Catch?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Spence

I didn't see the play. It came up on a board. Someone said "by rule" it should have been a catch since his knee was down and there was possession even if for a split second.

That's never actually been the rule, but for a long time (and I guess still today, judging by that statement) there seemed to be the prevalent opinion that in situations where if during the action of a catch attempt the ball would be dead if the catch occurred, all the action that occurred after the ball would've been dead should be ignored in determining whether it was a catch. It's as if there were replay review and the film were cut at that instant. I remember 40+ yrs. ago a NFL playoff where a TD pass by the Raiders seemed to have been ruled on that basis.

It's the opposite of "saved by the bell" in boxing. It's actually pretty silly thinking, since the facts of possession are independent of when or whether the ball becomes dead; you can possess a dead ball, after all.