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

[Ring 6]

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.

Actually he is wrong that there are separate rules but there are separate requirements because if you are standing you have finished catching the ball when you get 2 feet down but if you are required to go to the ground when catching you haven’t finushed catching the ball until you survive the ground because the ground is part of your catch.
That distinction is where he is mixed up.

 

[skinnydog]

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.

I don;t understand the confusion. I'm saying the NFL treats the going to the ground while making a catch as a separate rule. If the receiver gains "control" over the ball and maintains control" until contact with ground it I say it should be a catch. In 90%+ situations like that there is also contact with a defender so if it is a catch and the ground dislodges the ball it is a catch and no fumble in my scenario because the play is over when the receiver "completes the catch" and hits the ground.

If in what I think is a rare scenario, the receiver catches the ball while sliding or diving (that is, while going to the ground) and gains control before hitting the ground, but the ground ground then dislodges the ball and all this time the player has been untouched by a defender then it is a catch and a fumble.

 

[Nehalem]

Actually he is wrong that there are separate rules but there are separate requirements because if you are standing you have finished catching the ball when you get 2 feet down but if you are required to go to the ground when catching you haven’t finushed catching the ball until you survive the ground because the ground is part of your catch.
That distinction is where he is mixed up.

That isn't true. See for instance the 2011 AFCCG, where the Ravens WR caught the ball in the endzone, but Sterling Moore then striped it. Or the 2015 NYG game where Butler did a similar thing.

So even if you catch a ball while standing you are still required to hold onto it for a period of time for it to be an official catch. And really this is an obvious and necessary requirement, otherwise every time the receiver dropped the ball you would have a fumble.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

There is one simple rule for making any catch, anywhere: possess the ball, inbounds.

You are trying to make overly complicated guidelines for what it means to possess the ball. To possess the ball, anywhere, you must secure it. When going to the ground, you must continue to secure it through contact with the ground. Makes prefect sense, and it is easy to review possession in that case.

Any change in rules or possession definition shifts more plays to being judgement calls and takes away the exactness that is necessary for effective, consistent replay review.

It is a great rule, as written

 

[skinnydog]

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


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.

Well, you have completely missed the point of this entire thread. I know what the current rule is the point is to a better rule if you think there should be a different rule. Under the rule I suggested, the Johnson scenario is a catch and there is no fumble because he down by contact.

 

[skinnydog]

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.

For a catch to be a catch there must be possession and since the NFL has different rules for possession when the receiver is possessing (catching) the ball while going to the ground there is a different rule for a catch when the receiver is going to the ground while making a catch.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

That isn't true. See for instance the 2011 AFCCG, where the Ravens WR caught the ball in the endzone, but Sterling Moore then stripped it. Or the 2015 NYG game where Butler did a similar thing.

Both were correctly called incomplete passes since in neither case was there possession, since in neither case was the ball secured. Itit was stripped as they tried to secure

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

There is no "rule" for possession. There is, however, a precise definition for the word. The NFL defines it appropriately. To possess a football means you have secure control of the ball, through contact with the ground, if the pass leads you to the ground.

 

[Ring 6]

I don;t understand the confusion. I'm saying the NFL treats the going to the ground while making a catch as a separate rule.

They don’t. If you have to go to the ground the rules are the same but the ground is part of your catch so it’s not complete until you complete the process of going to the ground.

If the receiver gains "control" over the ball and maintains control" until contact with ground it I say it should be a catch.

But he needs the ground to make the catch so he has to control the ball until he’s done using the ground.
By your standard if you have the ball as you are going down but when your upper body, hands and the ball make their contact with the ground to complete the catch if it pops out it’s a catch and fumble.

In 90%+ situations like that there is also contact with a defender so if it is a catch and the ground dislodges the ball it is a catch and no fumble in my scenario because the play is over when the receiver "completes the catch" and hits the ground.

This is all coming up over one play where the receiver was not dien by contact so even if you were correct with 90% the other 10% create a bigger problem. Additionally you have added that if the defender knocks the ball out after some piece of the receiver contact rather ground but he hasn t secured the catch you still want to give him credit. Or would that be a fumble too since the contact that made him down by contact caused the fumble?

If in what I think is a rare scenario, the receiver catches the ball while sliding or diving (that is, while going to the ground) and gains control before hitting the ground, but the ground ground then dislodges the ball and all this time the player has been untouched by a defender then it is a catch and a fumble.

There are tons of plays every week where a receiver has his hands on the ball going to the ground and loses the ball when his upper body, arms,hands and/or the ball hit the ground. That should not be a catch because its a drop.

 

[skinnydog]

Actually he is wrong that there are separate rules but there are separate requirements because if you are standing you have finished catching the ball when you get 2 feet down but if you are required to go to the ground when catching you haven’t finushed catching the ball until you survive the ground because the ground is part of your catch.
That distinction is where he is mixed up.

Are you that obtuse? OK, the "One Rule" for making a catch has subparts (requirements) such that under the same "one rule" there is a different set of subparts (requirements) to the "one rule" distinguishing between a receiver not going to the ground while making a catch and one who is going to the ground while making a catch. I feel comfortable describing that as 2 rules for the process of making a catch, but if you are more comfortable with "one rule" and different "requirements" then good for you.

 

[Ring 6]

That isn't true. See for instance the 2011 AFCCG, where the Ravens WR caught the ball in the endzone, but Sterling Moore then striped it. Or the 2015 NYG game where Butler did a similar thing.

So even if you catch a ball while standing you are still required to hold onto it for a period of time for it to be an official catch. And really this is an obvious and necessary requirement, otherwise every time the receiver dropped the ball you would have a fumble.

Right you have to possess it long enough to establish control defined as being able to make a football move ie just likd going to the ground you have to finish the catch.

I can’t thunk of a better definition of finishing the catch than completing the process of going to the ground with control ( if you require the ground to make the catch ) or be able to do what comes next after the catch.

 

[moosekill]

They don’t. If you have to go to the ground the rules are the same but the ground is part of your catch so it’s not complete until you complete the process of going to the ground.


But he needs the ground to make the catch so he has to control the ball until he’s done using the ground.
By your standard if you have the ball as you are going down but when your upper body, hands and the ball make their contact with the ground to complete the catch if it pops out it’s a catch and fumble.




This is all coming up over one play where the receiver was not dien by contact so even if you were correct with 90% the other 10% create a bigger problem. Additionally you have added that if the defender knocks the ball out after some piece of the receiver contact rather ground but he hasn t secured the catch you still want to give him credit. Or would that be a fumble too since the contact that made him down by contact caused the fumble?


There are tons of plays every week where a receiver has his hands on the ball going to the ground and loses the ball when his upper body, arms,hands and/or the ball hit the ground. That should not be a catch because its a drop.

And they would all be fumbles if this change took place.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you that obtuse?

Look if this is the way you want to have a discussion dont have one with me.
I will not respond to you any further until we clear that up.

 

[skinnydog]

There is no "rule" for possession. There is, however, a precise definition for the word. The NFL defines it appropriately. To possess a football means you have secure control of the ball, through contact with the ground, if the pass leads you to the ground.

The definition for possession is part of the rules, so it is a small step to say there is a "rule" for possession.

 

[skinnydog]

Actu

Look of this is the way you wa t to have a discussion dont have one with me.
I will not respond to you any further until we clear that up.

Actually that was uncalled for. A misplaced and inappropriate reference to Shawshank Redemption.

 

[skinnydog]

And they would all be fumbles if this change took place.

No, not at all. it is really more like applying the rule that the ground can't cause a fumble to a receiver.

 

[skinnydog]

On my end, done for the night , but an interesting subject

 

[Ring 6]

No, not at all. it is really more like applying the rule that the ground can't cause a fumble to a receiver.

The ground can cause a fumble.

 

[Ring 6]

Actu

Actually that was uncalled for. A misplaced and inappropriate reference to Shawshank Redemption.

Ok

So it’s the same rule you are just not understanding that the rule regards finishing the catch and you finish a catch differently if you rely on the ground to make it or stay on your feet.
Saying that when relying on the ground to make the catch shouldn’t require you to keep control of the ball until you finish using the ground would be akin to calling a bobble a catch.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

So here's one version (similar to that proposed earlier in the thread) that only changes the definition of "surviving the ground:"

A receiver survives the ground provided he has clear control before going to the ground, has clear control after going to the ground and is touching the football during the whole process.

So basically you ignore bobbles caused by the ground. No increase in fumbles, just some receptions are changed from incompletions to completions.