross the plane, he was in the end zone when he caught it. So his football move isn’t necessary/relevant because...he’s already there. 

My question is, if they’re lowering the standard of a catch and possession while in the end zone, what can the defender really do after the receiver puts there mits on the ball? 

[MacReady]

Just now, dtait93 said:

No because the ball crossed the plane. He possessed, established 2 feet, and extended (past the goal line) before Butler did anything. What Butler did was irrelevant.

That's right.  You are correct.

[MacReady]

Just now, Yin-Yang said:

My question is, if they’re lowering the standard of a catch and possession while in the end zone, what can the defender really do after the receiver puts there mits on the ball? 

Nothing, which is what makes this a bad call.  If catching it is that easy in the endzone now, they need to change when something is a touchdown.  Can't be the second they're in the endzone anymore and still call it a fair rule change. 

Also, by the definition of the new catch rule, two feet and out split second plays should no longer be called catches, but we all know they will be. 

It's a BS change. 

[childofpudding]

15 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Yeah it would, he has possession, 2 feet, and makes a 3rd move by not only extending the ball, but also turning.

He didn't fully extend before the ball was out, and I'm not sure that turning is considered a football move. If that was in the field of play, I'd have a hard time arguing with someone who thinks that's an incomplete pass. Especially if you review it at full speed.

I guess it could fall under "ability to perform such an act." Either way, while I think the rule change is a step in the right direction, controversies will continue. It's inevitable with frame-by-frame instant replay.

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Nothing, which is what makes this a bad call.  If catching it is that easy in the endzone now, they need to change when something is a touchdown.  Can't be the second they're in the endzone anymore and still call it a fair rule change. 

It's a BS change. 

I agree. 

Also, still doesn’t take away ambiguity from what that 3rd move is.

Not a fan of the change.