It's relevant here because the same rule was applied. The replay official, Riveron, erred in the overturn there, which speaks to the lack of consistency even though the rule is written in a way to try to limit subjectivity. I'm suggesting that the rule should be re-written in a way that's more logical with what "should" be a considered a touchdown even if it adds subjectivity because the subjectivity has been there regardless.

There will always be close cases and things near the line, no matter where the line is drawn. The amorphous "I know it when I see it" rule you seemingly want wouldn't just be subjective, it would be arbitrary and unpredictable. It's a solution in search of a problem.

The Steelers player didn't catch the ball. This one wasn't even all that close.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people watching want that play to be a touchdown. He did break the plane with control of the ball, after all.

And that's irrelevant because he hadn't finished the catch yet. That's why we need to understand how critically important definitions are.

I see you pointed out one video where you feel replay wasn't consistent. I didn't see the video but yes there will still be outliers if it wasn't consistent. There was probably still some aspect about it that affected the replay officials decisions, but they are human also. Replay officials get downgrades too. But if there were 100 catch/no catch plays before this philosophy/rule evolved several years ago, you may have had 20-30 that had significant discrepancy among officials. Now you may have 5. That's a huge improvement in efficiency. Critics will still focus on the 5 rather than the consistent 95.

It is not consistent when they get a good angle to see the entire play. Part of this is based on the angles the videos show.

Peace

Who cares? A majority of people may scream holding on every play, we're taking a poll here. And breaking the plane doesn't matter if he doesn't have the ball, and he doesn't have the ball till he catches it.

OK, tell us how the rule should be written? Because if I am reading this right, you do not like "Football move" analogy, but they have control of a pass when? Because what I am seeing people ask for is very subjective. Even the term "Football move" has some subjectivity to it, but at least if you are going to the ground, you must survive the ground and the ball should never come out (if you would have been out of bounds) or hit the ground without complete control. So I want to know what should the rule be changed to?

Peace

This latest "interpretation" seems like a perfect example of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Some things are just naturally subjective, and all the King's horses and all the King's men will never be able to change that.

I think the primary argument on this play is that he caught the ball cleanly, then his knee came down while he maintained control of the ball (technically surviving his initial contact with the ground), he then clearly extended the ball over the goal line. He only lost control after all of that had occurred. I think that's the basis people are using for attacking the rule.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iLqMCT7yTVY" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I haven't watched that in its entirety yet, but it does highlight some inconsistencies early and make a suggestion for how the rule could be worded.

OK, but having the knee on the ground is not the criteria for a catch and doubt would ever be the criteria as the very first play in the video I showed as a catch. And that looks like something that would be debated to people like yourself when a critical play happens. And that first play would also be debated on HDTV even more. Because is it just going to be a knee? Are we going to include a shoulder as well? What about a forearm? And then when is control considered, in the air? When they hit the ground? You have just in your suggestion made what seems simple because you are only referencing the recent play, but not considering the many other types of plays that would come up.

Also, pretty much every level uses this kind of philosophy. Yes, that even includes the NF level that people love to quote the rules because the rule never tells anyone to only consider a specific factor to why a catch is made. The plays I also showed that were high school plays were never questioned by any higher ups and one was in the State Finals. I will not dispute that some high school crew or association does not use this, but I bet they are awful inconsistent in what is considered a catch or not. On my crew, if you do not survive the ground or the hit, we are not giving you a catch. It was that simple. The NCAA is just as stringent in their philosophy and shows videos every week on plays that should not be ruled a catch and they do not include hitting the ground. If you would like, I can show you several NCAA situations put out by the NCAA that shows to not call these kinds of plays a catch and a couple I know (I used in a presentation) involved the goal line. ;)

Until you come up with something better than "his knees were on the ground" we will have the same problems you claim when it comes to lack of consistency. Because there will be a debate about what is a catch even when your knee, shoulder, forearm hit the ground and why one play is a catch and another is not. Also, in the NFL the player is not down if no one touches them, guess how many fumble plays that would be involved? You just created another problem by your narrow criteria. So if that play happens at the 50-yard line and the ball pops up in the air, we calling that situation a catch and a fumble? Again, good luck with that.

Peace

Did you watch the video in my post?

I thought catch and TD. The ball was caught in the field of play, controlled by the receiver who extends the ball over the goal line plane. At that point the ball is dead......anything else that happens after is during a dead ball and should not have applied........and the TD should have stood. Now if the pass was caught IN the end zone then we'd have an incomplete pass. If the ball had not broken the goal line plane then that also should be ruled incomplete.

Just imagine how silly this sounds. If the pass was in the back of the end zone, the very same thing would have been considered. The goal line is not a factor until you actually catch the ball. So this "he lunged into the end zone would be up for debate if he the ball was moving or even not firmly in the hands as well. So again, this is why this logic does not work either.

Now, this makes no sense. If you have a play anywhere on the field the same criteria should be used no matter where. This is not a ball handler in possession of the ball that breaks the plane (until you catch the ball). The same way we do not give the ball back to a player that once had the ball and fumbles the ball into the end zone, we treat that the same no matter where it happens if the ball is fumbled into the end zone.

Peace

But that has nothing to do with this distinction. It may, however, have to do with the relative skills of their respective officials.

I don't know why they'd want to particularize it like that. But then, I don't know why they wanted a different rule for when the receiver's body is moving downward from when the receiver's moving in any other direction.

For instance, they could've written a rule allowing recovery of a loose ball by a player on the ground who's getting up only if the possession "survives getting off the ground". So if you're getting onto your feet while picking up a loose ball, and the ball comes loose while your body is still rising, that'd be non-possession as well. Makes as much sense as the one about a player going to the ground -- and apparently going to the ground applies even after some part of the body other than the hands or feet touches the ground, as long as the player's body still has a net motion downward.