The Beckham Catch that was not -and a trip back in time

The OBJ Catch that was not - a trip back in time


For any of the lunatics here or anyone with Giants friends who claim that OBJ got robbed of a TD last night, that play immediately brought back memories from 4 years ago….


2011 AFCCG, Ravens @ Pats, Sterling Moore strips the ball from a ‘would-be’ catch by Lee Evans….


Exhibit A:





NFL video of same play:


Evans' dropped pass costs Ravens - NFL Videos


Any further questions?


Nah, didn’t think so…

I thought the same thing. Bad rule, good call.

Good call. The only ones disagreeing are Giants fans. It's a good rule too regarding possession with two feet in and a football move otherwise we would have a bunch of incomplete passes called fumbles and tds are suppose to be special and you have to earn them.

The only difference that I see is that Evans had a firm grasp on the ball, was getting ready to celebrate and exposed the ball to Moore.

I'll be checking the Beckham play again though, maybe a few times.

The rule makes little sense, but the call was the correct one.

A Giants friend was more angry about the Collins interception, which he thought was a catch. I was less sympathetic to that one.

OBJ had the ball longer after the 2nd step than Evans, but he didn't make another football move. He came close to going to ground, in which case it would have been called incomplete on the field. It makes no sense to grant him the completion because he managed to stagger upright without going to ground after he lost the ball. If he had taken that 3rd step, it would have been a catch.

Dungy was all confused on the NBC highlights show, thinking this should have been a catch and referencing a call from a week or two ago that went the other way, not realizing that this was the right call and the other one was not. Rodney just glowered at the camera, ignoring the Pats hater. I don't know what prior call Dungy was referencing, but I'm betting Hochuli had a memo about it that made his call easy.

The rule is fine and the call was fine. Secure the ball, two feet..that didn't happen.

Exactly the play that came to mind. I'm sure it did for most of us who have paid any attention. So it's really should have come as no surprise that it was ruled incomplete. I knew it would be reversed when they reviewed it.

Silver Blue&Red said:

I thought the same thing. Bad rule, good call.

Click to expand...

Generally I'd agree but, even taking out completing the catch his second foot comes down at the same time as the swat happens.

What if Beckham made the same exact catch, fell to the ground with no defender around him, and then lost control of the ball? Then it's universally accepted that it's not a catch right? Why is this such a problem when a defender swats the ball out of his hands even EARLIER than him going to the ground?

My point is catch the ball, get both feet in bound and then maintain possession for at least a full second to complete the play.

Kdo5 said:

Exactly the play that came to mind. I'm sure it did for most of us who have paid any attention. So it's really should have come as no surprise that it was ruled incomplete. I knew it would be reversed when they reviewed it.

Click to expand...

I knew it should be reversed but I was doubting it would be, since the refs talked to each other before signaling the TD and given their track record on screwing up obvious calls even after a review. Wouldn't have been a killer though since it would've just meant Brady had more time to drive for a game winning TD.

If he makes that "catch" in the field of play and then drops it would anyone think it should be a fumble? I don't think so. So good call.

Nunchucks said:

The rule is fine and the call was fine. Secure the ball, two feet..that didn't happen.

Click to expand...

not sure what you mean by secure the ball..it never moved. Are you saying he can't have the ball away from his body and have it secured?. Would a body catch been better off..meaning I guy is penalized for actually catching the ball with his hands only.. as the good receivers do....Just don't know what a catch is anymore. in this leagyue.

sambam94 said:

not sure what you mean by secure the ball..it never moved. Are you saying he can't have the ball away from his body and have it secured?. Would a body catch been better off..meaning I guy is penalized for actually catching the ball with his hands only.. as the good receivers do....Just don't know what a catch is anymore. in this leagyue.

Click to expand...

Sure you do. You have to complete the catch. Having it temporarily isn't good enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sambam94 said:

not sure what you mean by secure the ball..it never moved. Are you saying he can't have the ball away from his body and have it secured?. Would a body catch been better off..meaning I guy is penalized for actually catching the ball with his hands only.. as the good receivers do....Just don't know what a catch is anymore. in this leagyue.

Click to expand...

I think what he is saying is that the sequence of secure_ball->two_feet_down->football_move was not completed. The ball was knocked out before he finished, so it was not secured for the entire sequence, which is the requirement.

IMO at the end of this year they need to set a rule that's definitive. I think they should make it three feet on a play like that or no catch.

primetime said:

The rule makes little sense, but the call was the correct one.

A Giants friend was more angry about the Collins interception, which he thought was a catch. I was less sympathetic to that one.

Click to expand...

tell your giants friend off. they got the breaks in SB42 - asante samuel dropped INT, pierre woods not coming up with the fumble at the end of the half, tyree, etc.

n6249c said:

I think what he is saying is that the sequence of secure_ball->two_feet_down->football_move was not completed. The ball was knocked out before he finished, so it was not secured for the entire sequence, which is the requirement.

Click to expand...

OK...hate this football move talk. How about this scenario, WR in endzone with both feet down. He catches ball away from his body. Work with me here....say he just keeps that position like a statue. No football move necessary..right? He is just standing there in the end zone , catches ball with arms extended, then never moves. This would be a TD...right?
The question arises when a defender comes in and knocks ball loose...In my scenario, it's not about a "football move", it's about timing..how long did he have it in that position before it was knocked away. I don't think the NFL addresses this, "football move" doesn't fit IMO.

“We lost the game. I lost us the game with the play in the end zone, a play that should have been made,” Beckham told reporters after the game."

Read more at: Odell Beckham Jr. Takes Blame For Loss To Patriots After Controversial Call

I totally disagree with this spin. It's arrogant, short-sighted, incomplete and incorrect!

There were a lot of plays that might have turned the game before that...and this one wouldn't even be on the radar- just another attempt to get back in it -had they not been called back and/or finished off. We might even be talking about TB's INT, if the NEP had not finished the job.

Of course, it's the NYG way of making it appear as though they were cheated and/or should have won. Methinks the Pats were cheated on the other end (i.e. Andrews penalty), which would have put the game away. Notice how Beckham's statement moves right past this..as though that was the right call, but his near miss was the difference. No, it wasn't.

FYI: the Pats had less penalties (7 versus 9) than the NYG, but almost twice as much in penalty yardage (93 versus 49). Lots of Pats fans were wondrin't if the refs were getting signals from top Nazi, Roger Goodell, during the game, particularly when they were in position to put the game away in the last few minutes. It's all in the game thread...lots of ref posts that go something like: !!!

Silver Blue&Red said:

I thought the same thing. Bad rule, good call.

Click to expand...

How isthat a bad rule? The defensive back is already stripped of the ability to play physical with the wide receiver and must keep his hands off until the ball gets there. This is basically his only chance to make a play to breakup the pass, by knocking it out. There is absolutely no way that should be a catch and the rule is correct. It would seem so wrong if that's a catch, considering the player was really unable to secure the ball.

I'm not just saying that because it's the Giants, either. Earlier this season, Scott Chandler had a play in the endzone that was similar where he got the ball knocked out, although I think he technically got two feet down. It was the right the call and the rule should stay int he rulebook.