Popular Post TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 13, 2023 On the play where the KC defender picked up a potential catch/fumble from an Eagles' player and ran it in for a TD, it was overturned because "he needed a 3rd step". But it was pretty clear that the Eagles player caught the ball and had firm control of it (he had both hands on the ball) and he was nowhere near the sidelines (so being out-of-bounds wasn't even a consideration). My question is: why doesn't that count as a catch (and fumble) when it would count as a catch had the receiver done the same exact thing but then fell (or stepped) out-of-bounds? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Beerfish Posted February 13, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 13, 2023 Asking for clarification on the catch or possession rule from anyone including the league is totally fruitless. No one knows and even the ones who are supposed to know change it from instance to instance. By far the worst rule issue the NFL has right now. It's a travesty. 6 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 7 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said: On the play where the KC defender picked up a potential catch/fumble from an Eagles' player and ran it in for a TD, it was overturned because "he needed a 3rd step". But it was pretty clear that the Eagles player caught the ball and had firm control of it (he had both hands on the ball) and he was nowhere near the sidelines (so being out-of-bounds wasn't even a consideration). My question is: why doesn't that count as a catch (and fumble) when it would count as a catch had the receiver done the same exact thing but then fell (or stepped) out-of-bounds? I think going out of bounds would be considered the third step, whatever the hell that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 Just now, The Crusher said: I think going out of bounds would be considered the third step, whatever the hell that means. What if he fell out of bounds then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 That rule is a bunch of BS. So if I caught the ball perfect and froze and was hit 20 minutes later thats not a catch? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lith Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 I think you need two steps down and to make a football move to establish possession. I guess going out of bounds is considered a football move. But I really have no clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lith Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 4 minutes ago, Beerfish said: Asking for clarification on the catch or possession rule from anyone including the league is totally fruitless. No one knows and even the ones who are supposed to know change it from instance to instance. By far the worst rule issue the NFL has right now. It's a travesty. This, in my opinion, is the correct answer. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 No football move. That was really obviously an incomplete pass 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimjasi Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 Great question. The answer is that the NFL catch rules are a logically incoherent mess. They should be simplified to be "two feet and clear control of the ball." The "football move" stuff is arbitrary nonsense that only complicates the intuitively simple notion of a catch. In the old days, that would have been a fumble 10 out of 10 times (go back and watch the 1994 SF-Dallas NFL title game and look at Michael Irvin's fumble on the second drive of the game - two feet down, possession, and a fumble. SIMPLE. The NFL needs to go back to SIMPLE rules with SIMPLE interpretations). 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 9 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said: What if he fell out of bounds then? out of BOUNCE, idiot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 Just now, HighPitch said: out of BOUNCE, idiot Why the need to call him an idiot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 11 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said: What if he fell out of bounds then? Honestly dude I would assume the act of falling out of bounds is a football move? I really don't know, not sure anyone does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, HighPitch said: out of BOUNCE, idiot Just now, The Crusher said: Why the need to call him an idiot? Also, what does he mean by "out of bounce"? The correct terminology is "out of bounds". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 15 minutes ago, HighPitch said: That rule is a bunch of BS. So if I caught the ball perfect and froze and was hit 20 minutes later thats not a catch? Exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 1 minute ago, TuscanyTile2 said: Also, what does he mean by "out of bounce"? The correct terminology is "out of bounds". I think it means your feet are stuck to the ground. Happens to me a lot because I'm fat. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwichjetfan Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 Common sense says it should have been a fumble. The rulebook says it's not. The disconnect is stupid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 18 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said: What if he fell out of bounds then? 9 minutes ago, HighPitch said: out of BOUNCE, idiot If a player steps on the painted white line along the sidelines, you think that's called being "out of bounce"? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Willie White Shoes Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 12 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said: Also, what does he mean by "out of bounce"? The correct terminology is "out of bounds". It was a joke. You obviously did not follow the (useless) parade of pre-season tweets from one of the the Jets beat writers (the guy from the Dolphins - DJ something) in 2021 (I think). He repeatedly called out of bounds "out of bounce" and was apparently serious about this term and not making a joking malapropism. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYJCAP2 Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 20 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said: On the play where the KC defender picked up a potential catch/fumble from an Eagles' player and ran it in for a TD, it was overturned because "he needed a 3rd step". But it was pretty clear that the Eagles player caught the ball and had firm control of it (he had both hands on the ball) and he was nowhere near the sidelines (so being out-of-bounds wasn't even a consideration). My question is: why doesn't that count as a catch (and fumble) when it would count as a catch had the receiver done the same exact thing but then fell (or stepped) out-of-bounds? It’s a really good question. I’m assuming you mean a “toe tap” type of play? My best guess would be, with the continuance out of bounds the player still has to “move” the ball at some point. His hands and arms have to break and move with possession cleanly still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 Just now, Joe Willie White Shoes said: It was a joke. You obviously did not follow the (useless) parade of pre-season tweets from one of the the Jets beat writers (the guy from the Dolphins - DJ something) in 2021 (I think). He repeatedly called out of bounds "out of bounce" and was apparently serious about this term and not making a joking malapropism. Oh, lol. A Jets' beat writer didn't know that?! That's crazy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. That’s an incompletion 100/100 times 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peebag Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 I still believe that Dez Bryant caught that ball in the playoffs against the Packers so what do I know. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, Larz said: c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. That’s an incompletion 100/100 times What if he did what he did yesterday (right before the potential fumble) but stood there frozen for 20 minutes. Then the defender came in and knocked the ball out. That should be an incompletion in your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addage Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 34 minutes ago, Larz said: No football move. That was really obviously an incomplete pass Actually, I think there was a football move. He caught the ball running to the sideline. But he was facing the end zone when he was hit and dropped the ball. When I watched the play, I was convinced it was an incomplete pass. When I watched the replay, I changed my mind to a fumble and Chiefs TD. But really, there was no right call. The margin was too thin either way. Refs made a reasonable call. It's just never going to be perfect! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 1 minute ago, TuscanyTile2 said: What if he did what he did yesterday (right before the potential fumble) but stood there frozen for 20 minutes. Then the defender came in and knocked the ball out. That should be an incompletion in your opinion? I posted the actual rule. It was a correct interpretation of the rule and the correct call. In the meaningless example you mentioned, I suspect the play would be blown dead prior to 20 minutes elapsing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, addage said: Actually, I think there was a football move. He caught the ball running to the sideline. But he was facing the end zone when he was hit and dropped the ball. When I watched the play, I was convinced it was an incomplete pass. When I watched the replay, I changed my mind to a fumble and Chiefs TD. But really, there was no right call. The margin was too thin either way. Refs made a reasonable call. It's just never going to be perfect! It was the right call. This one isn’t even remotely close or controversial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, Larz said: I posted the actual rule. It was a correct interpretation of the rule and the correct call. In the meaningless example you mentioned, I suspect the play would be blown dead prior to 20 minutes elapsing. 1 minute ago, Larz said: It was the right call. This one isn’t even remotely close or controversial It may have been the right call according to the rulebook (just like the Tuck Rule), but my point is that it's an idiotic rule. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastineau Lives Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 43 minutes ago, Larz said: No football move. That was really obviously an incomplete pass Isn’t catching a football a football move? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 5 minutes ago, addage said: Actually, I think there was a football move. He caught the ball running to the sideline. But he was facing the end zone when he was hit and dropped the ball. When I watched the play, I was convinced it was an incomplete pass. When I watched the replay, I changed my mind to a fumble and Chiefs TD. But really, there was no right call. The margin was too thin either way. Refs made a reasonable call. It's just never going to be perfect! Football move or not, do you think the guy caught the ball and had possession of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 1 minute ago, Gastineau Lives said: Isn’t catching a football a football move? ^^ Clearly has never watched football before! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastineau Lives Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 It should be that if you have possession with both feet down I mean god forbid we have 4.5 percent more fumbles in the NFL the game would collapse 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTownsell1 Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 41 minutes ago, Larz said: No football move. That was really obviously an incomplete pass Exactly. People can complain about the rules as they are written and want them changed, but the rule is clear. He needs 2 feet down and make a football move. He had 2 feet down and before he can make a "football move" the ball was knocked out. Not sure what the drama is all about. ANY rule related to a catch will always have some level of subjectivity. At what point is a move a "football move"? In this case, he just caught the ball but didn't do anything. He didn't take a step up field, he didn't lunge for extra yardage. It was in his hands and then instantly dislodged so by rule it's not a catch. I am pretty sure the thought process behind the "football move" is that it is unfair for a player to be credited with a catch and fumble in the exact same act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurntDice Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 Here’s the catch in question. To me it seems like an obvious fumble. It’s 100% a catch then he turns his body which to me is enough to justify the fumble . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 1 hour ago, HighPitch said: That rule is a bunch of BS. So if I caught the ball perfect and froze and was hit 20 minutes later thats not a catch? Freezing for 20 minutes is still a move. Replay has destroyed all sense of actual events. Bang (catch) bang (knocked out immediately before the receiver moves or reacts) has always been an incompletion. But ultra-slow-mo replay makes it seem like he had 20 minutes to "finish the catch" when he didn't. It was ruled correctly. I'm far more concerned with all the catches ruled incomplete, and the variability of such calls, because of the bogus rules in place now about the ball not shifting or moving as the receiver hits the ground out of bounds. Again, something only ultra-slow-mo replay actually can show, it can't really be seen in live action. Replay has done more damage than good to the quality of the game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 8 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said: Exactly. People can complain about the rules as they are written and want them changed, but the rule is clear. He needs 2 feet down and make a football move. He had 2 feet down and before he can make a "football move" the ball was knocked out. Not sure what the drama is all about. ANY rule related to a catch will always have some level of subjectivity. At what point is a move a "football move"? In this case, he just caught the ball but didn't do anything. He didn't take a step up field, he didn't lunge for extra yardage. It was in his hands and then instantly dislodged so by rule it's not a catch. I am pretty sure the thought process behind the "football move" is that it is unfair for a player to be credited with a catch and fumble in the exact same act. My post isn't about "did they make the correct call". It's about "they should change this idiotic rule". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.