What makes a catch?

[davidfv1]

I posted a new play on the 'Football Play on the Web' site:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0kkni/footballvideo/

The play looks at the simple act of catching the ball. Take a look at the play and post your opinion on the poll or in the forum here or on the web site.

Here are some definitions of a catch:
NFHS: A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds...2-4-1

NCAA: A catch is an act of establishing player possession of a live ball in flight... 2-2-7

NFL: A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot. (http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/forwardpass.html)

[TXMike]

Really difficult to call this since the thing is in slow motion. I'd like to see it in full speed.

But, even with that being said, NFL requires 2 feet. Does not look like the guy gets the left foot down before ball comes loose. No catch.

NCAA - I don't see where he has a firm hold or control on the ball. No catch.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

The slow motion makes it deceiving- this was a bang-bang play with the player barely ever having it and the ball flying out almost instantly.

NF- no catch.

I bet the officials wish they had their sunglasses on so they could see like everyone else.

[TXMike]

If they needed sunglasses to see that big ole ball and that big ole player then they have SERIOUS problems!!!

[Ed Hickland]

The operative word is "control". In order to obtain possession a player must first control the ball. Control implies a voluntary act by the player with the ball. The player arms were outstreched. If he had been able to "control" the ball by bringing his arms in, that would have been a controlling act.

NFHS, NCAA, NFL...no control...no catch.

[cmathews]

Guys, in slow motion I disagree, I think it is a catch. At full speed it would be hard to tell, but the truth is we have it in slow motion. Ed if you look closely, he gets the ball then trys to avoid the defenders hands reaching for it,by moving it up and away. I think that shows control. He has a foot down, in my mind control, so I say catch in slow motion. Full speed might be a different story. I am using the fed rules of 1 foot and control...

[Edited by cmathews on Aug 26th, 2003 at 09:08 AM]

[NDRef]

Those of us in the great white north got see this game live. It was ruled a "no catch" on the field. The Raiders challenged the call. The referee upheld the call on the field stating that the receiver "bobbled" the ball, therefore not establishing control before it was knocked out of his hands.

[jfurdell]

Very tricky. I'd be hard pressed to take the rules completely literally and call this a catch. I'll say incomplete.

Yes, he grabs the ball in mid-air and comes down with two feet *just* before the ball gets knocked away. But he never really seems to establish possession. On catches in the end zone, I always wait a "beat" before signaling touchdown to make sure that the receiver has caught the ball and hung on to it after contacting the ground, and that "beat" didn't happen here.

I apply this logic to the play: if the exact same thing had happened in the field of play, i.e. not the end zone, would I call it a catch and a fumble? No, I wouldn't. So I can't call it a catch in the end zone either.

[Ed Hickland]

We have the luxury of slo-mo. The official who made the call of incomplete was looking in real-time. Obviously, the referee responding to the challenge saw no reason to overturn the call sighting a bobble of the ball. His replays can be made in slo-mo with reverse.

[NDRef]

This is just for informational purposes only, but I found the dialogue of the announcers quite interesting. I was watching the Viking broadcast feed. The Viking announcers were convinced that this call would be overturned and ruled a touchdown after reviewing the replay numerous times. When it wasn't they stated that in preseason games the replay official uses the home team tv feed. This game was being broadcast by both the Raiders and Vikings, therefore the Raider feed was used for replay. The announcers simply stated that it was probable that the camera placements for the Raiders was different than the Viking camera placements. I was watching the Viking feed which had a better angle than the one we have all reviewed...and I will admit that I was a bit surprised it was not overturned (lost a bet with my 11 year old), but agree that it was very "bang, bang" type of play.

[cmathews]

Ed, I agree that there would have been no basis to overturn it, I also think that had the ruling on the field been a TD there would have been no basis to overturn it. However if we apply NHFS rules which I know those guys weren't using, I think you would have a better case for a catch...again only in SLO MO, at full speed I wouldn't even venture a guess as to how many would call it a catch..

[JMN]

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
The operative word is "control". In order to obtain possession a player must first control the ball. Control implies a voluntary act by the player with the ball. The player arms were outstreched. If he had been able to "control" the ball by bringing his arms in, that would have been a controlling act.

Ed, can't a player control and possess the ball with his arms outstretched?

Think of a square out by a wide receiver where he times the play to reach for the ball thrown over the sideline while keeping his feet inbounds.

My call is a catch based on controlling the ball with his hands for a split (maybe less) second. At that point, dead ball, touchdown. The rest is immaterial.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by JMN

Ed, can't a player control and possess the ball with his arms outstretched?

Think of a square out by a wide receiver where he times the play to reach for the ball thrown over the sideline while keeping his feet inbounds.

My call is a catch based on controlling the ball with his hands for a split (maybe less) second. At that point, dead ball, touchdown. The rest is immaterial.

Control implies the receiver is able to make a voluntary action with the ball. Simply having both hands on the ball with arms outstretched is not control. Once the player is able to bring the ball into towards his body without bobbling, he has demonstrated control or some similar action.

Think about the outstreched arms and body reaching for the ball. Both hands cradle the ball but as the receiver hits the ground the ball bounces loose. No catch.

[davidfv1]

Guys...

Great discussion here, a little more rational people here than have been voting on the web site... Post your vote..

Anyway... I wrote to a friend who was on the officiating crew... and here is what he said..

"In the NFL the philosophy is when in question it is not a catch. Either in the field or in the EZ. A player must have complete control and do a "football act." I thought my crew officiated it correctly. ... ball rolls in the receivers hand and then it is instantaneously knocked out. ...stayed with the ruling on the field. The receiver needed to put the ball away. Then possibly a catch. I hope this is clear."

Happy to see you guys are liking the plays and putting together a great discussion on them... It makes the effort worth my time..

David

[JugglingReferee]

Canadian Amateur Rules = one foot inbounds.

Under those rules, I have a TD.

And actually, under NF, NC and NFL rules, I think it is a TD as well.

Mike

Edit: Why is a football act limited to "bringing the ball to one's body". I think that having the ball between my two hands and my hands firmly on the ball is a football act. It is hanging onto the ball. Is there a time requirement for a football act? Does a football act have to last for a specified amount of time?

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Aug 27th, 2003 at 12:45 AM]