(01-23-2023, 11:03 AM)motoarch Wrote: I'm still bitter over the Martvius Bryant catch in 2015.

Fine say that Chase didn't catch but then how in hell does Bryants count?

If you're going to have a rule make it make sense and apply it with consistency.

The consistency part is more irritating than the rule.

Sent from my DE2118 using Tapatalk

(01-23-2023, 12:41 PM)Destro Wrote: He has to survive the ground. Has always been the case. Was made famous by Calvin Johnson, hence the “Calvin Johnson Rule” name. He fell out of bounds and the ball was still moving. On the one yard line, it is a catch all day long. From the end zone to out of bounds, it is incomplete. Nate and Boomer also explained it at halftime.

I can understand not liking the rule, but it is the rule, been clearly established with a deep history along with several examples. Just because it happened to the Bengals during the playoffs makes people put on blinders, but that has never been a TD in all my years of watching the NFL and guess what? It still wasn’t. They got the call correct. He had zero hands on it at one point, even.

Trust me, I said I wanted a statue of that catch. I was hyped. Then I saw the replay. Yep, nevermind. Not a catch.

That's not part of the rule anymore. He just needed to keep the ball from moving, as it did, in order for it to be a completed catch.

I'm not a "CATCH" expert, but was telling my compadres of the play..."once he secured the ball (which he did) in the end zone, that's a TD". Now, whatever happened after that becomes a moot point. Whether he lost the ball afterwards, whether he was or wasn't in bounds at that juncture, doesn't matter. Once he caught it in the end zone, it's a TD.

Even if it was debatable, I thought there had to be overwhelming evidence to overturn a call on the field.

We won....by a lot. I'm happy. But, that reversal sure did smell....and badly!!!!!

OK, here's the part I missed. The ball actually moved (spun) a little bit HERE, when the defender swatted at it...



Thus the first foot "step" doesn't really count as he now needs to re-establish control.
Now it makes sense.
I believe this is what KillerGoose was trying to explain, but I needed to SEE it, for it to sink in.

(01-23-2023, 01:09 PM)Graphicguy Wrote: I'm not a "CATCH" expert, but was telling my compadres of the play..."once he secured the ball (which he did) in the end zone, that's a TD".  Now, whatever happened after that becomes a moot point.  Whether he lost the ball afterwards, whether he was or wasn't in bounds at that juncture, doesn't matter.  Once he caught it in the end zone, it's a TD.

Even if it was debatable, I thought there had to be overwhelming evidence to overturn a call on the field.

We won....by a lot.  I'm happy.  But, that reversal sure did smell....and badly!!!!!

Not if you're falling out of bounds. In the EZ yes, falling out of bounds, no.

(01-23-2023, 10:57 AM)Tomkat Wrote: This is not sour grapes, I'm genuinely curious.
Can someone find in the rule book exactly what a catch is?
The only reason I ask is because in a game (last week? - I can't remember exactly) a receiver made a catch along the sideline, got THREE feet (steps) inbounds, then was hit and lost control once he hit the ground.  The rules guy (Gene Steratore?) said that at that point, the ground was no longer a factor, because of the three steps.  There may have been something about a "football move" but I'm not 100% certain.

Anyhow... AT WHAT POINT does the ground (or a defender knocking the ball loose) no longer matter?  Is it 3 steps... 4.... 5?
Are the rules different for sideline vs end zone?

For what it's worth, I can totally understand why the call was overturned - as both of Chase's hands were off the ball at one point.
My question is... at what point should that no longer matter?

First off, the Chase play was OBVIOUSLY not a catch.  That play is not controversial at all. It was hard to see in real time, but once I saw a replay, I knew that was incomplete. 

Still it is a good question, and the answer is tricky. For one, it depends on where the receiver is.  The Chase play at midfield is a catch. It never hits the ground. But going out of bounds? Nope. 

My understanding is there are 2-3 factors at play on an out of bounds play.

 First is what I call the fumble determination, but rules guys will call a determination of possession. Does the receiver demonstate possession (control) of the ball, get two feet in bounds, BEFORE being contacted by a defender. If he does, nothing that happens after he hits the ground, or the defender dislodging the ball as they go to ground is going to matter. If he does not, then he has to maintain control of the ball through contact & hitting the ground. 

Now, that sounds straightforward, but what the hell does it mean? I like to think of it like a funble determination in bounds. If it is an incompete pass inbounds, then it is obviously incomplete going out of bounds. If it is a fumble or down by contact, then it is a TD. Again, that still does not give you a formulaic determination, and you won't get one. It is a subjective call, not an objective one. 

Usually I'd say the third foot down would be good, but the football move thing cones into it. Going OOB is a bit different. The ball can move some if the receiver still has control. When is that too much and really a bobble? Subjective. Same thing when/if the ball hits the ground. It can move some, but only if the receiver has control of it the whole time. 

Chase loses it twice. He catches it clean and gets two feet down as Milano contacts him/he is going to ground. No way was that 3/football move. He needs to maintain control through hitting the ground. And he does not. Milano knocks it free as they are going OOB. The ball moves for certain. In ky mind the pass is incomplete there because Chase would then need 2 feet again, but it is close. The ball moves, clearly. However, if he'd have maintained control through the ground it might have been enough to stand a challenge with the original TD call as a ball shift with control. But he doesn't. He looses it completely and the ball is on his stomach as they slide OOB. Neither hand on the ball. No way that stands. 

Even Chase did not think it was a catch. Listen to what he said postgame. 

(01-23-2023, 12:58 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Allen fumble was about as close to a fumble as it comes too.

I thought that was 100% a fumble. So glad we ended up winning handily, and neither play mattered in the end.

(01-23-2023, 01:10 PM)Tomkat Wrote: OK, here's the part I missed.  The ball actually moved (spun) a little bit HERE,  when the defender swatted at it...



Thus the first foot "step" doesn't really count as he now needs to re-establish control.
Now it makes sense.
I believe this is what KillerGoose was trying to explain, but I needed to SEE it, for it to sink in.

You were missing the replay and have the rule wrong. It is not like breaking the plane. 

(01-23-2023, 10:57 AM)Tomkat Wrote: This is not sour grapes, I'm genuinely curious.
Can someone find in the rule book exactly what a catch is?
The only reason I ask is because in a game (last week? - I can't remember exactly) a receiver made a catch along the sideline, got THREE feet (steps) inbounds, then was hit and lost control once he hit the ground.  The rules guy (Gene Steratore?) said that at that point, the ground was no longer a factor, because of the three steps.  There may have been something about a "football move" but I'm not 100% certain.

Anyhow... AT WHAT POINT does the ground (or a defender knocking the ball loose) no longer matter?  Is it 3 steps... 4.... 5?
Are the rules different for sideline vs end zone?

For what it's worth, I can totally understand why the call was overturned - as both of Chase's hands were off the ball at one point.
My question is... at what point should that no longer matter?

From my understanding, the receiver has to have two feet in bounds and maintain control after going to the ground for it to be considered a catch.
Because the ball moved after getting two feet in as Chase was going to ground/coming into contact with ground, it was no longer considered a catch given he was then out of bounds by the time he secured the ball again.

(01-23-2023, 12:58 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Allen fumble was about as close to a fumble as it comes too.

I agree but by rule it was a catch.. arm/hand moving forward with ball .. was close but by rule they got it right

(01-23-2023, 01:23 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: You were missing the replay and have the rule wrong. It is not like breaking the plane. 

Yea, the first replay I saw was from the other side... couldn't see the ball through Chase's back.  That's the replay where I saw "3 feet-steps."
THIS angle shows the ball move when the defender swats at it.  Now I understand why it was ruled incomplete.

(01-23-2023, 11:10 AM)leonardfan40 Wrote: Had the ball, got his feet down. Then landed out of bounds and the defender kept trying to get the ball loose out of bounds. How can a defender be allowed to dislodge a ball when the WR is already out of bounds and then rule it a no catch? The catch rule has always been a joke. Nobody knows what a catch is and apparently a defender can make it a no catch well after the play is over now.

Good point, it's weird that a defender can play through and impact the play when they're sitting out of bounds.  May need to get Matt Walsh to do a documentary on "What is a catch?" 

(01-23-2023, 01:33 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I agree but by rule it was a catch.. arm/hand moving forward with ball .. was close but by rule they got it right

No, by rule it was an incomplete pass.

(01-23-2023, 01:22 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I thought that was 100% a fumble. So glad we ended up winning handily, and neither play mattered in the end.

His hand and fingers were going forward, thus, the only way the ball went forward.An incomplete.

(01-23-2023, 01:07 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's not part of the rule anymore. He just needed to keep the ball from moving, as it did, in order for it to be a completed catch.

Yeah, you are right, and that was poor wording from me, but mean that he had to hit the ground still in control of the ball. He hit the ground with it still moving around. And as you also explained, him having control at any point in the end zone does not end the play, as some seem to think. If you have control, on the field, then cross the plane, that's it, play is over. If all this happened in bounds, it is a TD. He did not have control again until he was out of bounds. Had it, lost it, had it. Can't do that out of bounds. Heck of a play by the LB. It sucks. Replay got it right.

(01-23-2023, 02:50 PM)higgy100 Wrote: His hand and fingers were going forward, thus, the only way the ball went forward.An incomplete.

It actually BENEFITTED the Bengals to have that called incomplete.... as Buffalo had recovered the "fumble" for a first down.

(01-23-2023, 03:03 PM)Tomkat Wrote: It actually BENEFITTED the Bengals to have that called incomplete.... as Buffalo had recovered the "fumble" for a first down.

Didn't that same thing happen against the Ravens last week with the ball going forward like 10 yards or maybe that was another game?

(01-23-2023, 10:57 AM)Tomkat Wrote: This is not sour grapes, I'm genuinely curious.
Can someone find in the rule book exactly what a catch is?
The only reason I ask is because in a game (last week? - I can't remember exactly) a receiver made a catch along the sideline, got THREE feet (steps) inbounds, then was hit and lost control once he hit the ground.  The rules guy (Gene Steratore?) said that at that point, the ground was no longer a factor, because of the three steps.  There may have been something about a "football move" but I'm not 100% certain.

Anyhow... AT WHAT POINT does the ground (or a defender knocking the ball loose) no longer matter?  Is it 3 steps... 4.... 5?
Are the rules different for sideline vs end zone?

For what it's worth, I can totally understand why the call was overturned - as both of Chase's hands were off the ball at one point.
My question is... at what point should that no longer matter?

Milano hit the ball and it spinned. No catch, simple as that.

Great pass though by Burrow, perfection.

(01-23-2023, 02:50 PM)higgy100 Wrote: His hand and fingers were going forward, thus, the only way the ball went forward.An incomplete.

Tell the league that.

If Josh Allen’s was “incomplete” should Josh Dobbs’ be a incomplete? #Titans pic.twitter.com/a4FvK9zb7c

— AtoZ Sports Nashville (@AtoZSports) January 22, 2023

(01-23-2023, 03:13 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Tell the league that.

If Josh Allen’s was “incomplete” should Josh Dobbs’ be a incomplete? #Titans pic.twitter.com/a4FvK9zb7c

— AtoZ Sports Nashville (@AtoZSports) January 22, 2023

I think both are incomplete. I don't agree with the Dobbs call.