NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS
 

Jesse James' go-ahead TD overturned, ruled incomplete pass - NFL Videos

I'm sure most people have seen that by now.

First, for discussion's sake, the rule is written:

One could certainly argue based on the first paragraph that he maintains control of the ball through his initial contact with the ground, then makes a move to extend the ball over the goal line. He has clear possession up until after he extends the ball over the line, well past his initial contact with the ground. Obviously this is not how the rule is interpreted.

How would this play be ruled in NCAA and NFHS (I guess you'd have to shift the player slightly so he's not down short of the goal line)? I've seen it suggested by some of the TV personalities that this play is a touchdown everywhere but the NFL, but I've also read other threads on here that suggests people would call this incomplete in their games as well.

Lastly, is there a way the rule could be "fixed" so that plays like this and the Dez Bryant play from a few years ago can be correctly ruled touchdowns without creating too many unintended consequences? This is one of a few rules in the NFL that comes up frequently enough and has to be explained frequently enough that the rule should probably be better aligned with "common sense."

As a general point of view, the same way a catch is viewed in the NFL is done the same way at the NCAA level. Many video examples of how it is to be ruled at the NCAA level. Also, I also use similar positions about catch-no catch in NF games. The other levels just define it better, but the philosophy is the same.

Peace

One could argue that, but it would be in complete contradiction to what plainly happened - he lost control of the ball immediately when he hit the ground. There is no possession until the catch is over, this wasn't terribly controversial.

If I saw it bounce/shift/move as the WR hit the ground like this, it would be incomplete in any game of mine. Now, admittedly, seeing it is the rub, but if seen, it's incomplete. Could it be "fixed"? I don't know, I suppose...but there will be a bunch of cheap turnovers if merely holding it under control for a millisecond is the standard. I think the problems caused by this "fix" would be worse than what we have today.

Apply the rule only if the goal line or end zone is involved? I completely understand what you're saying. I just feel like the majority of people watching expect this to be, and feel it should be, a touchdown. The Dez Bryant play probably more so than this one, but it's been a while since I've watched that one.

Maybe it was my viewing angle, but it looked the same in both real time and slow motion. A 4 step sequence where; Receiver 1. possessed the live ball in flight, 2. Touched the ground (in the field of play) with his knee, 3. twisted his body and dove for the goal line, 4. Which the ball crossed BEFORE touching the ground, where TOTAL possession is questionable.

In my world, where the ball was (in relation to the goal line) when his knee hit the ground (and he maintained possession) would be the succeeding spot - likely short of the goal. In the NFL world, I'm only a spectator with an inconsequential opinion.

My issue with the reversal was that there was no replay that shows the ball touching the ground.

I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of football fans think this play should be a touchdown.

Is it possible to tweak the rule to allow plays such as this or the Dez Bryant play from a few years ago to be touchdowns without lowering the bar for a catch to the point that a lot of what are currently incomplete passes turn into catch/fumbles and possibly turnovers? Is it possible to tweak the rule only on plays involving the endzone?

In this particular play as with the Dez Bryant play, I agree with ajmc that I see a catch, contact with the ground and a separate motion to extend the ball over the plane prior to any loss of control, I believe that's what a lot of people who believe this should be a touchdown also see. They consider that to be a "football move."

I know using "common sense" to describe a rule book scenario isn't necessarily good practice, but it seems like the NFL has to come out with explanations for a lot of plays like this and taking a more "common sense" approach would be better for the game. Like it or not, there are people who look at this review and look at how long it took and wonder if the fix was in. I'm not suggesting that, but that's how a portion of the fan base will see it, especially since the much-hated Patriots were the team to benefit here.

As scrounge noted, this play isn't particularly controversial to those who know the rule as written and interpreted, but it certainly is to those expecting to be able to utilize "common sense" to judge the play.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

Huh. NFL must define "runner" differently from how they used to (player in possession of a live ball), or else this provision is circular.

All I know is, efforts to take the judgment out of things that are ultimately judgment calls -- possession is one example -- are futile. Just as there's no such thing as "safe", but only degrees of safety, there's no such thing as being in control of a ball, only degrees of control.

Well, I suppose they could have a ball that incorporated a pressure transducer and then adopt some arbitrary criterion about having the player's grip increase the ball's pressure by that amount for that long, and a remote recorder to measure those numbers. It would prevent the next Deflategate too.

We already have a level of football played EXACTLY by the rules you describe, unfortunately it's played on an X-Box rather than a field, with actual humans. We should be careful what we wish for.

Really? I thought it was pretty clear it did from the replays I saw.

That was suggested in a cartoon on NBC ~30 yrs. ago. The audience took over the game by voting not only on officials' calls, but on the plays themselves. The officials & players revolted, so they fired them all & brought in a big electronic screen.

IMO- The NFL has certainly overcomplicated this rule.

With that being said, regarding NFHS rules, the Pittsburgh receiver made the catch, turned, and the ball crossed the plane of the GL. Once the ball crosses the plane, end of story, TD every friday.

Clarification: I realize the replay had his knee down prior to crossing the GL, but my explanation would be without the knee down, as this seemed to be the main point of this discussion.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/radSnZz7ubs" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

You make a good point, for sure.

I think the difference between the older videos and the two newer ones is that people see the would-be receiver making a motion to extend the ball to the goal line, which those observers view as an act beyond the catch. The term "football move" is often used, and I believe people think the extension of the ball towards the goal line qualifies.

Unfortunately I don't think these calls are made as consistently as they could be despite that intended lack of subjectivity in the rule. I think a tweak of some sort has to be made to introduce a little "common sense" into the rule. I think the majority of fans, when explained, understand why this particular play was ruled incomplete. I also think they believe it should be a catch. The rules should probably align more with that view, in my opinion. Ultimately it comes down to what the league and competition committee want to do, so we'll have to wait and see if they come up with anything that doesn't create even worse unintended consequences.

If a play was on the sideline, if you do not get two feet down, it is not a catch. Not sure why this is hard to understand if you are diving to the ground or get hit and the ball comes out. This is a similar process that a catch must be completed in almost every single way.

The standard is not what you see, the standard is what they are actually doing. Many plays which could be referenced this year show plays where passes were overturned by replay when reviewed. Unlike college, they do not automatically review every catch. They only review when the coach challenges the calls and when it is within the last 2 minutes of the half and every scoring play. That is it. So a play in the middle of the field is not reviewed unless a coach challenges that play or within the last two minutes. But I have seen many plays this year overturned similar to what has was done in the Pittsburgh game. And this is a media problem, not a rules problem. The media seems to not ever deal with the facts of the case in an accurate way. I am going to show a comment from ESPN about the rule.

Peace