What is a "Catch?" I No Longer Know

[Anybodyhome]

13 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

The entire Beckham debate is ridiculous. He has to maintain possession of the ball the same as he would anywhere else on the field and he didn't. Had that been called on the 25 yard line there wouldn't have been any debate about it. But he had the ball, and it was swatted out on the way to secure it. Simple as that. On the Bryant catch, he had his hands on either side of the ball and while he had control, the ball clearly hit the ground as he was in the motion of falling, he must maintain possession throughout that process without assistance from the ground. 

Simple. It's the simpletons that are making this more difficult than it has to be. 

The how was Golden Tate's catch/no-catch any different and ruled a TD? 

[Anybodyhome]

Just now, 15 said:

HEy OP, were you just on WFNZ? Someone asked this exact question, word for word. 

No... I live a few hundred miles away...

[CPcavedweller]

6 minutes ago, Lilsmitty09 said:

Ginn had his ass down which counts as being down before the ball came out. Still confused. The league will have to really come up with a good definition of the rule this offseason. Lets just hope no huge outcomes are affected by the current catch rule

Yes, his ass hit the ground, but he was falling from the moment his hands touched the ball which means that until the fall is complete and he retains possession, the ball is still fair play. The only thing that makes this difficult to understand is the damn play by play guys i.e. Chris Collinsworth saying..."Man, I don...Man, I don't even know anything anymore. (pssssttt. Get me another glass of Burnett's Strawberry on the rocks), but man what even is a catch."

Groupthink is a dangerous thing. 

[FootballMaestro]

In all fairness, the ball was slapped out of OBJ's hands before both feet were set. So it's not a TD.

Remember, a runner who crosses the plane, already established "possession".

Nonetheless, "What Is A Catch" is driving me equally crazy as well, particularly that Ted Ginn "INT". SMH

[Anybodyhome]

Just now, CPcavedweller said:

Yes, his ass hit the ground, but he was falling from the moment his hands touched the ball which means that until the fall is complete and he retains possession, the ball is still fair play. The only thing that makes this difficult to understand is the damn play by play guys i.e. Chris Collinsworth saying..."Man, I don...Man, I don't even know anything anymore. (pssssttt. Get me another glass of Burnett's Strawberry on the rocks), but man what even is a catch."

Groupthink is a dangerous thing. 

So, again... how was the Golden Tate catch/no-catch ruled a TD?

[CPcavedweller]

2 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

The how was Golden Tate's catch/no-catch any different and ruled a TD? 

Replacement ref's confused by the rule and put in a game winning or losing situation. They didn't know, so the tie goes to the receiver. That situation was different because they were fighting for the ball. Ginn wasn't after it was stripped and the ball never hit the ground. 

[Anybodyhome]

Just now, FootballMaestro said:

In all fairness, the ball was slapped out of OBJ's hands before both feet were set. So it's not a TD.

Remember, a runner who crosses the plane, already established "possession".

Nonetheless, "What Is A Catch" is driving me equally crazy as well, particularly that Ted Ginn "INT". SMH

OBJ was planting his third step when the ball was knocked out... you need to watch it again. Even the refs stated he had established 2 feet. 

[t96]

1 minute ago, FootballMaestro said:

In all fairness, the ball was slapped out of OBJ's hands before both feet were set. So it's not a TD.

Remember, a runner who crosses the plane, already established "possession".

Nonetheless, "What Is A Catch" is driving me equally crazy as well, particularly that Ted Ginn "INT". SMH

His second foot was down before the ball came loose at all. That may not make it a catch still but he did have both feet down.

[MadHatter]

7 minutes ago, Servant of Cthululelei said:

Lol, except it's not at all.  When is the ball "secured"?  Beckham clearly caught it and got both feet down, and then the ball was swatted out a half second later.  If it had been a whole second is it a TD?  The ref said "he had not yet become a runner".  How the hell does he become a runner when he's in the endzone?

The rules are not clear on this anymore.  It should be as simple as catch, two steps without bobbling = catch, but it's not.  They've also made a lot of fuss about completing the catch to the ground.  IMO, this should only apply if the receiver was going to the ground before taking two steps.  Yet somehow it's being applied to plays like the Ginn "interception" against the Eagles, where he had clearly taken two steps while being tackled. 

The ball was knocked out of Beckham's hand just as his second foot hit the ground......it was not a catch.  Even though I really, really wanted it to be a TD.

[jumpman910]

Catch rule is getting confusing but the beckham TD shouldn't be one of them.  Easily not a TD 

[CPcavedweller]

"REF, DIDN"T YOU SEE THAT? I HAD TWO INDEX FINGERS ON THE BALL IN THE TIME IT TOOK ME TO MOVE MY FEET TWICE> I CATCHED THE BALL! THE fug WRONG WITH YOU?"

Seriously. The only time I could see you all bitching about this even more is if it happened to Ginn or Funchess or KB. Had Beckham not thrown a temper tantrum like he often does (see punch on Bills player for pancaking him), this wouldn't even be a story. In real time, it clearly wasn't a catch. Had that happened in the middle of the field and ruled a fumble, Coughlin would've challenged the call saying it was incomplete. So there really is no difference. 

[Anybodyhome]

3 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Replacement ref's confused by the rule and put in a game winning or losing situation. They didn't know, so the tie goes to the receiver. That situation was different because they were fighting for the ball. Ginn wasn't after it was stripped and the ball never hit the ground. 

1. The Detroit-Chicago game weren't replacement refs.

2. I'm not talking or comparing anything about the Ginn catch. The similarity between the OBJ and Tate catches were nearly identical. 

 

[Guest Barry McCaulkinor]

What is a catch? Whatever fits the narrative and agenda. Get used to it. 

[CPcavedweller]

9 minutes ago, Servant of Cthululelei said:

Lol, except it's not at all.  When is the ball "secured"?  Beckham clearly caught it and got both feet down, and then the ball was swatted out a half second later.  If it had been a whole second is it a TD?  The ref said "he had not yet become a runner".  How the hell does he become a runner when he's in the endzone?

The rules are not clear on this anymore.  It should be as simple as catch, two steps without bobbling = catch, but it's not.  They've also made a lot of fuss about completing the catch to the ground.  IMO, this should only apply if the receiver was going to the ground before taking two steps.  Yet somehow it's being applied to plays like the Ginn "interception" against the Eagles, where he had clearly taken two steps while being tackled. 

Ginn was falling to the ground, the rule states that if the player is in the motion is must maintain possession throughout that entire motion. He clearly had not as he would've needed to maintain possession throughout the fall until they came to a rest, which he didn't. (Lawyered)

A catch in the endzone is no different than a catch in the field. Had that play occurred in the middle of the field and had been ruled a fumble, it would've been reviewed and reversed to an incomplete pass.(Lawyered)

The rule of the ball only has to break the edge of the white chalk of the endzone has really skewed the perception of what is and isn't a touchdown even in the endzone when it really isn't complicated at all. As many coaches say, you don't win or lose a game because of any one play. I understand the hate for the Patriots on here, but the fact is, regardless of the disdain they have built up, they continue to win wherever and against whoever they play.