What is a "Catch?" I No Longer Know

[CPcavedweller]

4 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

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.

Look at the place at which there was debate. It was here. You can slow down any play and say that it was clearly this or clearly that, but in the spirit of the game I would imagine the plays are slowed down and watched at real time speed. The fact that OBJ caught the ball over his head and was bringing it down is what doomed the call in the first place. 

Ginn's catch, while puzzling at first, is easy enough to understand if you know at which point maintaining possession throughout the fall to the ground stops. But that is ambiguous and ultimately I blame Ginn for not holding on to the ball. Also, on all of these examples we have thrown out there, there has been a good play on the ball by the defender to make it questionable. I don't think much needs to change. The moment you begin saying, well he had two hands on the ball and two feet down, it's a catch. If the guy jumps, catches and his two feet are down, then the ball is knocked out while its still over their head, is it really a catch? I think securing the ball has to come into play and neither Tate nor OBJ did that. 

Ginn's catch was far more questionable but ultimately the rule is what it is, and he must maintain possession throughout going to the ground. 

[CPcavedweller]

11 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

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.

Look at the place at which there was debate. It was here. You can slow down any play and say that it was clearly this or clearly that, but in the spirit of the game I would imagine the plays are slowed down and watched at real time speed. The fact that OBJ caught the ball over his head and was bringing it down is what doomed the call in the first place. 

Ginn's catch, while puzzling at first, is easy enough to understand if you know at which point maintaining possession throughout the fall to the ground stops. But that is ambiguous and ultimately I blame Ginn for not holding on to the ball. Also, on all of these examples we have thrown out there, there has been a good play on the ball by the defender to make it questionable. I don't think much needs to change. The moment you begin saying, well he had two hands on the ball and two feet down, it's a catch. If the guy jumps, catches and his two feet are down, then the ball is knocked out while its still over their head, is it really a catch? I think securing the ball has to come into play and neither Tate nor OBJ did that. 

Ginn's catch was far more questionable but ultimately the rule is what it is, and he must maintain possession throughout going to the ground. 

[CPcavedweller]

1 minute ago, ecu88 said:

20 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.

 

 

 

 

 

My question is, if this happened in the middle of the field would you consider this a fumble? 

[Darth Biscuit]

But he wasn't going to the ground...  

 

...and, AND, it was ruled a TD on the field and overturned.  Which is what they're supposedly trying to avoid... generally they try and not overturn things without 100% indisputable evidence.  I don't think you have that here.

 

[CPcavedweller]

1 minute ago, Darth Biscuit said:

But he wasn't going to the ground...  

 

...and, AND, it was ruled a TD on the field and overturned.  Which is what they're supposedly trying to avoid... generally they try and not overturn things without 100% indisputable evidence.  I don't think you have that here.

 

Again I ask. If this happened at the 50 yard line, on the logo, would you rule this a fumble, or incomplete? The rule of a catch cannot be differentiated between the end zone and the rest of the field. 

[Darth Biscuit]

1 minute ago, CPcavedweller said:

My question is, if this happened in the middle of the field would you consider this a fumble? 

Me?  Yes.

 

My opinion of what the NFL would say? Who fuging knows?

 

The question obviously is when EXACTLY do you have possession of the football?  I think this football move thing is bullshit.  If it's in your hands and two feet are down, to me that is possession.

[Wundrbread33]

5 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Look at the place at which there was debate. It was here. You can slow down any play and say that it was clearly this or clearly that, but in the spirit of the game I would imagine the plays are slowed down and watched at real time speed. The fact that OBJ caught the ball over his head and was bringing it down is what doomed the call in the first place. 

Ginn's catch, while puzzling at first, is easy enough to understand if you know at which point maintaining possession throughout the fall to the ground stops. But that is ambiguous and ultimately I blame Ginn for not holding on to the ball. Also, on all of these examples we have thrown out there, there has been a good play on the ball by the defender to make it questionable. I don't think much needs to change. The moment you begin saying, well he had two hands on the ball and two feet down, it's a catch. If the guy jumps, catches and his two feet are down, then the ball is knocked out while its still over their head, is it really a catch? I think securing the ball has to come into play and neither Tate nor OBJ did that. 

Ginn's catch was far more questionable but ultimately the rule is what it is, and he must maintain possession throughout going to the ground. 

I suppose I was not clear. I understand the rule, just hate the rule.

If Julio Jones was put in the Ginn's place, it still SHOULD be a catch in my eyes. I know it is opinion, but only in the NFL where all the rules are micromanaged and complex, would it not be a catch. The rule allows for too much judgement from the officials. High school, it's a catch, pretty certain in college that's a catch.

[CPcavedweller]

17 minutes ago, Darth Biscuit said:

Me?  Yes.

 

My opinion of what the NFL would say? Who fuging knows?

 

The question obviously is when EXACTLY do you have possession of the football?  I think this football move thing is bullshit.  If it's in your hands and two feet are down, to me that is possession.

It wasn't the fact that he didn't make a football move. He caught it over his head and was bringing the ball down and in the process of that he gets tomahawked and the ball comes out. That's what the issue is. 

 

[CPcavedweller]

18 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

I suppose I was not clear. I understand the rule, just hate the rule.

If Julio Jones was put in the Ginn's place, it still SHOULD be a catch in my eyes. I know it is opinion, but only in the NFL where all the rules are micromanaged and complex, would it not be a catch. The rule allows for too much judgement from the officials. High school, it's a catch, pretty certain in college that's a catch.

Does the NFL generally follow college or high school rules? Or do rules trickle the other direction? Many of the calls in the game are judgment calls. Obviously holding calls are judgment calls as there is holding on every goal line running play, and i've seen more holding against Jared Allen than i've see on any other Panthers defensive end ever. Yet, he never gets the call and I imagine its because he dips into being hooked. To me, they look like holding calls, to the refs, who knows. 

[Darth Biscuit]

Just now, CPcavedweller said:

It wasn't the fact that he didn't make a football move. He caught it over his head and was bringing the ball down and in the process of that he gets tomahawked and the ball comes out. That's what the issue is. 

 

Right, that's true, but he has the ball clearly in both hands in control. Not juggling or bobbling it... both feet are down, in bounds...  at what point does he have possession?  NFL says, catch and control AND feet down AND football move...  but in the endzone, are you making a "move"?  idk... on the field yes, but if you're falling it's this "thru the ground" thing...  he's not falling, he's not out of bounds...  he clearly has the ball in his hands controlled...  I think that one more thing of "football move" is the issue and VERY subjective.

[CPcavedweller]

Just now, Darth Biscuit said:

Right, that's true, but he has the ball clearly in both hands in control. Not juggling or bobbling it... both feet are down, in bounds...  at what point does he have possession?  NFL says, catch and control AND feet down AND football move...  but in the endzone, are you making a "move"?  idk... on the field yes, but if you're falling it's this "thru the ground" thing...  he's not falling, he's not out of bounds...  he clearly has the ball in his hands controlled...  I think that one more thing of "football move" is the issue and VERY subjective.

I think this was a process of the catch moment. He hadn't completed that as he was still bringing the ball down to "secure" it. That would mean that he hadn't established possession yet. Sure, football move is subjective but I honestly feel like that isn't even an issue anymore. It's more about at which point it seems like the player is in full control of the ball, and personally, even if the player bobbles it for 4 or 5 steps, I still don't want it to be considered a catch, much like Green Bay's interception on Cam. 

Secure the ball, and if you are able to do that 1 second after the ball hits your hands, then its a catch. If you juggle it for 3 seconds, it's not possession. Sure it appears he had control of the ball, but the manner in which he caught it and the fact he was bringing it down is the issue.

It also doesn't help it was against the Patriots. But lets not forget Eli saying that New England was in goal line defense so they weren't going to let us run the ball. Well no poo Sherlock. You run in that situation to run clock, and much like they did against Dallas earlier in the year, they didn't run the damn clock and it lost them the game. Sure this catch will be looked at as the culprit, but as I mentioned before, a single play doesn't win or lose a game. Eli just seems to misunderstand the need to run the ball in those situations and if I were a Giant fan, I'd be more upset about that.

[Darth Biscuit]

1 minute ago, CPcavedweller said:

I think this was a process of the catch moment. He hadn't completed that as he was still bringing the ball down to "secure" it. That would mean that he hadn't established possession yet. Sure, football move is subjective but I honestly feel like that isn't even an issue anymore. It's more about at which point it seems like the player is in full control of the ball, and personally, even if the player bobbles it for 4 or 5 steps, I still don't want it to be considered a catch, much like Green Bay's interception on Cam. 

Secure the ball, and if you are able to do that 1 second after the ball hits your hands, then its a catch. If you juggle it for 3 seconds, it's not possession. Sure it appears he had control of the ball, but the manner in which he caught it and the fact he was bringing it down is the issue.

It also doesn't help it was against the Patriots. But lets not forget Eli saying that New England was in goal line defense so they weren't going to let us run the ball. Well no poo Sherlock. You run in that situation to run clock, and much like they did against Dallas earlier in the year, they didn't run the damn clock and it lost them the game. Sure this catch will be looked at as the culprit, but as I mentioned before, a single play doesn't win or lose a game. Eli just seems to misunderstand the need to run the ball in those situations and if I were a Giant fan, I'd be more upset about that.

No I mean this one play didn't lose them the game...  they had plenty of chances to win.  ...and I hate the Pats with a passion but this isn't about that, if this was a Pats player I would apply the same logic to it.  To me, it was a catch, but the NFL says no... my main issue with them is the inconsistency... I wish I could find that gif of the Cam INT...  it's almost the same situation if I remember correctly... Ginn knocked the ball out as the guy was gaining control AND the guy then stepped out of bounds.  To me, this OBJ play was MUCH more of a catch than that INT but the rulings are 180* opposite. It makes no sense.

[GRWatcher]

@CPcavedweller Can you please explain the catch where the receiver was touched down in bounds at the end of the Colts game but was ruled out of bounds & stopped the clock? And the catch where the receiver was touched down before the ball was over the goal line but it was ruled a TD in the GB game. In both cases the receiver continued to slide on the grass after being touched down. 

[frash.exe]

That call cost me 6 fuging points

also I wanted to see New England lose. Carolina needs to be the only undefeated team