Is There a "Better" Definition of a "Catch?"

[Patstopia]

The rule is the rule, you wont make it better, just make it different. There has been and will be arguments about catches forever. That's just the way it is. Reporters, broadcasters and fans have never had a say in what is a catch nor should they. It's our job to moan about it, it's reporters jobs to lie about it and its broadcasters jobs to babble about it. All is right with the world when all three come together as one.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I like the rule because I can understand it (even if many apparently have problems in that area) and judgment is minimized. Defining something as a catch before they hit the ground (when a player is falling down) raises a whole gray area that I'm not sure how to define very well.

In the current example of the Jesse James play, he was falling down as he caught the ball. (I just double-checked the replay to make sure; no question about it.) So where should the line be if you can catch the ball as you're falling down, lose control of it when you hit the ground and it's still a catch? This happens all the time and, the vast majority of the time, the man on the street would say that it would not be a catch. How to differentiate? That's too tough for me to figure out...

 

[Ring 6]

I disagree. This new definition of a catch is why the NFL is having so many problems.

I think it should be a catch when you show control of the ball and 2 feet down in bounds. That would clear up all the problems with this.

And create a record number of fumbles.
In other words create a bigger problem.

 

[skinnydog]

I disagree. This new definition of a catch is why the NFL is having so many problems.

I think it should be a catch when you show control of the ball and 2 feet down in bounds. That would clear up all the problems with this.

I'd like to see the rule simply be to have control with two feet in bounds and if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of making a catch, the receiver must maintain possession to the point of contact with the ground instead of through contact with the ground. I don't see why that would be difficult to incorporate. The ground can't cause a fumble and can't cause an incompletion. The league currently has separate rules for a catch while remaining upright and for going to the ground in the process of making a catch anyway.

So if while making a catch while going to the ground and the ball is knocked out, it is incomplete. If the receiver maintains control to the ground--a catch.

 

[skinnydog]

And create a record number of fumbles.
In other words create a bigger problem.

And create a record number of fumbles.
In other words create a bigger problem.

Not necessarily. If a receiver catches and controls a ball while going to the ground and the ball is knocked out or dropped, no catch. It's incomplete. If control is maintained to the ground, it's a catch. No increase in fumbles.

 

[Boogs]

I'd like to see the rule simply be to have control with two feet in bounds and if the receiver is going to the ground while in the process of making a catch, the receiver must maintain possession to the point of contact with the ground instead of through contact with the ground. I don't see why that would be difficult to incorporate. The ground can't cause a fumble and can't cause an incompletion. The league currently has separate rules for a catch while remaining upright and for going to the ground in the process of making a catch anyway.

So if while making a catch while going to the ground and the ball is knocked out, it is incomplete. If the receiver maintains control to the ground--a catch.

I still like my definition of a catch better but, Of the definitions here, I agree with you the most. You make good points.

 

[Boogs]

And create a record number of fumbles.
In other words create a bigger problem.

That's not a problem.

My definition of a catch would allow consistency in the rules once again. Skinnydog's reply to me made a great point.

 

[Ring 6]

That's not a problem.

My definition of a catch would allow consistency in the rules once again. Skinnydog's reply to me made a great point.

The rules are fine now. They are consistent and sensible to me.
Skinnydog is keeping the rule the same; you would be creating dozens of fumbles. I don’t think anyone wants a catch that isn’t finished to be a fumble and the outcry would be tenfold

 

[Ring 6]

Not necessarily. If a receiver catches and controls a ball while going to the ground and the ball is knocked out or dropped, no catch. It's incomplete. If control is maintained to the ground, it's a catch. No increase in fumbles.

But that’s the current rule, you have to survive the ground. You also create a situation where a standing receiver who is hit as he catches will need booth review to see if 2 feet touched before dropping the ball, creating a fumble.

 

[moosekill]

Not necessarily. If a receiver catches and controls a ball while going to the ground and the ball is knocked out or dropped, no catch. It's incomplete. If control is maintained to the ground, it's a catch. No increase in fumbles.

You aren’t making sense. If the receiver simply has to control to the ground and it is a catch, than any diving play that a receiver isn’t touched and drops becomes a fumble. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[moosekill]

Drops when he hits the ground.

 

[Deus Irae]

Skinnydog's reply to me made a great point.

No, it didn't.

 

[Boogs]

The rules are fine now. They are consistent and sensible to me.
Skinnydog is keeping the rule the same; you would be creating dozens of fumbles. I don’t think anyone wants a catch that isn’t finished to be a fumble and the outcry would be tenfold

I disagree.

 

[skinnydog]

But that’s the current rule, you have to survive the ground. You also create a situation where a standing receiver who is hit as he catches will need booth review to see if 2 feet touched before dropping the ball, creating a fumble.

. That's not what I'm saying. Yes the current rule is that you have to survive contact with the ground, but I'm saying that if the change was simply that a receiver going to the ground must maintain contact to the ground that should be a catch regardless of whether he maintains control after contacting the ground. If your contact with the ground dislodges the ball so what. Still a catch. It is impossible for this change to result in an increase in the number of fumbles.

 

[moosekill]

. That's not what I'm saying. Yes the current rule is that you have to survive contact with the ground, but I'm saying that if the change was simply that a receiver going to the ground must maintain contact to the ground that should be a catch regardless of whether he maintains control after contacting the ground. If your contact with the ground dislodges the ball so what. Still a catch. It is impossible for this change to result in an increase in the number of fumbles.

The so what is that it then becomes a fumble. The argument against making the rule this way is that there will suddenly be lots more fumbles. You said it wouldn’t happen. I disagree.

 

[skinnydog]

No, it didn't.

Sure it did

 

[Ring 6]

. That's not what I'm saying. Yes the current rule is that you have to survive contact with the ground, but I'm saying that if the change was simply that a receiver going to the ground must maintain contact to the ground that should be a catch regardless of whether he maintains control after contacting the ground. If your contact with the ground dislodges the ball so what. Still a catch. It is impossible for this change to result in an increase in the number of fumbles.

I don’t understand. When you lose the ball going to the ground 99% of the time it is by contact with the ground. How is there a distinction?
If you are saying if you catch the ball
While going to the ground then drop it means a catch if course it’s a fumble.

 

[skinnydog]

The rules are fine now. They are consistent and sensible to me.
Skinnydog is keeping the rule the same; you would be creating dozens of fumbles. I don’t think anyone wants a catch that isn’t finished to be a fumble and the outcry would be tenfold

the rule now is that the receiver going to the ground while making a catch must maintain control through some unspecified period of contact with the ground. The Calvin Johnson game winning TD ruled not a catch was perhaps the best example. He makes a contested catch in the endzone with 2 hands on the ball turns/twists/falls to the ground and in the process he switches the ball to his right hand, lands on his left knee, then left hip and while rolling over braces hims on the ground with both hands, one of which (right hand) is holding the ball. The ball then and only then comes loose and/or he just leaves it behind while jumping to his feet and celebrating what he thinks is the game winning touchdown. That looks like a catch every time i see it. He survives a lot of contact with the ground before the ball comes loose.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The league currently has separate rules for a catch while remaining upright and for going to the ground in the process of making a catch.

No they don't. The criteria are EXACTLY the same: Be inbounds (two feet, or one non-hand body part) while gaining possession of the football. No difference.

The only seeming difference is deciding what it means to have "possession" in each situation. Either way, the ball must be secured (not moving). When falling, ball security must also be maintained through the contact with the ground. That makes perfect sense.

It is a one clear and simple rule for every catch, everywhere on the field, it can be fairly reviewed, and it is not a problem.

We just have to get over the "eye test/ 10 guys in a bar" nonsense.

 

[Ring 6]

the rule now is that the receiver going to the ground while making a catch must maintain control through some unspecified period of contact with the ground.

It’s not unspecified. He must maintain possession through contact with the ground.

The Calvin Johnson game winning TD ruled not a catch was perhaps the best example. He makes a contested catch in the endzone with 2 hands on the ball turns/twists/falls to the ground and in the process he switches the ball to his right hand, lands on his left knee, then left hip and while rolling over braces hims on the ground with both hands, one of which (right hand) is holding the ball. The ball then and only then comes loose and/or he just leaves it behind while jumping to his feet and celebrating what he thinks is the game winning touchdown. That looks like a catch every time i see it. He survives a lot of contact with the ground before the ball comes loose.

Well you don’t understand the rule. The rule says you must maintain control THROUGH going to the ground.
This is because going to the ground is a NECESSARY STEP IN MAKING THR CATCH. Since the way you are catching the ball REQUIRES you to go to the ground you haven’t finished thf catch until you survive the ground. If a receiver is able to maintain staying in their feet to make the catch the ground isn’t part of the catch.

Use James for example. He needed to go to the ground to make the catch (at least the way he made it) so the catch isn’t finushed and he doesn’t have possession until he successfully maintains control while completing the act of going to the ground which was necessary to he catch. Had he caught it while in his feet and then dove to the end zone it would have been a TD.
What you are suggesting is if you need to go to the ground to make the catch you don’t have to finish the catch but if you don’t and it comes out then that would be a fumble.

This is why you are incorrect about saying it is an unspecified amount of time. Johnson may have survived a lot of contact with the ground but he didn’t survive all of the contact with the ground. That is the specified time, again because he needed to use the ground as part of his catch attempt.