NFL Changes Catch Rule

[Kmart128]

"The ability to form such an act"

This will be fun. Now that part will be scruitinized. When will the NFL that the rule has to be more clear. Ability to form an act would be a judgement call...

[youngosu]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

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.

I'm not gonna argue, you are entitled to your opinion. I simply disagree and find ruling that play a catch as essentially destroying the sport. That is my opinion and no one is forcing me to watch the NFL so if that starts getting ruled a catch I can turn the TV off and go golfing or snowboarding on Sundays. 

I just hope college football doesn't follow suit since I actually have an emotional investment in that level of play. Would be harder to turn those games off. 

[Uncle Buck]

5 minutes ago, marshawn lynch said:

"The ability to form such an act"

This will be fun. Now that part will be scruitinized. When will the NFL that the rule has to be more clear. Ability to form an act would be a judgement call...

Yep.  That's the part that can and probably will cause problems.  How do you determine when a player has"the ability to form such an act?"

[dtait93]

23 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

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.

He does indeed. It quotes, "reaching/extending for the line to gain or the ability to perform such an act" as a football move and he wouldn't have extended/reached if he wasn't trying to assure he was across the plane. He also clearly had the ability to extend because he did it, so really the fact that he was already in the end zone doesn't matter.

[Uncle Buck]

4 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I'm not gonna argue, you are entitled to your opinion. I simply disagree and find ruling that play a catch as essentially destroying the sport. That is my opinion and no one is forcing me to watch the NFL so if that starts getting ruled a catch I can turn the TV off and go golfing or snowboarding on Sundays. 

No problem with disagreeing.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion as well.  I'm no expert on the subject.

[Superman(DH23)]

11 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

He does indeed. It quotes, "reaching/extending for the line to gain or the ability to perform such an act" as a football move and he wouldn't have extended/reached if he wasn't trying to assure he was across the plane. He also clearly had the ability to extend because he did it, so really the fact that he was already in the end zone doesn't matter.

He was already in the end zone he wasnt reaching for the line to gain. And he didnt have the ability to do so bc he is in the end zone.  The survive the ground wording didnt play any factor in this not being a catch.  That is the only thing that is changing.  The officials literally ruled he didnt make a football move before he lost the ball in order to call it not a catch.

[dtait93]

2 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

He was already in the end zone he wasnt reaching for the line to gain. And he didnt have the ability to do so bc he is in the end zone.  The survive the ground wording didnt play any factor in this not being a catch.  That is the only thing that is changing.  The officials literally ruled he didnt make a football move before he lost the ball in order to call it not a catch.

Wrong.

New Catch Rule:

1. Control

2. 2 feet down or another body part

3. A football move such as:
- A 3rd step
- Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain
- Or the ability to perform such an act

Old Catch Rule:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

2. touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

The new rule includes reaching/extending where as the old rule did not. We are going from a catch meaning you have to become runner to now only having to perform a football move, which includes reaching/extending.

[youngosu]

2 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Wrong.

New Catch Rule:

1. Control

2. 2 feet down or another body part

3. A football move such as:
- A 3rd step
- Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain
- Or the ability to perform such an act

Old Catch Rule:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

2. touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

The new rule includes reaching/extending where as the old rule did not. We are going from a catch meaning you have to become runner to now only having to perform a football move, which includes reaching/extending.

I don't care what the rule says, OBJ did NOT catch that ball. Any rule that determines that to be a catch is a bad rule. 

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Superman(DH23) said:

No you must commit a football move with possession.  That means a 3rd step if not being tackled. 

Not in every case - such as in the end zone or near the sideline. 

 

[kramxel]

30 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I don't care what the rule says, OBJ did NOT catch that ball. Any rule that determines that to be a catch is a bad rule. 

Only way for that not to be considered a catch under the new rules, would be if they considered that a bobble.

 

[Malfatron]

11 minutes ago, kramxel said:

41 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I don't care what the rule says, OBJ did NOT catch that ball. Any rule that determines that to be a catch is a bad rule. 

Only way for that not to be considered a catch under the new rules, would be if they considered that a bobble.

[youngosu]

13 minutes ago, kramxel said:

Only way for that not to be considered a catch under the new rules, would be if they considered that a bobble.

 

Okay, then its a bad rule. 

[eagles101]

zeros catches under the new rule and we are already arguing.

[Superman(DH23)]

1 hour ago, youngosu said:

I don't care what the rule says, OBJ did NOT catch that ball. Any rule that determines that to be a catch is a bad rule. 

The rule has always said a football move.  This goes back 25+ years when instead of arguing about what survive the ground people were arguing about what a football move was

[youngosu]

3 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

The rule has always said a football move.  This goes back 25+ years when instead of arguing about what survive the ground people were arguing about what a football move was

I am aware of this. That would have been ruled incomplete 25 years ago, hopefully its still ruled incomplete in 2018. If not, the rule is worse than its been the last few years. 

That just is not a catch, it just isn't.

I know a catch when I see a catch. OBJ did not catch that ball.