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

I love watching OBJ and still think he'll be one of the best in the game, but he showed no heart yesterday. I feel he underestimated Butler and thought he scored the knock out blow early on the 87-yarder. Butler responded by stepping up. OBJ didn't know what to do after that.

PatsBoy12 said:

I love watching OBJ and still think he'll be one of the best in the game, but he showed no heart yesterday. I feel he underestimated Butler and thought he scored the knock out blow early on the 87-yarder. Butler responded by stepping up. OBJ didn't know what to do after that.

Click to expand...

Butler is definitely cut out to play the position. As Belichick says about great cornerbacks, he has a "short memory." I cannot believe how good this kid is, considering he was a virtual nobody before the second half of the Super Bowl less than a year ago.

So glad the Bills took Watkins (plus an additional first round pick!!!) over OBJ. lol.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think he made "a football move", which does not apply anymore. The rule is what it is. Yes we've been on the bad end it too. So have other teams. I think Dez's was catch too. But the way the rule is written, it wasn't. Like I said, I don't like the rule, but agree with the call

Silver Blue&Red said:

I think he made "a football move", which does not apply anymore. The rule is what it is. Yes we've been on the bad end it too. So have other teams. I think Dez's was catch too. But the way the rule is written, it wasn't. Like I said, I don't like the rule, but agree with the call

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the best way to deal with this is simple: make this an issue of time. A receiver needs to (a) get both feet down and (b) hold the gall for x amount of seconds (maybe 2?) These events run concurrently, so the process of getting two feet down also counts towards the time requirement.

Then a replay person in the league office can review the instant replay on ANY questionable possession call and let the refs know instantly if it's a catch or not. I hope they have the technology of an accurate timer, even though they are unable to use an accurate gauge for ball pressure.

This way, it is no longer up to the ref to make a subjective judgement call about whether or not a "football move" was made. Too many huge calls up in the air with controversy just waiting to happen.

dannydyn said:

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…

Click to expand...

Ratbirds fans and the media always calls that a dropped pass. In contrast Giants fans have been saying OBJ/Butler breakup was stripped from OBJ's hands.

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:


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.

I hate to use the term "football move" but Odell never made a football move. A running back who crosses the plane has already established possession. A receiver who is coming down in the end zone didn't have possession to begin with. Since the ball was knocked out, he has to first show that he controlled it - with a "football move".

I think its pretty clear to anyone watching football the last few years that is was an incompletion - those trying to make that seem like a legit catch are either Giants fans or have an axe to grind against NE.

I also love the logic that the Giants win if that's called a TD - right because a 2 min TD drive is totally impossible for the Patriots and TB12...

This was a coaching failure. From Beckham's post game interview:

Q: Did you have to make a move of some sort after you were already down?
A: No. I didn't think you had to do anything else but catch the ball and get two feet in the end zone. I don't really know much more.

Isn't it up to the coaches to ensure that the receivers understand the criteria for a catch?

If it's going to be incomplete anywhere else on the field, it is an incompletion in the end zone

It's no different when someone goes out of bounds in the field of play, the act of completing the catch is more than getting 2 feet in and it is also not the same thing as breaking the plane

One-Be-Lo said:

I think its pretty clear to anyone watching football the last few years that is was an incompletion - those trying to make that seem like a legit catch are either Giants fans or have an axe to grind against NE.

I also love the logic that the Giants win if that's called a TD - right because a 2 min TD drive is totally impossible for the Patriots and TB12...

Click to expand...

I don't really understand why it wasn't a catch, but I am one who thinks that pretty much everything should be a catch

raduray said:

This was a coaching failure. From Beckham's post game interview:

Q: Did you have to make a move of some sort after you were already down?
A: No. I didn't think you had to do anything else but catch the ball and get two feet in the end zone. I don't really know much more.

Isn't it up to the coaches to ensure that the receivers understand the criteria for a catch?

Click to expand...

He doesn't have to make a football move, he just needs to maintain possession through the catch. That means catch the ball, two feet in bounds and secure the ball. He never secured the ball.

In regards to comparisons between a runner going past the goal line for a touchdown and a receiver attempting to catch a pass in the end zone, it is really quite simple:

The runner already had possession of the football.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

One-Be-Lo said:

I also love the logic that the Giants win if that's called a TD - right because a 2 min TD drive is totally impossible for the Patriots and TB12...

Click to expand...

2 min with 1 timeout.

sambam94 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The rules do address it. They say the receiver most control the ball long enough to be considered a runner (that's an update on the language which was that he must possess the ball "long enough to perform an act intrinsic to the game"). Doesn't mean he has to actually make any moves. Just that he has to hold it long enough that he could make moves.

Sydney said:

I hate to use the term "football move" but Odell never made a football move. A running back who crosses the plane has already established possession. A receiver who is coming down in the end zone didn't have possession to begin with. Since the ball was knocked out, he has to first show that he controlled it - with a "football move".

Click to expand...

There's no requirement to make a "football move". The current standard is that you have to control the ball long enough to have mode one, but you don't actually have to make one. Either way, Beckham failed the test.

Angelpats said:

The only ones disagreeing are Giants fans.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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....

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...

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?

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.