What is a "Catch?" I No Longer Know

[beastson]

I just think as long as you hold on to the ball and the ground doesn't cause a fumble, that's a catch

Ginn knee hit the ground before the player "forcefully" pulled it out his possession so they're DICKS for saying interception

[CPcavedweller]

4 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

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. 

 

I thought you were referring to the Green Bay-Seattle game. Regardless of the ruling of the OBJ catch, the Giants still failed in clock management again and it lost them a game again. I don't have an opinion of the Tate catch as I haven't seen it yet, but i'm sure that will be all over NFLN as anything regarding Beckham dropping a catchable ball is covered. 

[CarolinaSamurai]

30 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. 

This post is summed up as "I am very smart"

[Anybodyhome]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000559571/Can-t-Miss-Play-Golden-Tate-s-wacky-touchdown

Now that you've continued on your opinion of a question I asked regarding Golden Tate's catch compared to OBJ, and you admit you've never seen the Tate catch (which makes understanding how you formed an opinion while not having all the information difficult)...

[ecu88]

@Anybodyhome

So they expect Odell to pull a Forrest Gump?  

[CPcavedweller]

9 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000559571/Can-t-Miss-Play-Golden-Tate-s-wacky-touchdown

Now that you've continued on your opinion of a question I asked regarding Golden Tate's catch compared to OBJ, and you admit you've never seen the Tate catch (which makes understanding how you formed an opinion while not having all the information difficult)...

I clearly said I have no opinion of the Tate catch. I will watch this regardless of you missing that I had said that. 

 

After watching the play....I disagree that it is a catch also. I actually think that is far more egregious than the OBJ play. 

[Mol3m4n]

I thought it was a catch by Beckham.

[Marguide]

The current rules and/or the interpretation of the rules are a clusterfug. The league is lawyering things too much.

Simpler is better in this case. 2 feet down with possession is a catch. Period. If there are no steps after the catch, maintain control when you hit the ground and it's a catch.

[Frizzy350]

18 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

I thought you were referring to the Green Bay-Seattle game. Regardless of the ruling of the OBJ catch, the Giants still failed in clock management again and it lost them a game again. I don't have an opinion of the Tate catch as I haven't seen it yet, but i'm sure that will be all over NFLN as anything regarding Beckham dropping a catchable ball is covered. 

Replacement refs made the right call in that GB - Seattle game.  Steve Smith used to pull that move on defenders all the time and it was always called that way. Props to the Ref Union for making a big deal out of it through the media to gain some leverage.

[Fox007]

10 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000559571/Can-t-Miss-Play-Golden-Tate-s-wacky-touchdown

Now that you've continued on your opinion of a question I asked regarding Golden Tate's catch compared to OBJ, and you admit you've never seen the Tate catch (which makes understanding how you formed an opinion while not having all the information difficult)...

Yup and Ginn had control longer than Tate lol we got jobbed badly on that one.

[thefuzz]

If they are going to make it that hard to get receiving TD's, why don't they stop with the runner breaking the plane?

All it takes for a runner is for the ball, and not another part of the runners body to merely touch/cross the field side of the white line.  Meanwhile the receivers have to catch, get two feet in, then while keeping both hands on the ball, offer someone some cheesy puffs.

[Darth Biscuit]

18 minutes ago, MadHatter said:

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.

If OBJ's "catch" yesterday wasn't a TD, then last week that was NOT an INT by the Green Bay player. 

 

After the GB DB bobbled the ball, Ginn knocked it out of this hands (same exact thing as yesterday) and they still ruled it an INT.

 

NFL has zero consistency in applying these rules.

 

FWIW I think it's close.  OBJ had possession... and in the endzone once you have possession (with the ball across the goal line) it should be a TD...  watch this GIF.  Both feet were down.

 

 

 

 

[Wundrbread33]

51 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

It was an interception because it never hit the ground. The ball was clearly stripped out before Ginn had secured the ball, which means throughout the process of falling to the ground. Had the ball come out and landed on the ground, it would've been an incomplete pass.

Remove the possibility that it was a fumble and it's easy to understand. Even had KB or Olsen had the ball knocked out of their hands in the end zone like Beckham did, I would say they need to secure the ball. You can't just touch the ball and hold it for 1 second for it to be considered a catch. Remove the "football play" narrative, and understand that if you have the ball knocked out before its secured, its not a catch. 

I would say it isn't so clear since there was much debate on this play.

Ginn's play was a lot closer to being a catch and down by contact than OGB's was to being a touchdown.

But the question about the Ginn play was not whether or not the ball was stripped out, but whether or not he should have been considered "down by contact" once he took two steps, was forced to the ground by the defender, with his butt/hip clearly on the ground before the ball was forced free by the defender.

I will still stand by this statement. If the Ginn play was indeed correctly called as an interception...then the rule is flawed and needs to be overhauled.

[ecu88]

18 minutes ago, Darth Biscuit said:

If OBJ's "catch" yesterday wasn't a TD, then last week that was NOT an INT by the Green Bay player. 

 

After the GB DB bobbled the ball, Ginn knocked it out of this hands (same exact thing as yesterday) and they still ruled it an INT.

 

NFL has zero consistency in applying these rules.

 

FWIW I think it's close.  OBJ had possession... and in the endzone once you have possession (with the ball across the goal line) it should be a TD...  watch this GIF.  Both feet were down.

 

 

 

 

Thread/