PromoTheRobot Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I think the Bills should request a ruling from the league on that play. Otherwise a DB could, in theory, keep tugging on the ball even after a catch hoping an official rules it incomplete. I mean where is the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) RULE NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED, PERIOD!! It WAS! That's the whole problem...it didn't fix anything, lol Edited August 23, 2016 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 The rule is written poorly and legislated even more poorly. A catch should be simple: possession and two feet or one major body part. You remove ambiguity with modifiers that are simple as well: if the defender is trying to strip the ball, then the ball needs to be moving or being juggled prior to establishing possession with 2 feet or 1 major body part down in bounds in order for it NOT to be a catch. If the receiver gains possession with 2 feet or one major body part, but loses possession when he hits the ground, then it's a fumble (provided he wasn't contacted by an opposing player). The league is doing the players, officials, and fans a disservice with this convoluted definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Saw the Little catch. I can support it not being ruled a TD. Initially he had both hands on it uncontested, but almost immediately the DB challenged it and Little fell to the ground, losing the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) The fact that a play is over the second a runner breaks the plane of the end zone versus a receiver who has to "make a football move", pop-up with the ball cleanly in his hands, do the worm, bounce into the stands, take a bow and curtsy before a catch is ruled a catch is blatantly and utterly ridiculous. The inconsistencies throughout the NFL rule book are maddening. This is as well stated a response on the subject as I could imagine. It is a joke and Ex is not too far off the mark as to what a receiver has to do. I personally believe that the instant it is a legitimate TD the issue is over. Control, two steps...done. At that moment you can not take it away. If so then take away TDs when runners touch the pillion and then drop the ball. Edited August 23, 2016 by dollars 2 donuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkreed Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Saw the Little catch. I can support it not being ruled a TD. Initially he had both hands on it uncontested, but almost immediately the DB challenged it and Little fell to the ground, losing the ball. It seems as if your own statement would support it as a catch then. He initially catches the ball without contest, has control and the instant his 2nd foot is down is the time when the DB gets a hand on the ball. This is a catch in any other part of the field, and possibly even down by contact. But in the NFL, this is not a touchdown... This league has some pretty messed up rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 It seems as if your own statement would support it as a catch then. He initially catches the ball without contest, has control and the instant his 2nd foot is down is the time when the DB gets a hand on the ball. This is a catch in any other part of the field, and possibly even down by contact. But in the NFL, this is not a touchdown... This league has some pretty messed up rules. He didn't make a football move before the DB got his hand on the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 He didn't make a football move before the DB got his hand on the ball. I always wondered why getting both of your feet down in play with clear possession was not considered "a football move." That's one of the most important and skillful football moves a receiver can and has to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloFan68 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 The NFL is becoming more like the WWE every year. Catch the ball in the end zone get 2 feet down equals TD. That was definitely a blown call. Receiver was out of bounds after making a TD before the defender knocked it loose. So many bad calls this year already. Roughing the passer call on a Dak Prescott hit that was as clean as they come. Washington QB throws a 35 yrd go route & the WR does a 8 yrd hook rte & they call pass interference on the D. Just terrible terrible calls all the way across the board. The game is more about fantasy & entertainment now & has lost integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkreed Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 @YardsPerPass The refs called the rule right. But why can you have 4 steps in the EZ & not have it be a catch? Awful rule Thanks for the .gif 26CB! This is the rule that applies to that play, IMO: Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.Sep 25, 2012 I'm just glad it was preseason and the Bills won anyway... So we are all in agreement that simultaneous catch is out, correct? 2016 NFL Rulebook: Catch Rule ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and © maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2). Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch. If the player goes to the ground before establishing as a runner -- i.e., in cases ofCalvin Johnson in 2010 or Dez Bryant in the 2014 playoffs -- here is what the rule now says: "[He] must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." So this rule is what states if the above play is a catch. Need to pass A, B and C. A- The ball is controlled by the receivers hands. Not once does the ball move from his hands, even during the hand fighting by the DB. (at least from what is seen in the .gif) B- Clearly he has control (from A) and has a 2 steps in bounds. C- The football move aspect. Here is the gray area of the rule, as Bandit cited: A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps The keyword in this rule, to me is the -OR- -Avoiding or warding off impending contact - Fails -Tucking the ball away - Fails -Turning up field - Fails -Taking additional steps - Passes, Little takes 2 mores steps after control is gained. Yes, the ball is contested at this point, but its not a simultaneous catch, he is able to move forward by taking steps and is dragging the defender with him. He didn't make a football move before the DB got his hand on the ball. IMO, the football move (per the NFL's rules) is the taking of additional steps after control and two feet. Again, as has been said way too many times, this rules stinks and is open to a ton of interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I always wondered why getting both of your feet down in play with clear possession was not considered "a football move." That's one of the most important and skillful football moves a receiver can and has to make. Furthermore, unless my senility has advanced more than I wish to admit, two feet down used to be the rule. It's enforceable. It is relatively easy to interpret. Ball-hands-one foot down-two feet down-CATCH! "make a football move" is like "indecency". They can't define it, each individual ref just "knows it when they see it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) He didn't make a football move before the DB got his hand on the ball. He got four feet inbounds. How much more is needed? Doesn't matter if the DB is touching it because ties go to the offense. If you let a DB have unlimited time to break up a pass then every DB should grab the ball to pull it away from a receiver on every play, even out of bounds. Edited August 23, 2016 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I always wondered why getting both of your feet down in play with clear possession was not considered "a football move." That's one of the most important and skillful football moves a receiver can and has to make. Which you could make the argument, if a receiver catches the ball falling OOB with possession of the ball and both feet down, how is that a catch since he didn't make a football move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Which you could make the argument, if a receiver catches the ball falling OOB with possession of the ball and both feet down, how is that a catch since he didn't make a football move? Exactly. Plus, what if the ball is completely out of bounds when he catches it but his feet are in? That doesn't reconcile with crossing the plane of the goal line, or the first down marker when they reach it across in the middle of the field. There are a lot of dumb rules in the NFL for such a successful league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Very simple rule actually... Don't let go of the ball till the refs signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Exactly. Plus, what if the ball is completely out of bounds when he catches it but his feet are in? That doesn't reconcile with crossing the plane of the goal line, or the first down marker when they reach it across in the middle of the field. There are a lot of dumb rules in the NFL for such a successful league.My favorite dumb rule is the fielding a kickoff oob while the ball is in bounds is considered a kick oob. If you don't remember: http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2012/12/23/randall-cobb-takes-advantage-of-bizarre-nfl-rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 My favorite dumb rule is the fielding a kickoff oob while the ball is in bounds is considered a kick oob. If you don't remember: http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2012/12/23/randall-cobb-takes-advantage-of-bizarre-nfl-rule LOL, I remember the Bills losing a key fumble recovery against the Pats because a Pats player was knocked out with a foot out of bounds. The refs gave the ball to New England and they won in OT. Think that was 2004 at home. Anyone remember that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 (edited) LOL, I remember the Bills losing a key fumble recovery against the Pats because a Pats player was knocked out with a foot out of bounds. The refs gave the ball to New England and they won in OT. Think that was 2004 at home. Anyone remember that? Yes, Keion Carpenter knocked David Patten out cold. It was, unfortunately, the correct call. It was 2001-2002--the year Brady took over for Bledsoe and the Pats beat the Rams in the Super Bowl IIRC. EDIT: Yep, it was... https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2001/12/17/ruling-david-patten-fumble-helps-patriots-beat-bills/Q15dQ696eN1xN4VZ887edI/story.html Edited August 24, 2016 by thebandit27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Yes, Keion Carpenter knocked David Patten out cold. It was, unfortunately, the correct call. It was 2001-2002--the year Brady took over for Bledsoe and the Pats beat the Rams in the Super Bowl IIRC. EDIT: Yep, it was... https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2001/12/17/ruling-david-patten-fumble-helps-patriots-beat-bills/Q15dQ696eN1xN4VZ887edI/story.html Yes, just the first of a long string of ignoble losses to the Patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JESSEFEFFER Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 LOL, I remember the Bills losing a key fumble recovery against the Pats because a Pats player was knocked out with a foot out of bounds. The refs gave the ball to New England and they won in OT. Think that was 2004 at home. Anyone remember that? I think his head was out but the ball was lying in bounds against his still inbounds leg, i.e. the ball was not touching an oob object but a oob player who was in no condition to attempt a recovery or purposefully touch the ball. I thought the rule was misapplied much like the initial George Brett pine tar ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts