What is a "Catch?" I No Longer Know

[Anybodyhome]

I gotta be honest, as much as I despise Dez Bryant and the Cowboys, I do think his controversial "no-catch" last season was a TD.

Just a couple weeks ago, Golden Tate made a catch that was initially ruled a touchback and awarded to the Bears. Ball in hands, 2 feet in end zone and ball comes out. Ruling changed to TD.

Yesterday, Beckham, Jr made a catch in the end zone, ball in hands, 2 feet down ball comes loose and is initially ruled a TD, then overturned.

I have no clue what to think anymore when I see something like this. I have no idea what possession is, what good having 2 feet down is, and whatever the fug the refs are looking at. 

[ecu88]

Just now, Anybodyhome said:

I gotta be honest, as much as I despise Dez Bryant and the Cowboys, I do think his controversial "no-catch" last season was a TD.

Just a couple weeks ago, Golden Tate made a catch that was initially ruled a touchback and awarded to the Bears. Ball in hands, 2 feet in end zone and ball comes out. Ruling changed to TD.

Yesterday, Beckham, Jr made a catch in the end zone, ball in hands, 2 feet down ball comes loose and is initially ruled a TD, then overturned.

I have no clue what to think anymore when I see something like this. I have no idea what possession is, what good having 2 feet down is, and whatever the fug the refs are looking at. 

How does one make a football move in the endzone?  

[Anybodyhome]

2 minutes ago, ecu88 said:

How does one make a football move in the endzone?  

Maybe giving the ball to a kid in the first row is considered a "football move?"

[CPcavedweller]

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. 

[t96]

And how Cam's INT to Ginn against Philly was an INT is beyond me. It's either a catch and down by contact (which it should've been) or a catch and fumble. It's completely fuging ridiculous.

[CPcavedweller]

Just now, thomas96 said:

And how Cam's INT to Ginn against Philly was an INT is beyond me. It's either a catch and down by contact (which it should've been) or a catch and fumble. It's completely fuging ridiculous.

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. 

[TheNewStandard]

You have to secure the ball, with two-feet and make a "football-like move" while keeping possession of the ball. 

[CPcavedweller]

Here is a tip: Don't drop the fuging ball. 

[Lilsmitty09]

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

[Davidson Deac II]

9 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

Maybe giving the ball to a kid in the first row is considered a "football move?"

If it is, I am ok with that. 

 

I do agree they need to make it less of a judgement call.  In the end zone, if you get both feet down inbounds and have control of the ball, it should be a catch period, end of discussion.  Just take the judgement part out of it as much as possible. 

 

[t96]

6 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. 

No it was clearly a catch he had the ball secured in his hands, took THREE steps and then went down and just as or just after his ass hit the ground it was taken away by the defender.

[t96]

5 minutes ago, TheNewStandard said:

You have to secure the ball, with two-feet and make a "football-like move" while keeping possession of the ball. 

"football move" is no longer in the rules, they changed it after last year.

[Davidson Deac II]

1 minute ago, thomas96 said:

"football move" is no longer in the rules, they changed it after last year.

The new language isn't better. 

[Servant of Cthululelei]

7 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. 

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.