Jump to content

NFL Changes Catch Rule


Soko

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, incognito_man said:

So I guess no rules have ever been then ha because a red at some point got it wrong :)

Its never been a catch.  There is no football move, which has always been a requirement.  Again as far as extending, the rule specifically states TOWARDS THE LINE OF GAIN.  There is no line of gain when you are in the end zone.  Hes not able to turn, before the ball is knocked out.  In no way shape or form is that a catch.  

They removed the survive the ground ruling, that is the only thing that has changed.  Any catch in question where a player did not go to the ground, the ruling is going to remain unchanged, thats the whole point of the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there not a better camera shot available outside of that gif? Odell doesn't look to have maintained possession based on how I interpret football (much less any football move) I'm happy for the rule change because the "surviving the ground" interpretation was consistently bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just reading in and w/o going back too far.....am I correct that you're discussint the OBJ one handed catch along the sideline?

If so - that clearly IS a catch - under the old or new rules.

A guy doesnt have to run with the ball in his possession in order for it to be a catch - that provision is only in cases where the "reception" is followed by a rapid loss of the ball. Did the receiver hold the ball long enough prior to losing it for it to be considered a catch. Thats where the "football moves" part plays in.

To my recollection, OBJ never lost possession of that catch.

Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong catch...in which case.....never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

I'm just reading in and w/o going back too far.....am I correct that you're discussint the OBJ one handed catch along the sideline?

If so - that clearly IS a catch - under the old or new rules.

A guy doesnt have to run with the ball in his possession in order for it to be a catch - that provision is only in cases where the "reception" is followed by a rapid loss of the ball. Did the receiver hold the ball long enough prior to losing it for it to be considered a catch. Thats where the "football moves" part plays in.

To my recollection, OBJ never lost possession of that catch.

Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong catch...in which case.....never mind.

Page one is the catch and it wasnt one handed so im guessing you are mistaken 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Malik said:

Is there not a better camera shot available outside of that gif? Odell doesn't look to have maintained possession based on how I interpret football (much less any football move) I'm happy for the rule change because the "surviving the ground" interpretation was consistently bad.

Im curious about consistency. Rather consistently say catches arnt than constantly say things like the obj one being fumbles. 

 

I see either them giving catches like that for tds but then not making them fumbles later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eagles101 said:

Page one is the catch and it wasnt one handed so im guessing you are mistaken 

Ahhhhhh got it now - and yeah, I wasnt thinking of the catch displayed.

Thats clearly a judgement call - WHICH I'M FINE WITH - and if the judges on the field ruled it an incompletion, I'd be fine.

IMO he had the ball for just a split second before the DB knocked it free. Such pass defenses happen all the time all over the field and if they start becoming receptions - thats incorrect IMO

The fact it occurred in the EZ makes no difference IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mse326 said:

How are sideline catches going to work. 1 foot down, drag 2nd as falling, Hit ground but lose control. I'm assuming that is still incomplete despite the removal of survive the ground language.

Probably incomplete because the player neither can nor does make a 3rd move in this scenario.

Unless they like extend the ball forward while falling or something then hit the ground. It's complete at that point.

-------------------------------

At some point we just gotta use common sense (like the OBJ play). OBJ could still be holding that ball if he wanted to be. He obviously had control and two feet down in the end zone. That has ALWAYS been a TD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Probably incomplete because the player neither can nor does make a 3rd move in this scenario.

Unless they like extend the ball forward while falling or something then hit the ground. It's complete at that point.

-------------------------------

At some point we just gotta use common sense (like the OBJ play). OBJ could still be holding that ball if he wanted to be. He obviously had control and two feet down in the end zone. That has ALWAYS been a TD.

Then its also a fumble in the middle of field, game in which case fumbles are going to drastically increase this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question. Is this a particular order? So reaching is considered a football move? Fine. But what if it happens BEFORE the second foot comes down? I seem to remember there was a play in past seasons where that happened and it was ruled that it isn't a 3rd football move because it happened prior to two feet down. Is that the case here? The rule isn't clear if a specific order is required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...