What is 'a football move'?

It comes up nearly every weekend, and every time it drives me crazy.

A receiver catches the ball, drops it, it is called a fumble on the field. Then there is some expert commentator giving his opinion on whether the receiver made a 'football move' after catching the ball.

Last night it came up with Andre Johnson's drop against the Colts. It was called a fumble. Yet again a talking head saying (confidently) that it would be reversed because he clearly didn't have possession and make a football move. Yet the call was not reversed: yet another expert wrong on whether a football move was made.

Is this term 'football move' defined anywhere in the rule book? Are there explicit criteria to be applied? I searched here, and found nothing:
Official Playing Rules of the National Football League - NFL.info

This question has been languishing in the 'stupid football questions' thread a while, and it has come up enough recently I thought I'd bump it into the main room.

What a great football question!

My best definition: Any act of advancing with the football once possession has been established.

Sounds like an ambiguous term that gives more power to referees for willy nilly game changing decisions...

The whole football move thing is stupid. It should be if the receiver catches and possesses the ball cleanly. A catch is a catch never got why they have to make a move for it to be a catch.

robbomango said:

Sounds like an ambiguous term that gives more power to referees for willy nilly game changing decisions...

Click to expand...

I agree with you, and I am starting to fear that it i all a sham. These refs might just kill the game for me

When a receiver turns up field to advance the ball after catching it - clear Football move. Attempting to juke/stiffarm/spin to avoid a defender or break the tackle, again a clear Football move. If the receiver does any of those and loses possession of the ball before he is down by contact it should be called a fumble. You could make it very simple and have it as 2 steps after gaining possession of the ball.

The problem is, it's one of those rules the league have left ambiguous and open to interpretation when it's pretty easy to set a defined criteria for what is a Football move.

JMC00 said:

The whole football move thing is stupid. It should be if the receiver catches and possesses the ball cleanly. A catch is a catch never got why they have to make a move for it to be a catch.

Click to expand...

You are just moving the problem. In your case the question then becomes what does it mean to possess a ball cleanly ? Did Andre possess the ball cleanly yesterday ? Where is the line ?

I am not sure if there is a way to avoid ambiguity.

"Making a football move" is a bad phrase which leads to the confusion.
It really is doing something that a ball carrier does after taking possession. The act of making the catch is complete when you start another act, such as running cutting, avoid a tackler, etc.

I think most of what "a football move" accomplishes on the field is give the assumption of possession.

robbomango said:

Sounds like an ambiguous term that gives more power to referees for willy nilly game changing decisions...

Click to expand...

yep, stuff like this along with the emphasis on things like hands to the face and illegal contact which happen multiple times throughout a game and possibly on every single play leave a lot of room for officials to call something in a tight spot to bail a team out or keep a team in the game. Part of the reason why the NFL is so great is because of how close the games are and how much they mean with each team only playing 16 of them. Parity in the NFL is partly due to talent levels being fairly even around the league, the other part is officials making calls to keep games close and exciting. Every week, it seems like at least 1 game is mired in controversy over a pivotal call.

neuronet said:

It comes up nearly every weekend, and every time it drives me crazy.

A receiver catches the ball, drops it, it is called a fumble on the field. Then there is some expert commentator giving his opinion on whether the receiver made a 'football move' after catching the ball.

Last night it came up with Andre Johnson's drop against the Colts. It was called a fumble. Yet again a talking head saying (confidently) that it would be reversed because he clearly didn't have possession and make a football move. It was not reversed.

Is this term 'football move' defined anywhere in the rule book? Are there explicit criteria to be applied? I searched here, and found nothing:
Official Playing Rules of the National Football League - NFL.info

This question has been languishing in the 'stupid football questions' thread a while, and it has come up enough recently I thought I'd bump it into the main room.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just a talking head that said that: it was Mike Carey. And yeah, he said it with utter conviction, made it pretty clear that that was an easy call... and then it went the other way. Which means that even the refs don't know/can't agree on what's supposed to be the easy calls.

For the record, that pass was clearly incomplete.

I am no expert on nfl rules so my interpretation of "football move" is just a matter of personal opinion. As it pertains to a receiver completing the act of a catch, a football move is something that a receiver must do to prove he has complete possession of the football immediately after having both hands on the ball. You can take a couple of steps forward or backward. You can tip toe to stay inbounds if you are close to the sideline. You can take a knee for that matter. In the instantaneous moment when a receiver has both hands on the ball and his feet are down touching the field he has to do something right away, and if he's in the endzone he can't just put the ball down in a continuous motion after having both hands on the ball (see Calvin Johnson). If in that instantaneous moment a receiver loses the football then he does not complete the act of a catch, and it will be an incomplete pass as it was in the AFC championship game when sterling moore slapped the ball away from Lee Evan's "almost catch".

It is ridiculously ambiguous and could, literally, mean anything. It's designed to be a catch-all term for a cut, spin, side step, juke, outside arm transfer, etc...

I use a dumbed-down version that I call the "three-step rule" reciever lands on one foot, second foot plants which is possession, third step denotes a "football move". Seems to work well for me.

It makes even less sense when you think about those catches made one inch off the ground. Apparently it is a football move to allow gravity to remove that one inch of space.

The ironic thing is, in todays environment of the NFL pushing high scoring games, you'd think the NFL would clarify some of the ambiguality surrounding what constitutes possession and a catch. More catches = more scoring.

AndyJohnson said:

"Making a football move" is a bad phrase which leads to the confusion.
It really is doing something that a ball carrier does after taking possession. The act of making the catch is complete when you start another act, such as running cutting, avoid a tackler, etc.

Click to expand...

What if you're Brandon Lloyd and you're done after catching the ball?

It should just be the old rule. Control of the ball and then two feet down. Once that all happens, it should be a catch.
The NFL always thinks they have to come up with new rules and they aren't always good.

AndyJohnson said:

"Making a football move" is a bad phrase which leads to the confusion.
It really is doing something that a ball carrier does after taking possession. The act of making the catch is complete when you start another act, such as running cutting, avoid a tackler, etc.

Click to expand...

So what about when a receiver catches the ball and is immediately drilled by the defender? They did not run, avoid a tackle, or anything. By your definition that sounds like an incompletion though it is never called that. For the record I agree that it is a catch. But why are standards different for whether it's a catch or not if, immediately after the supposed completion, the receiver holds onto the ball or not? If it is a catch when you hit the ground, shouldn't it be a fumble if you lose the ball a second before hitting the ground?

stinebot said:

So what about when a receiver catches the ball and is immediately drilled by the defender? They did not run, avoid a tackle, or anything. By your definition that sounds like an incompletion though it is never called that. For the record I agree that it is a catch. But why are standards different for whether it's a catch or not if, immediately after the supposed completion, the receiver holds onto the ball or not? If it is a catch when you hit the ground, shouldn't it be a fumble if you lose the ball a second before hitting the ground?

Click to expand...

It is not a catch when you hit the ground unless you hold onto the ball.

BradyFTW! said:

It wasn't just a talking head that said that: it was Mike Carey. And yeah, he said it with utter conviction, made it pretty clear that that was an easy call... and then it went the other way. Which means that even the refs don't know/can't agree on what's supposed to be the easy calls.

For the record, that pass was clearly incomplete.

Click to expand...

That call aside, Carey is often wrong and sometimes doesn't even make sense. CBS didn't do a good job of mimicking Fox's hire of Mike Pereira.