Jump to content

NFL Changes Catch Rule


Soko

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

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? 

It is necessary because you haven't caught the ball until you gather possession, establish 2 feet and make a football move.

To answer your question, after the receiver gets his mits on the ball the defender would have to dislodge the ball/push the receiver out of bounds before 2 feet are established or a football move is performed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

It is necessary because you haven't caught the ball until you gather possession, establish 2 feet and make a football move.

Not in every case. For instance, Santonio Holmes’ catch is still a catch even though there was no third move or 3rd foot. It seems like the standard along the sideline or in the end zone is just two feet and possession - forget the ground stuff.

Quote

To answer your question, after the receiver gets his mits on the ball the defender would have to dislodge the ball/push the receiver out of bounds before 2 feet are established or a football move is performed.

That’s why I hate the rule. Catch and two feet? Touchdown. You fell and lost it? Touchdown. You land and a defender immediately rips it from you? Touchdown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Not in every case. For instance, Santonio Holmes’ catch is still a catch even though there was no third move or 3rd foot. It seems like the standard along the sideline or in the end zone is just two feet and possession - forget the ground stuff.

That’s why I hate the rule. Catch and two feet? Touchdown. You fell and lost it? Touchdown. You land and a defender immediately rips it from you? Touchdown. 

True. Will be interesting to see how those type of plays are called and how strictly they enforce the need to perform a football move on plays like the Santonio catch that are along the sideline. Imo, they will will still rule plays like that a touchdown.

However plays that are not along the sideline in the endzone is pretty cut and dry to me. Possess the ball, get 2 feet down, and make a football move (3rd step for example) before the defender can dislodge the ball from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dtait93 said:

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

odrop.0.gif

This will now be considered a catch.

No it wont.  The only part of the rule that changed was "surviving the ground" which refers to a player going to the ground either on their own or while being tackled.  OBJ doesnt make a football move with possession.  Turning doesnt qualify, and he cant extend the ball bc he is already in the end zone.  No catch. 

As for double tapping, or toe dragging.  Going out of bounds voluntarily is a football move so those are still catches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Not in every case. For instance, Santonio Holmes’ catch is still a catch even though there was no third move or 3rd foot. It seems like the standard along the sideline or in the end zone is just two feet and possession - forget the ground stuff.

That’s why I hate the rule. Catch and two feet? Touchdown. You fell and lost it? Touchdown. You land and a defender immediately rips it from you? Touchdown. 

No you must commit a football move with possession.  That means a 3rd step if not being tackled.  So if a guy is falling and loses possession before he hits the ground its still not a td. All this rule change is doing is taking out the "survive the ground" wording.  What that means is if you come down to the ground with possession its a catch.  If you rollover and lose the ball after landing its still a catch.  If you lose posession before establishing in the field of play its still not a catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Uncle Buck said:

As it should be.

I don't know how anyone can hold this opinion, I have watched, played or coached football for over 30 years I can't imagine a single player or coach I have ever met that would consider that a catch. Its simply not a catch. I don't know how anyone can view it in anyway other than clearly incomplete. But to each their own. 

If this becomes a catch I'll just be glad college football continues to use common sense when officiating its games because the NFL would be a total joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, youngosu said:

I don't know how anyone can hold this opinion, I have watched, played or coached football for over 30 years I can't imagine a single player or coach I have ever met that would consider that a catch. Its simply not a catch. I don't know how anyone can view it in anyway other than clearly incomplete. But to each their own. 

If this becomes a catch I'll just be glad college football continues to use common sense when officiating its games because the NFL would be a total joke. 

The way I see it, he caught the ball, brought it in, and then took a step.  Because he was in the end zone in this play, it's a touchdown at the moment he takes that step.  Had it not been in the end zone, it would be a fumble, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...