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?
(01-23-2023, 11:06 AM)packerbacker Wrote: Bad call. You guys would have had 31 points instead of 27.
idk he did not maintain possession even on the way to the ground incomplete was probly the right call. since he did not have time to make a football move
The big thing is for the league to be consistent on these types of calls though
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.
(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.
You have to have the ball securely when going out of bounds. You see lots of juggling acts or, rather, balls not securely in the WR's hands or away from their bodies when catching balls on the sideline where they get 2 feet in and stay on their feet.
When you're going OOB either in the endzone or sideline and are going down to the ground you have to have possession of the ball in your hands or against your body when you hit the ground. Bills LB made a good play and you can see the ball being dislodged. That play happens both so very fast as well as pretty blind sometimes that you don't necessarily get the correct call on the field in live action.
When I first saw the replay I did not agree with them overturning the call but after watching exactly what they were talking about another 3-4 times it was a correct call.
It's not that controversial as a call. Chase caught the ball, went to the ground, lost control then regained control. By the time he regained control he had slid out of bounds. It was not a catch.
I understand the frustration and the complete lack of consistency on rulings, but I also understand why Chase's didn't count. It sucks. But it didn't surprise me once they showed the ball moving when he hit the ground.
(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.
Your last line summarizes it well.
Social media was abuzz with confusion after the reversal because of those points.
When Chase caught the ball initially, Milano was able to get a hand on it and cause it to move as Chase is falling. This happens simultaneous to Chase's second foot coming down. He quickly re-initiates control, but this also re-initiates the process of the catch. Chase is falling down at this point and as he hits the ground, he loses control of the ball completely and slides out of bounds. He regains control out of bounds.
No catch.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that this was reviewed, not just a missed bang-bang call. It was review and overturned. The refs are following a logical thought process in order to make that call. In my mind, that is the only explanation that makes sense.
(01-23-2023, 11:09 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: idk he did not maintain possession even on the way to the ground incomplete was probly the right call. since he did not have time to make a football move
The big thing is for the league to be consistent on these types of calls though
My argument (and hatred for the officiating) is that he didn't take two steps. He took three. Then he turned away from the defender. BOTH of those things are football moves. And they OVERTURNED the call on the field. Indisputable my ass. And the douchey "official in the booth" didn't even acknowledge the third step. Some expert. It is like a Porsche mechanic that opens the hood at the front of the car looking for the engine of a 911. Dumbasses.
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.
(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?
I could not hear the full explanation but the determination in his catch that both feet were not in bounds, the officials (which i agreed with )determined that once he secured the ball, he only had one foot in bounds.. this is a clear different from the catch you are referring to.. i believe that was Jacksonville WR , he had ball secured with two feet in bounds so the ground had no bearing. In a way like reach to the goal line and then getting the ball knocked away.. once it touches the white it is a TD, once you have secured ball with feet in bounds, it is a TD, Link to video that explains the rule
(01-23-2023, 11:09 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: idk he did not maintain possession even on the way to the ground incomplete was probly the right call. since he did not have time to make a football move
The big thing is for the league to be consistent on these types of calls though
They were right in that the ball moved while he was going to the ground after getting both feet down.
If that play is in the middle of the field, it's a catch but since he was falling out of bounds, he needs to control it because as soon as his butt hits the ground, it's a dead ball. Dead ball and down by contact are two different things.
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
(01-23-2023, 11:39 AM)kalibengal Wrote: yes it was a catch and dont get me started on the strip sack that got called back Goodell was busy yesterday trying to sabotage us
No he wasn't.
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
