The Rule Regarding James's Erstwhile Catch

[Off The Grid]

I needed it spelled out for me, so I thought that it might be useful to some of my fellow Patriots Fans to have it spelled out, in case anyone had the same initial reaction as I did.

Frankly, I thought that the Steelers got jobbed.

And then I got educated.

Here's a Link ~ BSPN Alert!!! ~ and the quote:

Here's how it appears in the NFL rulebook:

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

I was thinking "My, that rule sure sucks."

But they had a pretty damned good argument supporting it:

"The only real alternative is to redefine a catch to any instance where a player has the ball securely in his hands and is satisfactorily in bounds. The NFL has resisted this change at every turn, however, for two reasons.

First, some "process" plays that are currently ruled incomplete would transform to a catch and a fumble. Second, it would add a much greater degree of subjectivity for officials who would have to determine when a ball is securely in a receiver's hands. Do you want officials being left to define "secure" at live speed, and in cases when the ball subsequently gets loose?"

Just for chuckles, I'll add a Poll...* 2 Answers allowed, if you're torn!!

 

[Off The Grid]

*My apologies, and a plea for a Mod Edit, if you're charitably inclined?

3rd Choice should've course read "Chow de ****ing Dow."

 

[maineman209]

For me, the thing about this rule is that I doubt that the Competition Committee or the Rules Committee or the Committee Committee just came up with this out of the blue one day when they were bored. On the contrary, the odds seem relatively high that the NFL embarked on creating this "Definition of a Catch" at the behest of some coach, GM or owner who was bitter about a loss. Probably some perennial whiner like Harbaugh or Polian.

 

[Observer]

Is this a new rule? To me it seems only reasonable that a player demonstrates that he actually has possession of the ball before you call it a catch. Just having the ball hit your hands shouldn’t be a catch.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

From what I've seen, almost everyone acknowledges it was not a catch. Most people really hate the rule, think it's stupid, etc. But pretty much everyone acknowledges the rule was applied correctly.

 

[K. Dog]

There's nothing wrong with the rule, and the justifications used to say it's a bad rule are absurd. The only justification is that it's "controversial". But it's only controversial to people who don't read the rulebook. Exacerbated by announcers who don't read the rulebook.

Like an internet argument, it's a mistake to argue with people who don't read the source material they're arguing about. Once the rule is read, it's simple, clear, unambiguous and consistent.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think if this had happened on a pass at the 30 yard line, even Squeelers fans would admit that the call was correct.

I think the (legitimate) confusion came into play because the receiver did have control when he crossed the plane of the goal line but did not maintain that control "to the ground," when the ball clearly is on the ground and for a fraction of a second out of contact with one or both of his hands. In other words, if this had been a run, it would have been a TD.

I have a hard time seeing how they change this rule, for reasons cited by @Off The Grid in his OP: "First, some "process" plays that are currently ruled incomplete would transform to a catch and a fumble. Second, it would add a much greater degree of subjectivity for officials who would have to determine when a ball is securely in a receiver's hands. Do you want officials being left to define "secure" at live speed, and in cases when the ball subsequently gets loose?""

 

[Off The Grid]

I think if this had happened on a pass at the 30 yard line, even Squeelers fans would admit that the call was correct.

I think the (legitimate) confusion came into play because the receiver did have control when he crossed the plane of the goal line but did not maintain that control "to the ground," when the ball clearly is on the ground and for a fraction of a second out of contact with one or both of his hands. In other words, if this had been a run, it would have been a TD.

Exactly!! That was precisely why I was confused...until I got that refresher!!

 

[aluminum seats]

Am I the only one who doesn't find the rules about what makes a catch confusing at all?

Close calls will always get a lot of scrutiny because they're close. But it's really not hard to understand. And the rule with the catch last night...if it's ruled a catch, where do you draw the line about the ball moving?

In summary, the rules are fine, it wasn't a catch and the Steelers suck.

 

[yukon cornelius]

I've heard NFL officials for years say they really like where the rule is at, and that to them it is crystal clear......

 

[Crononaut]

I think if this had happened on a pass at the 30 yard line, even Squeelers fans would admit that the call was correct.

I think the (legitimate) confusion came into play because the receiver did have control when he crossed the plane of the goal line but did not maintain that control "to the ground," when the ball clearly is on the ground and for a fraction of a second out of contact with one or both of his hands. In other words, if this had been a run, it would have been a TD.

I have a hard time seeing how they change this rule, for reasons cited by @Off The Grid in his OP: "First, some "process" plays that are currently ruled incomplete would transform to a catch and a fumble. Second, it would add a much greater degree of subjectivity for officials who would have to determine when a ball is securely in a receiver's hands. Do you want officials being left to define "secure" at live speed, and in cases when the ball subsequently gets loose?""

Completely agree, I actually have seen a lot people complain that it was a catch, Steelers got jobbed, etc, and I agree the fundamental confusion is they're comparing the rules for a runner vs a receiver gaining possession of the ball.

If that play happens midfield no one is gonna think it's a catch, and if you think it should be a catch then you have to also think that a lot of bang-bang plays where a ball instantly gets jarred loose from a receiver are now fumbles.

I agree there is a lot of ambiguity about what is and isn't a catch but in this case I think it was really straight-forward, the only complicating factor was he crossed the goal line in the process of establishing possession and thus wasn't a runner, as I'm assuming those who believe it was a catch believe the play should have been dead as soon as the ball touched the goal line.

 

[mosslost]

I needed it spelled out for me, so I thought that it might be useful to some of my fellow Patriots Fans to have it spelled out, in case anyone had the same initial reaction as I did.

Frankly, I thought that the Steelers got jobbed.

And then I got educated.

Here's a Link ~ BSPN Alert!!! ~ and the quote:

Here's how it appears in the NFL rulebook:

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

I was thinking "My, that rule sure sucks."

But they had a pretty damned good argument supporting it:

"The only real alternative is to redefine a catch to any instance where a player has the ball securely in his hands and is satisfactorily in bounds. The NFL has resisted this change at every turn, however, for two reasons.

First, some "process" plays that are currently ruled incomplete would transform to a catch and a fumble. Second, it would add a much greater degree of subjectivity for officials who would have to determine when a ball is securely in a receiver's hands. Do you want officials being left to define "secure" at live speed, and in cases when the ball subsequently gets loose?"

Just for chuckles, I'll add a Poll...* 2 Answers allowed, if you're torn!!

The rule was applied correctly. The rule did not cause the next two plays to occur as they unfolded. However, I think that was a football catch.

Though the rule was applied correctly.... Like Dez, he CAUGHT the ball, then REACHED for the touchdown. The ironic part about replay is the slow motion you use in a replay makes that more clear. I honestly think if the ball is caught, clearly like that, then the receiver reaches to score, in the end zone or even a first down, surviving the ground should not be any different than it is for a runner.

I'm more worried how we could almost cough up another awesome Brady comeback by letting them get down almost the whole field in one freaking play right after.

 

[Uncle Rico]

I think if this had happened on a pass at the 30 yard line, even Squeelers fans would admit that the call was correct.
"

Exactly.

I wasn’t able to watch it live due to an ill timed holiday party invite. But when I finally saw the play I thought right away it was the correct call. You see this all the time outside the end zone: how often do you see what looks like a fumble after a reception but it turns out not to be a catch? Same deal. And kudos to OTG for including the background on the rule ...


Also, I laugh at all the tweets and comments I see online about “worst rule in football.” It’s funny because a) there have been endless failed attempts to improve on it and b) the Raiders last night lost the ball when what looked like a TD became a turnover because Carr fumbled through the end zone. Hmmmm ... when that call benefitted the Patriots, it was the worst rule in football.

 

[Boogs]

The call was correct, the rule is dumb. In my mind and conscience, it's a catch. Just like Dez Bryant's ruled no catch. It's a bad rule that hurts the NFL IMO.

If the catch is made and the ball breaks the plane, it should be a touchdown in my mind. That is not the rule though. I honestly do feel like the Steelers player caught the ball, made a football move and broke the plane. In my conscience, that is a catch and touchdown before the ground makes the ball move.

Or in Dez's case, he caught the ball and should be ruled down by contact when his right elbow hits the ground. Later the ball falls out from ground impact after he makes a football move.

But IMO the rule is just bad and sorta inconsistent with other rules. The moment you are down, like Dez's case, play should be over. It's a catch. And Jesse James, play should be over once he got it across the goal line.

 

[patchick]

I agree the fundamental confusion is they're comparing the rules for a runner vs a receiver gaining possession of the ball.

This is it 100%. You can tell from all of the cries of "it broke the plane!" We're so used to cases where the runner or receiver already has possession and is trying to get into the end zone that we've come to think of "breaking the plane" as the definition of a TD. But it's really breaking the plane with possession.

Here's the key to understanding the play, IMO:

Incomplete passes "break the plane" all the time. And they don't count.

The QB throws into the end zone, the ball bounces off the receiver's hands to the ground, incomplete pass. The QB throws into the end zone, the receiver makes the catch but only gets one foot in before landing out of bounds, incomplete pass. The receiver makes the catch in the air, dives for the end zone, the ball hitting the ground and moving in his hands as he lands...incomplete pass.

Should the definition of a completion be changed? Perhaps, though it may be a case of "this is the worst possible rule except for any other rule I can think of." (As OTG notes, you need a rule that the refs have a prayer of perceiving in real time, not just super-slo-mo.) In any case, "breaking the plane" will ALWAYS be only half of what's required for a touchdown.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

I do think a minor change to the definition of a football move wouldn't be too bad. Like, in all honesty, reaching for the goal line or first down marker should be considered a football move. If that results in more fumbles, so be it; the players attempt it at their own risk

 

[Bourne Again Christian]

There's nothing wrong with the rule, and the justifications used to say it's a bad rule are absurd. The only justification is that it's "controversial". But it's only controversial to people who don't read the rulebook. Exacerbated by announcers who don't read the rulebook.

Like an internet argument, it's a mistake to argue with people who don't read the source material they're arguing about. Once the rule is read, it's simple, clear, unambiguous and consistent.

I can't think of many other occupations where you can be inaccurate or flat out wrong about a policy or rule then involve countless others in telling them incorrect information then continue to be incredibly overpaid and not reprimanded retrained or terminated like the NFL.
Non Facts League?

 

[IllegalContact]

Not a catch by any interpretation .... the ball came out when the elbow hit the ground and the ball the ground .... it’s not a catch anywhere on the field

 

[The Brandon Five]

Same rule that cost Gronk a TD in Week 1. Rulez r rulez.

 

[Family]

I like the rule. Especially at the goal line.

It's too easy for a receiving player to recklessly reach and break over the line for a TD. There has to be some risk to this common move.

Just because the players ignore the risk most of the time does not mean there should be none.