The Rule Regarding James's Erstwhile Catch

[luuked]

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.

I never thought I would say this but I think the NFL is doing exactly the right thing here. To avoid a stupid inconsistent grey area that would result in the refs and their gut feeling becoming the deciding factor like with PI in this case the rules are extremely strict but at least black and white.

If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession throughout that process for the catch to be considered complete. And only then you are considered to have possession of the ball. And only then all the other rules that apply to runners are relevant. There is nothing complicated about that and makes it simpler for reviews and decisions to be consistent.

Personally, I would rather sacrifice a couple of completions than introduce yet another judgement call into the game. And I would welcome the league to make more rules considerably more strict to clean games of inconsistent calls. Inconsistent application of a rule is what ruins games.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

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.

Dez’ catch is more of a catch than James’ bc its more spectacular and i hate the packers

 

[upstater1]

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.

The complicating factor is that the Patriots won the game.

 

[luuked]

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.

This will most probably go under in this thread but on the newest Ringer GM Street podcast Lombardi says that BB has prohibited players in NE to stretch out around the goal line to avoid the risk of incompletions or touchbacks. He literally said that if you do that you will be benched.

 

[upstater1]

The real acid test for this rule is for people (complaining about it now) to imagine what the reaction would be if a Patriot had batted the ball out of his hands at the goal line and recovered the ball. Would you have called it a fumble recovery?

 

[Angelpats]

Good enforcement of the rule. It has happened so many times now people should have expected that it wasn’t a TD. Now because it’s a pats game people will truly acknowledge what this rule is. The same thing happened with the touchback call in the jets game. Because of that game people know what happens when the ball is fumbled out of the end zone now. It happened again last night during the raiders/cowboys game and there was no second guessing the call because we brought this rule to the light. These rules are made but it takes a pats game for them to truly recognize its exists.

 

[Angelpats]

The real acid test for this rule is for people (complaining about it now) to imagine what the reaction would be if a Patriot had batted the ball out of his hands at the goal line and recovered the ball. Would you have called it a fumble recovery?

It would be an incomplete pass unless he batted it up in the air like the game winning int.

 

[GoBlue]

I knew immediately it was not a touchdown because i am a Lions fan too. The same thing happened to them in a critical game about 5 years ago when we first heard the expression, "you have to complete the process". Calvin Johnson made a spectacular catch in the end zone and going down the ball hit the ground and they ruled it no catch.

 

[Boogs]

Dez’ catch is more of a catch than James’ bc its more spectacular and i hate the packers

Ha ha.

 

[Boogs]

This will most probably go under in this thread but on the newest Ringer GM Street podcast Lombardi says that BB has prohibited players in NE to stretch out around the goal line to avoid the risk of incompletions or touchbacks. He literally said that if you do that you will be benched.

Bill is smart to say this. With the rule now, stretching out to get that touchdown is a huge risk at getting a call for an incompletion.

 

[Boogs]

I never thought I would say this but I think the NFL is doing exactly the right thing here. To avoid a stupid inconsistent grey area that would result in the refs and their gut feeling becoming the deciding factor like with PI in this case the rules are extremely strict but at least black and white.

If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession throughout that process for the catch to be considered complete. And only then you are considered to have possession of the ball. And only then all the other rules that apply to runners are relevant. There is nothing complicated about that and makes it simpler for reviews and decisions to be consistent.

Personally, I rather sacrifice a couple of completions than introduce yet another judgement call into the game. And I would welcome the league to make more rules considerably more strict to clean games of inconsistent calls. Inconsistent application of a rule is what ruins games.

No problem, I just disagree on this rule.

 

[SacPete1]

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?""

the only ambiguous part of the rule is the "football move" which requires some subjectivity but not a great deal. Otherwise a catch is clear and much easier to call than it was pre Calvin Johnson.

Speaking of which, this rule has been around for 7 years! There is no excuse for not knowing the rule. As a player and a coach, you cannot get greedy by stretching out. James and the Steelers should be criticized for this.

All I hear this morning is that the play passes the eye test for what is a catch. That's irrelevant! Know the rule!

 

[luuked]

No problem, I just disagree on this rule.

In theory I dont like it either but I like I said what is even worse is inconsistency. Unless someone can come up with a more reasonable rule that doesnt result in more fumbles, doesnt make it a judgement call like PI and avoids weird edge cases I guess we are stuck with this.

 

[FortressX]

Anyone have a clip of the Gronk catch that was disallowed ?

 

[Angelpats]

I never thought I would say this but I think the NFL is doing exactly the right thing here. To avoid a stupid inconsistent grey area that would result in the refs and their gut feeling becoming the deciding factor like with PI in this case the rules are extremely strict but at least black and white.

If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession throughout that process for the catch to be considered complete. And only then you are considered to have possession of the ball. And only then all the other rules that apply to runners are relevant. There is nothing complicated about that and makes it simpler for reviews and decisions to be consistent.

Personally, I rather sacrifice a couple of completions than introduce yet another judgement call into the game. And I would welcome the league to make more rules considerably more strict to clean games of inconsistent calls. Inconsistent application of a rule is what ruins games.

I don’t particularly agree with most of what you say but I agree with this.

 

[yukon cornelius]

that's essentially what the competition committee and officials have said.....this rule is clear, they understand it, and there's little black and white when it comes to catches in this situation......i've heard multiple officials/perriera/blandino/et al all say they knew as soon as they saw the replay last night that it was not a catch, that it was clear, there was no question........a catch has to be defined......the current definition may be unwieldy to the average fan or the player that doesn't pay attention, but is actually about as black and white as NFL rules get

 

[Nunchucks]

I don't understand the poll choices.

 

[Off The Grid]

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 ...

Thanks, Bro!! I'm actually pretty weak on technical stuff like this, so this process has been an interesting education for me.

 

[Off The Grid]

I don't understand the poll choices.

The 3rd one? Misquoted, to my shame. I've put in a request to have it fixed.

 

[Chevy]

The ball didn't just move, it freely rotated. Not a catch.