The NYT had an article today re what a catch is. Thye mentioned the Beckham "non catch". In that regard, they could show the replay a zillion times and I will never see why Beckham's catch vs NE was overruled. In the end zone, you do not have to make a football move. You have control for a nanosecond with 2 feet down and it is a done deal. To me, that one single play cost the season for the Giants. What mo it would have yielded. Other than totla disdain for Belichek, I was ecstatic when NE lost to Denver and it was because of that one play !!
Dean Blandino strikes again!
He compared it to running it in. As soon as the ball breaks the plane the refs hands go up and it's a touchdown. The runner doesn't even have to be in the endzone. Yet on a pass play you have to make a football move and have complete control through the process. It's stupid. Where is the ball carrier going to go. He has a revived at his destination in the endzone. Once he catches the ball the hands go up and to hell with everything else.
As for on the field of play Boomer also states if a receiver catches the ball in bounds and has full control and gets two feet down or the equivalent there of then goes out of bounds the play should be over. He is out of the field of play. Why should he have to maintain control when he is out of bounds. He did what he had to do in the field of play. When you are out of bounds the clock stops. It used to be that way but people like Dean Blandino keep rewriting the rules and frustrating everyone who loves and watches the games.
I had missed the essence of the seminal Calvin Johnson catch controversy (2010?) that ignited this, but that is one completely bizarre and ridiculous interpretation, which has spawned the bizarre and ridiculous of today.
(I've made same points as Blueblood in December's threads when this reared its head for the umpteenth time, so Bb we agree)
I guess Dean Blandino is the be all and end all for the NFL rules makers. He actually said the other day the rule is good the way it is and sees no reason to change it. Again I ask. Who the fuck is Dean Bandino anyway and where the hell did he come from. And why does he wield so much power when it comes to the rules of the game.
How does that fit at all with the move towards preventing injuries?!?
Dean Blandino is an embarrassment to football.
If I wrote the rule, it would be that as soon as the ball "sticks" to the receiver, whereas the ball is gripped and no longer moving on its own, the receiver would need to keep it secured for 1 second (or some length of time).
If Beckham's catch happened exactly as is but in the field of play, it would ruin the sport to consider that a fumble.
What a crazy crappy season.
Weight should be given to the original call. Which in this case was TD and which I think was the correct call.
I try to look at it more from when a ruling of a play being a catch when the Giants are on defense. If a receiver catches the ball, it is not moving relative to his hand or hands, the receiver gets two feet down in the end zone, I would feel like the Giants gave up a touchdown.
A TD catch in the end zone should require:
1) Ball in hand(s) with no relative motion between ball and hand(s).
2) No contact between ball and ground prior to 1).
3) Two feet clearly in bounds.
4) If both the DB and the receiver meet all 3 above, it's a TD (tie goes to the receiver).
You can't have consistency among:
1) A runner with position breaking the plane for a TD.
2) A catch within the field of play outside the end zone.
3) A catch within the end zone.
The NFL is trying to be consistent between 2) and 3). I think they should be more consistent between 1) and 3).
Constant Rule changes, Deteriorating Referee performance, Marketing Jokes, PSL's in small towns, Poor and inconsistent player discipline, obnoxious Bro Hugs on draft day.
GTFOOH NOW!
2) Specifically, in the end zone, I don't think the current rules makes sense. 2 feet down in the end zone, with the ball in control should end the play. Period.
3) I recall a play from about 10 years ago with Shockey. He caught the ball just inside the goal line, with both feet down and the ball crossed the plane. A split second after his feet touch down (he jumped for the catch), he was hit in the back and the ball came out. It was ruled a TD because he had 2 feet with the ball controlled. That is how I feel it should be called.
4) The gif of Johnson I think should be a catch, even by the current rules. He had control all the way through, even as his knees hit down. It was after his knees touched down that he touched the ball down.
5) Even by my standard above, I think Golden Tate's play should be a TD.
6) No matter how many times I watch Beckham's replay, it is always a catch in my mind. I don't think that would change if it was a player on any other team.
If I wrote the rule, it would be that as soon as the ball "sticks" to the receiver, whereas the ball is gripped and no longer moving on its own, the receiver would need to keep it secured for 1 second (or some length of time).
If Beckham's catch happened exactly as is but in the field of play, it would ruin the sport to consider that a fumble.
Beckham's catch wouldn't happen exactly as is "in the field of play", since he'd by trying to make a football move and pick up extra yards since he's in the field of play. But why the hell should he be making a "football" move in the endzone?
And I still feel that if Golden Tate's catch is a TD, then Beckham's has to be. I believe someone even put a stopwatch to both plays and Beckham had possession as long, if not longer than Tate. I have no idea how Blandino thinks TD for Tate and incomplete for Beckham are both the correct calls.
Which gets to the biggest issue. Blandino really needs to be replaced. He's a bumbling idiot.
Let's take a situation where a receiver runs to the end zone and dives out to make a catch. If all that are required are possession and two feet, then it would be possession and a knee or elbow as well.
In fact, let's use that brilliant Beckham TD against the Skins
Beckham lays out and makes a spectacular catch in mid air and the ball doesn't move. We can see from this picture that his knee touches down in the endzone a thousandth(?) of a second before his hands/ball/chest smack the ground. If the ball popped out as soon as his hands hit the ground, I don't understand how anyone could call that a touchdown.
Yet, based on the arguments in this thread, he would have had a touchdown the moment his knee touched because the ball is secure in his hands and not moving.
He held onto the ball in this instance and so it was a TD, but had the ball popped out right away, I can't imagine anyone calling that a catch or a touchdown. Here's the video of the amazing TD catch. [url]https://twitter.com/NFL/status/671072659694706688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[//url]
This would be further complicated if a player left his feet in the end zone, "caught" the ball in mid air and was tackled to the ground and his knee/two toes/elbow hit the ground a split second before the rest of this body did where he then dropped the ball or the defender knocked it out.
The other problem is the competition committee changing the rules every season. Its too hard for these refs to keep up with what is what based on the rules.
I also think PEDs are also a problem. Football is a vicious game made more so by all the HGH and goodness knows what else. The PEDs probably exacerbate injuries and the league responds with new rules on the field of play for player safety. Maybe less PEDs would do more for player safety than hitting a defenseless receiver rules.
Absolutely mind-blowing.