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.