What is a catch in the NFL?

[DefenseWinzChampionshipz]

Do you think Bellichick had something to do with the referees in our game from 100s of miles away? I think so. It's a conspiracy I tell you!

[Just in Atlanta]

The NFL has become awash in rules.

 

It was most definitely a catch by any normal fan's standards

[MDH]

What's a catch?

 

Hold onto the ball the entire way through and don't let it touch the ground at any point. Do that and you're guaranteed a catch. Anything else and it's going to be a judgement call. Fans aren't going to always like those judgement calls but that's life.

[Dibs]

....

This thread happens regularly, yet no one has an answer to "ok, so what should it be?"

 

Blah, blah, feet/knees etc, blah, blah.....where the receiver has clear possession of the ball determined by the discretion of the refs.

 

The NFL should let the refs do their job and adjudicate the game without having to cowtow to minutiae.

[KRT88]

The that pisses me off the most is that I am 100% positive if that was the New England Patroits, that's a catch. However, for the lowly Buffalo Bills, incomplete pass.

[fansince88]

found this. While I want to say it was a catch I hate to admit it that it wasnt. He was still moving. While in real life he caught it in NFL rules he didnt catch the ball.

s is the official rule on receptions in the NFL:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Basically what that means is simple. If a player goes to the ground while in the process of making a catch, he must control the ball all the way through until his momentum from the fall ends. If at any point before his momentum stops he loses control of the ball and it touches the ground, the pass is incomplete.

 

So if he was still moving on the ground he didnt complete it. Makes me sad!

[Beerball]

found this. While I want to say it was a catch I hate to admit it that it wasnt. He was still moving. While in real life he caught it in NFL rules he didnt catch the ball.

s is the official rule on receptions in the NFL:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

Basically what that means is simple. If a player goes to the ground while in the process of making a catch, he must control the ball all the way through until his momentum from the fall ends. If at any point before his momentum stops he loses control of the ball and it touches the ground, the pass is incomplete.

 

So if he was still moving on the ground he didnt complete it. Makes me sad!

pisses me off

[PoppaBen]

That was definitely a catch...at some point you have to be ruled DOWN! The play was over and the defender strips the ball...CMON MAN!! Oh...and its time for TJ Graham to go...

[NoSaint]

pisses me off

 

I think a lot of people would be far more angry if the rule was loosened up and guys losing the ball when they land were getting credited for catches. No matter where you draw the line, there are going to be tough borderline calls and fans will be angry about the ones that are close and go against them.

 

That was definitely a catch...at some point you have to be ruled DOWN! The play was over and the defender strips the ball...CMON MAN!! Oh...and its time for TJ Graham to go...

 

I've been pretty much in the same boat - the question keeping me level in it simply being a judgement call is if I ignore the strip and focus simply on whether it'd be a catch to me if he just lost control at that point - it would amount to the same thing and I think in my head seems like it makes it tougher to be upset about the ruling/rule.

[Tu-Toned]

"Well the fans are boo'ing but [completion of process buzzwords, blah blah]".

 

OK be more condescending Deirdorf, as if every red blooded football fan doesn't remember that Calvin Johnson play & the explanation. I would like to ask him if he remembers the Lance Moore 2pt conversion in the Super Bowl that same year, which was ruled a catch. I'm sure he doesn't.

 

As mentioned above and by Marrone, it sure looked like he still had the ball after the first bounce off the turf, which in my book is "completing the proccess". But I guess it's sorta like holding - it's just insanely subjective even though the league will pretend otherwise. I mean does it actually say anywhere in the rule book exactly how long you need to hold the ball after hitting the ground? Did the Tuck rule ever specify how long you needed to complete the tucking motion before fumbling for the fumble to be negated?

I mean sorry for the Mike Schopp rant but he's right that the sport is maddeningly stupid sometimes.

Dierdip was waffling all over, but he tried to stick to his first vehement opinion cause he didn't want to

look like at fool and ended up doing exactly that.

 

That catch is a catch for a more important team in the NFL. When you are irrelevant you don't get that call.

That catch is a catch for a more important team in the NFL. When you are irrelevant you don't get that call.

I agree in general with your statement, the only thing is, we did get the call. I saw the one ref come

in and call the ball down by ground contact, adamantly too. Why in the hell another ref is allowed

to overturn that before the replay, is beyond my comprehension.

[Beerball]

I think a lot of people would be far more angry if the rule was loosened up and guys losing the ball when they land were getting credited for catches. No matter where you draw the line, there are going to be tough borderline calls and fans will be angry about the ones that are close and go against them.

 

I'll try to remain as objective and level headed as you. Wait, no I won't. It was a catch.

[peterpan]

This thread happens regularly, yet no one has an answer to "ok, so what should it be?"

 

How about:

 

The ball gets plucked from the air with two feet down and remains in the receivers hands for 100% of the time afterwards without him loosing it. It is OK if the ball hits the ground, so long as the receiver never loses his grasp on the ball. Furthermore, it will still be a catch if the ball moves within the receivers grasp, so long as the ball remains in the receivers hands for 100% of the time and never needs to be re-grasped.

 

I'd say that's fairly quick and easy. The best part of all this is, now when a receiver catches these balls, they will be ruled a catch! DUH!!!

Edited November 4, 2013 by peterpan

[Luka]

The less talked about situation was the pass to Robert Woods in the endzone. He catches the ball, controls it, two feet down, that's a catch. However the refs allowed the play to continue in the endzone and the Chiefs defender ripped the ball out and it was called incomplete. My understanding of the endzone is that it is like going out of bounds. Once you're there, with possession of the ball, play is over.

 

Or at least it used to be...

[Wattdogg35]

we all know that if Goodwin was a Patriots receiver, it would have been ruled a catch, reviewed, confirmed a catch, and they would have thrown a 15 yard "defenseless" receiver and/or Roughing the passer on top of it! also, how was Byrd's a "defenseless" receiver when he hits him with his shoulder running to make a play, if he catches that ball and he runs by him, it's a TD! so sick of the NFL screwing the Bills!

 

The less talked about situation was the pass to Robert Woods in the endzone. He catches the ball, controls it, two feet down, that's a catch. However the refs allowed the play to continue in the endzone and the Chiefs defender ripped the ball out and it was called incomplete. My understanding of the endzone is that it is like going out of bounds. Once you're there, with possession of the ball, play is over.

 

Or at least it used to be...

yea endzone rules are even "stupider" look at the Pats game last night, the Pats receiver catches the ball with 1 foot in play and lands out of bounds, not sure how thats a TD!? i though to be "in play" you have to catch the ball, 2 feet in bounds, and make a football move, NONE of those happended on that play. his hip and elbow land out of bounds b4 anything else happens...mind boggling

[NoSaint]

we all know that if Goodwin was a Patriots receiver, it would have been ruled a catch, reviewed, confirmed a catch, and they would have thrown a 15 yard "defenseless" receiver and/or Roughing the passer on top of it! also, how was Byrd's a "defenseless" receiver when he hits him with his shoulder running to make a play, if he catches that ball and he runs by him, it's a TD! so sick of the NFL screwing the Bills!

 

 

yea endzone rules are even "stupider" look at the Pats game last night, the Pats receiver catches the ball with 1 foot in play and lands out of bounds, not sure how thats a TD!? i though to be "in play" you have to catch the ball, 2 feet in bounds, and make a football move, NONE of those happended on that play. his hip and elbow land out of bounds b4 anything else happens...mind boggling

 

he landed on his foot then the hip if we are talking about the same call, and im remembering correctly. so those were the two points of contact needed. its not "two feet" even though those are typically the two points used.

[CodeMonkey]

He had control when he hit the ground and at that point he was down by contract: play over. What happened after the play was over shouldn't matter. That was a catch.

What defines control is the bigger question. Does having it trapped in his elbow, which is where he had it, constitute control? I wouldn't think so, and my guess is that's why it was ruled incomplete and not overturned. But that's just my guess.

Edited November 4, 2013 by CodeMonkey

[NoSaint]

 

What defines control is the bigger question. Does having it trapped in his elbow, which is where he had it, constitute control? I wouldn't think so, and my guess is that's why ruled incomplete and not overturned. But that's just my guess.

 

you can definitely have it trapped and have it be controlled. that it moved when he first landed didnt help his case when it came out for real though (might not have made a difference, but it certainly didnt make the situation better).

[Wattdogg35]

he landed on his foot then the hip if we are talking about the same call, and im remembering correctly. so those were the two points of contact needed. its not "two feet" even though those are typically the two points used.

Yes I am well aware of the "2 points" which it really isn't the rule. It's elbow is ruled down, knee, hip, shoulder, only "1" point is needed, but if it's "feet" then 2 are needed. His hip came down on the line between inbounds and out of bounds as well as the rest of his body out of bounds before any "2" or "1" point importance contact with the ground...

Edited November 4, 2013 by Wattdogg35

[26CornerBlitz]

@ChrisTrapasso

Legit question to anyone interested: Is this a catch to you? (Use the NFL's "complete the catch" rule.) https://vine.co/v/hjFd0gwLU03

[Wraith]

The infuriating part to me is the inconsistency. Think back to Goodwin's "fumble" against New England from Week 1. He had far less possession of that pass than he did on the play from yesterday, yet that one is a catch and fumble and this was an incomplete. Might as well flip a coin.