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

Nunchucks said:

The ball was knocked out at the same time as he got his second foot down while he was trying to control the ball....he did not have control and both feet down....

Click to expand...

... And he didn't make a football move. That an incomplete pass anywhere on the field, not just the end zone. Great defensive play.

RDS11 said:

I don't understand what the NFL is trying to do : they change the rules to get more offense, more points, yet the catch rules are more restrictive than ever.

Remember Troy Brown TD catch against the Dolphins in the wildcard playoff games in 1997 (against the Dolphins) ? Look at around 38 minutes 30 seconds :



In 1997, it was a TD. No way this would be a TD if the same play happened in 2015.

Click to expand...

Probably would have been ruled not a catch...but, pretty sure there was no replay then...definitely not on scoring plays.

RDS11 said:

In 1997, it was a TD. No way this would be a TD if the same play happened in 2015.

Click to expand...

No closeup but it looks like he takes 3 or 4 steps before it gets wrestled out, which seems quite a bit different than a swat while the player is in the air. I just don't even see the controversy here, there are so many catches that have been overturned the past few years where there were blatant and obvious football moves and here the standard seems to just be "I was in the end zone, the rules for rushing should apply". Uh, no, they shouldn't, because it was a pass.

fnordcircle said:

I disagree. Ball is caught and not moving, both feet on the ground it should be a catch.

Right call, bad rule.

If the roles were reversed and that was Gronk I would have been screaming that it was a catch.

Click to expand...

If the roles were reversed the official would also call Gronk for an incomplete pass. I would be upset but I know it was the right call and when you have the patriot hating announcers and former refs agreeing that it was incomplete than that really tells you how obvious it was.

SlowGettingUp said:

The Beckham Non-Catch

So I still see some confusion about the logic for why this was ruled to be not a catch, and folks in NY are still whining about the refs having stolen the game.

For example, someone posted:

"how is that different then a RB diving, breaking the plain, and then the ball being knocked out of his hands, it ALWAYS results in a TD."​

And someone else posted that they agreed with the ruling but disagreed with the rule under which it was made.

So I thought I would reiterate the logic behind the rule:

Assume the Beckham catch/non-catch had been made in the field of play. He caught the ball, got one foot down, and an instant after he got his second foot down the ball was stripped. I think everyone would agree that that should be ruled an incomplete pass rather than a completed pass followed by a fumble.

So there is no reason at all why it should be easier to complete a pass into the end zone than out of the end zone. So exactly the same reasoning is used here and so this was clearly an incomplete pass.

Once someone becomes a runner, then the rules are different. Then you just have to have possession as you break the plane. Beckham never became a runner and never had possession. The notion that he was just showing the ball to the official is crazy - the strip and the second foot down were virtually simultaneous.

​

Click to expand...

Yup, it's people conflating two different issues to create a nonexistent inconsistency.In order to score a TD, you have to possess the ball while it is in the end zone. These are two separate criteria which must be simultaneously met.

When a runner is approaching the end zone, he's already established possession, obviously, so scoring a TD hinges entirely on his ability to bring the ball into the end zone (by breaking the plane). When a receiver attempts a catch in the end zone, he's already in the end zone, so scoring a TD hinges entirely on his ability to establish possession. Which, by NFL rules, Beckham did not do.

We can argue that the rules are stupid, sure. The Pats have been victimized by this rule as much as they've benefited from it, so I have no vested interest there. If the rest of the league wants to make it easier for Gronk to score jump-ball TDs, that's fine with me.

fnordcircle said:

I disagree. Ball is caught and not moving, both feet on the ground it should be a catch.

Right call, bad rule.

If the roles were reversed and that was Gronk I would have been screaming that it was a catch.

Click to expand...

Since the ball was stripped near-simultaneously to the second foot coming down, I think that it could be reasonably called incomplete even without having to wade into "bad rule, but technically correct" territory. We have seen similar passes ruled incomplete with Gronk, and while I didn't like it, it was pretty clearly the right call with the rules as they are. If that exactly pass/catch happened in the field of play, the same Giants fans who are going nuts would go equally nuts if it was ruled a catch and fumble.

And FWIW, it's pretty clear that the Pats' DBs are coached to play these types of passes in exactly that way. Saw it with Sterling Moore on Lee Evans in the 2011 AFCCG, saw it again here. In between, Belichick's said as much, IIRC, when speaking about that Moore play on Evans.

That said, I would love to see the rule changed. Would just make Gronk even more unstoppable in the red zone, if all he has to do is reach up, get two hands on the ball, and get two feet on the ground. If that's a TD, regardless of whether or not it's batted away/dropped within a moment of him reaching the ground, then there's basically no way left to stop him.

Joey007 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So basically draft this guy:

Real American Hero said:

No closeup but it looks like he takes 3 or 4 steps before it gets wrestled out, which seems quite a bit different than a swat while the player is in the air.

Click to expand...

No, look at 40 minutes 15 seconds : his 2nd foot isn't even on the ground when the ball was removed from his graps. Very similar to the Beckham non-TD from yesterday.

The call yesterday was the right one, according to the rule book. But this doesn't make any sense when we know that the NFL has been trying to make it impossible to play defense in this league so there is more offense, and more points. It just doesn't make any sense...but then again, in Goodell's NFL, what make sense nowadays ?

Nehalem said:

But what if Gronk catches it for a split-second in the middle of the field, corner strips it from him, safety scoops it up and runs it back for a defensive score?

Incomplete or catch and fumble?

Click to expand...

If he had both feet on the ground and the ball secured it's a fumble in my world.

Everyone dislike this post.

Angelpats said:

If the roles were reversed the official would also call Gronk for an incomplete pass. I would be upset but I know it was the right call and when you have the patriot hating announcers and former refs agreeing that it was incomplete than that really tells you how obvious it was.

Click to expand...

They're agreeing because that's how the rules are as they are written currently. Hence saying it was the right call and a bad rule.

I don't like the current rules.

Cool kids will click disagree.

Giants fans--and fans of the NFL--should be directing any anger toward inconsistent officiating and application of these rules. Golden Tate had a near-identical catch-and-strip that was actually intercepted upon the strip, and the call (after review) was a TD.

The rule is fine, the fact that should be a non-catch makes sense--he never had control of the ball, it was stripped before he pulled it in, almost before his second foot even got down. It's the fact that it's been ruled a catch in the past that makes it arbitrary and ridiculous, not the ruling itself.

RDS11 said:

No, look at 40 minutes 15 seconds : his 2nd foot isn't even on the ground when the ball was removed from his graps. Very similar to the Beckham non-TD from yesterday.

Click to expand...

Ok, I shut it off after it advanced in the game and didn't catch that replay. Yes, and I'd have no problem with that being called not a catch today. The biggest difference is that this happened 10-15 years before the rule "clarification" that has resulted on so many catches being called back.

Given how ridiculously pass-happy all the new rules generally are, I think rules like the ones to establish possession are fair trades. Also, how would we feel if these resulted in fumbles vs. incompletes when they happen in the field of play?

I like the rule a lot. It makes great sense to me. If you had catches like that called complete on the field then it would cause lots of fumbling. You gotta give the receiver time to secure the ball before it can be knocked out after a reception. It makes no sense to allow defenders to swat balls for turnovers before the ball is tucked. Naturally a player will extend his arms and expose the ball to catch it, so why reward a defense for that?

I had absolutely no doubt that the on field call was going to be overturned. And when Mike Carey said instantly within seconds, "That is not a catch," I was even more confident.

You simply can't change the rule to allow that catch to stand. It would create havoc with the game.

If the same pass happened in the middle of the field, there is no question that it would be ruled an incompletion. I think that is the best response to those who still think it was a catch.

Wasn't a catch...not close.

They went to their "official" during the broadcast and he didn't hesitate. No catch.

And if it happened to us, I'd be miserable, but not disagreeing with the call. As has been pointed out on this thread several times, if it wasn't in the end zone, no way you call that a catch and fumble.

The game turned on several plays: Brady's bad pick on the goal line, a holding call on Andrews (it was), a near-pick at mid-field. DA's three catch heroics, Gost...

Could have gone either way. Great game and all credit to Coughlin's Giants for fighting hard for 60 minutes. My heart is still pounding!