After reading Sy'56s game review, I noticed that he called the 2 rulings on Shepards contested TDs correct.
| Slowly but surely, they got the ball to the 2-yard line, with 32 seconds left and a timeout remaining. Manning threw two touchdowns to Sterling Shepard but both were reviewed and correctly overturned. |
I was surprised to read that.
When watching one of the disputed receptions/TDs, I saw the catch in the end zone, two feet down (maybe a third) were down in the end zone followed by a step out of bounds, falling to the ground with possession, only to have the ball come free out of bounds when Shepard hits the ground. So if Sy'56 says the ruling was correct, I defer to him and realize that I need to re-read the rules on what makes a catch.
This topic seems to be a recurring theme for the NFL, so either the rule or how it is being applied needs attention and refinement.
A few points in the rule that caught my eye and support those who believe the catch as a TD.
Item 3. End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive.
In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.
As I saw it, Shepard made the catch, got two (or three) feet down in the end, stepped out of bounds then had ball control issues when he contacted the ground outside of the end zone.
Wasn't the play already "dead" by rule after he had two feet down in the end zone?
Arguing about the call now is meaningless, but I would like to understand the ruling better.
RULE 8 SECTION 1 ARTICLES 3-4 COMPLETING A CATCH - (
New Window )
How many steps constitutes a catch? Or was his catch affected by the fact that he was out of bounds or in the endzone? If it's the latter, I get it. Otherwise, none of this makes sense.
A reception is on the bell curve of rules.
As far as defining a reception, there will never be an easy answer. It is impossible to succinctly define a catch because there are too many "bang-bang" plays.
The rules state that if the act of the catch causes the player to hit the ground he must maintain control of the ball throughout the fall. SS was starting to fall when he touched the ball. SS lost control of the ball when he fell. It was not a catch.
I'd be OK with the Eagles getting a bad call but this was the proper call.
As far as defining a reception, there will never be an easy answer. It is impossible to succinctly define a catch because there are too many "bang-bang" plays.
100% correct. As soon as I saw it, I was like OMG that's going to be incomplete.
Had he turned and tripped over a cheeleader, then dropped the ball, that's a TD.
In the end, there's still quite a bit of interpretation. It's not simply black and white.
I understand the rules, just pointing out that for me it doesn't seem logical for these two situations to have two different scoring results.
Shepard had two feet down with possession and took an extra step in bounds. He was out of the field of play when the ball came out. Intuitively, that should be a good catch.
The only hope we had on the Sheppard catch was if the official felt he took enough steps before falling, i.e. that his fall was not a result of him diving or reaching for the ball, or losing balance to keep his feet in bounds.
Two feet down + possession = catch. No "football move," no necessity of maintaining possession to the ground. It significantly reduces the "gray area" and makes the rules simpler, easier to enforce, and more consistent, clear and fair.
If the receiver catches the ball in the middle of the field, gets two feet down, is not touched and the ground causes the ball to be dislodged, it should be a catch and fumble, not no catch. Same thing, but two feet in bounds and ball is dislodged out of bounds, should equal a good catch.
Two feet down + possession = catch. No "football move," no necessity of maintaining possession to the ground. It significantly reduces the "gray area" and makes the rules simpler, easier to enforce, and more consistent, clear and fair.
If the receiver catches the ball in the middle of the field, gets two feet down, is not touched and the ground causes the ball to be dislodged, it should be a catch and fumble, not no catch. Same thing, but two feet in bounds and ball is dislodged out of bounds, should equal a good catch.
The problem was when they used to allow that you would have guys reaching for the out of bounds catch, barely hanging on for a second and it counting as a reception.
But three steps, or two steps and a drag should be considered a football move and count as a reception.
I understand the rules, just pointing out that for me it doesn't seem logical for these two situations to have two different scoring results.
It's because one is going in as a runner with the ball already in possession, the other a receiver needed to establish possession.
I like the idea of a football move, but that makes it harder to interpret, no doubt.
I understand the rules, just pointing out that for me it doesn't seem logical for these two situations to have two different scoring results.
this
Quote:
It doesn't feel correct that for only a split second a runner at the one yard line can reach out with the nose of the ball and barely touch the line and it count as a TD yet a receiver can catch it in the end zone, take three steps, fall out of bounds without having been contacted but a defender and in not count because he then lost it when out of bounds.
I understand the rules, just pointing out that for me it doesn't seem logical for these two situations to have two different scoring results.
It's because one is going in as a runner with the ball already in possession, the other a receiver needed to establish possession.
I like the idea of a football move, but that makes it harder to interpret, no doubt.
Oh I understand it, just saying it doesn't feel logical. I think three steps, or two steps and a drag the guy has possession, and in the end zone for a lot more time than with my example of the rb.
I get it if the defender had made contact but if not that should be a TD.
If SS was inbounds at midfield, took two steps, hit the ground and had the ball come out, that would be what, a fumble?
If the same play happens in the end zone, it is an incomplete pass?
If that's the case, I don't see any justification for a rule like that.
Well, he caught the ball, I don't believe he was touched, and he went to the ground....it does not make any difference if in bounds or out of bounds after his 3 steps, in the process of going to the ground, HE HAS TO MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THE BALL! He didn't, so under the rule it is an incompletion...
Now what is a football move?
If he caught the ball, took 3 steps, and as he went out of bounds and he spiked it before hitting the ground, it that considered a football move? of catch the ball, take 3 steps and throw the ball up in the air before falling....is that a football move?
I mean he definitely had possession.....the rule interprets falling to the ground as not a football move.....
If SS was inbounds at midfield, took two steps, hit the ground and had the ball come out, that would be what, a fumble?
If the same play happens in the end zone, it is an incomplete pass?
If that's the case, I don't see any justification for a rule like that.
They way I understand it. it is the going out of bounds that changes the consideration, not that he was in the end zone.
Prior to this rules players would do the two feet tip toe catch while falling out of bounds. And some of those times they would barley have had the ball and it was called a catch. That wasn't good either and they should have to hold the ball through the entire catch, hence "while maintaining contact with the ground". But IMO if the guy takes three steps, or two full steps and then a drag he already establish the catch and it should count. He basically caught it and ran with it out bounds before stumbling.
That would mean that every time a player dove in the middle of the field to make a catch, "catches" the ball in mid-air and lands and the ball dislodges, it would be a fumble so long as his two feet, or a knee, or an elbow hit the ground a split second before the ball hit the ground and popped loose.
Here was a fantastic TD catch by Beckham last year.
By your rule, this would be a TD at this very instant. Yet, if the ball popped out as soon as his arms/hands/chest hit the ground, would you really consider that a catch and a touchdown? What if that were a Redskin and not a Giant?
Now imagine that were in the field of play. You would consider that a catch and a fumble?
Essentially, by your definition, the only possible outcomes for the remainder of this play are a Calvin Johnson catch or a Calvin Johnson fumble. The ball is secure in his hands and either his elbow or knee will be the first body part to hit that ground. Even if that impact with the ground causes the ball to pop out, it can't be incomplete because for a split second he will have the ball secure in his hands with a body part that downs him.
That would mean that every time a player dove in the middle of the field to make a catch, "catches" the ball in mid-air and lands and the ball dislodges, it would be a fumble so long as his two feet, or a knee, or an elbow hit the ground a split second before the ball hit the ground and popped loose.
Here was a fantastic TD catch by Beckham last year.
By your rule, this would be a TD at this very instant. Yet, if the ball popped out as soon as his arms/hands/chest hit the ground, would you really consider that a catch and a touchdown? What if that were a Redskin and not a Giant?
Now imagine that were in the field of play. You would consider that a catch and a fumble?
Essentially, by your definition, the only possible outcomes for the remainder of this play are a Calvin Johnson catch or a Calvin Johnson fumble. The ball is secure in his hands and either his elbow or knee will be the first body part to hit that ground. Even if that impact with the ground causes the ball to pop out, it can't be incomplete because for a split second he will have the ball secure in his hands with a body part that downs him.
Paul, Do you have a link. I tend to agree with lawguy...you make a catch and put both feet down, or start running down the field, whatever constitutes a catch, and if you lose the ball after that...fumble. In the endzone, you can't fumble because as soon as you catch the ball, the play is over...touchdown. On the sidelines, this whole thing about a football move is a red herring...two toes touch the turf after you catch the ball, and it's a catch...no need to turn upfield or do any other football move.
I am not saying these are the rules, but I think this is the way it should be.
There will be judgement calls. Suppose the receiver catches the ball, puts two feet inbounds and later loses possession. OK, you have to decide if the player had possession or not which is a judgement call. I suppose this is the judgement call that went against SS? If so, you can't argue with it in terms of the rules, but I totally disagree with it. He caught the ball, no bobbles, two feet inbounds, and lost it when he hit the ground. If that happens in mid field, they would call that a fumble. In the end zone it's a touchdown.
A running back can leap over the pile and the moment he crosses that plane, it is a touchdown. He doesn't need to land and hold onto the ball and hand it to the ref to score those points.
The rules state that if the act of the catch causes the player to hit the ground he must maintain control of the ball throughout the fall. SS was starting to fall when he touched the ball. SS lost control of the ball when he fell. It was not a catch.
I'd be OK with the Eagles getting a bad call but this was the proper call.
Beating a dead horse; but many of us contend "the act of the catch" did not cause him to fall to the ground but rather, his unfortunate decision to toe tap at the sideline caused him to stumble and fall forward (like tying someone's shoe laces together); he made a legitimate"football move" after the catch.
Ball "stuck" in his hands, got two feet down. So by that rule it would be a catch and therefore the jarring the ball loose, and a fumble on the field. That can't possibly be the direction that fans want for fumbles. It would cause so many turnovers throughout the game.
If you're focused on the "Defenseless receiver" aspect (which would have to be eliminated), then look at this play from a Michigan game and pretend this is an NFL team for rules purposes.
By eliminating anything beyond "catch" and two feet (or any downing body part), this would be a fumble. The ball is in his hands secured and while in the air he gets two feet down while falling backwards and the ball pops out when he lands on his back.
Would you really consider this a catch and fumble that the defensive team can recover and return down the field?
Or, alternatively, would you then say that because he was hit/tackled on the play, that it was a catch and a ground-caused fumble, thereby making it a completed pass and Michigan's ball at the spot.
In that case, you are now penalizing the defense for trying to tackle the player and dislodge the ball when he "secures" it while in mid-air. It would have been better if the defense never touched him and hoped that the ball popped loose on its own when he landed on his back.
Shepard seems to f#ck up plays he needs to know better. This isnt a new rule, the guy should pay attention & have this stuff down before costing us games with his BS mistakes
Thats a bad play by a struggling playmaker
The NFL, contrary to popular belief, does put some thought into these things lol..............
Ball "stuck" in his hands, got two feet down. So by that rule it would be a catch and therefore the jarring the ball loose, and a fumble on the field. ...
except the player you show in the clip does have two feet down...catches the ball and the ball is dislodged before the receiver takes any stride. How do you think this call would have gone if the receiver caught the ball, planted his feet and then the ball was dislodged...it would be a fumble, like this...
lonk - ( New Window )
The NFL, contrary to popular belief, does put some thought into these things lol..............
That's a pretty silly post...so we are not allowed to question the rules and practices of the NFL because the league put some thought into it?
No. The ground can't cause a fumble principle is only when there is already clear possession of the ball.
That said....good receivers hold on when hitting the ground( seems like a concentration issue).
Quote:
The play where SS fell and lost the ball was correctly called by the official, it could not be called either way within the rules.
The rules state that if the act of the catch causes the player to hit the ground he must maintain control of the ball throughout the fall. SS was starting to fall when he touched the ball. SS lost control of the ball when he fell. It was not a catch.
I'd be OK with the Eagles getting a bad call but this was the proper call.
Beating a dead horse; but many of us contend "the act of the catch" did not cause him to fall to the ground but rather, his unfortunate decision to toe tap at the sideline caused him to stumble and fall forward (like tying someone's shoe laces together); he made a legitimate"football move" after the catch.
He fell making the catch. The "football move" is a separate clause to the rule and does not apply to the decision.
Quote:
that would make this a fumble
Ball "stuck" in his hands, got two feet down. So by that rule it would be a catch and therefore the jarring the ball loose, and a fumble on the field. ...
except the player you show in the clip does have two feet down...catches the ball and the ball is dislodged before the receiver takes any stride. How do you think this call would have gone if the receiver caught the ball, planted his feet and then the ball was dislodged...it would be a fumble, like this...
lonk - ( New Window )
This is what I mean. You are now adding the additional requirement that the receiver "takes [a] stride" for it to be a fumble. Lawguy, as well as others, don't have that additional requirement and merely propose that a catch should be a "catch" plus two feet down, end of story.
But as you pointed out, that is not enough, which is why you added the "stride" element. But what constitutes "taking any stride"?
So what point? Three steps and then out, four, five, just how many.
IMO Sterling had made the catch and established himself in the end zone prior to falling out of bounds.
Matter of fact carelessly I think he half let the ball go when falling because he was so certain of that fact. He obviously didn't even consider that he dropped it while catching it or he never would have reacted the way he did celebrating and running to the bench as he did.
Whether a player is in the endzone or approaching the endzone, he does not catch the ball if as part of the catch he starts going to the ground and loses the ball when he hits the ground. This is true whether he falls out of bounds or reaches the ball out over the goaline.
However, if going to the ground is NOT part of the catch but comes after he has "established himself as a runner" then it doesn't matter if the ball comes out when he hits the ground.
The only question on Shepard's TD is whether the third step which was a toe tap established him as a runner/whether him going to the ground was part of the catch.
A subtle point that I'm unsure of (which I posted elsewhere) is that the ball seems to move a bit between his first and second steps before he secures it. Does that mean the first step doesn't count? If so, the third step is actually his second step in terms of establishing possession and the resultant fall to the ground seemingly has to be part of the catch process. Therefore incomplete. If, on the other hand, he had completed the catch by step two, I think it's debatable whether the the third step should be construed as establishing himself as a runner (and therefore the subsequent fall/loss of the ball is irrelevant).
Gif of the play - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13620863 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
that would make this a fumble
Ball "stuck" in his hands, got two feet down. So by that rule it would be a catch and therefore the jarring the ball loose, and a fumble on the field. ...
except the player you show in the clip does have two feet down...catches the ball and the ball is dislodged before the receiver takes any stride. How do you think this call would have gone if the receiver caught the ball, planted his feet and then the ball was dislodged...it would be a fumble, like this...
lonk - ( New Window )
This is what I mean. You are now adding the additional requirement that the receiver "takes [a] stride" for it to be a fumble. Lawguy, as well as others, don't have that additional requirement and merely propose that a catch should be a "catch" plus two feet down, end of story.
But as you pointed out, that is not enough, which is why you added the "stride" element. But what constitutes "taking any stride"?
I have no idea what you are talking about, maybe you are confusing me with someone else?
I have been saying all along that if two feet are down, that's a catch. After the two feet are down in the middle of the field, it is a fumble is the ball is dislodged, as was shown in my link. If the ball is dislodged in the endzone, but after two feet are down, that looks like a TD to me.
You took issue with this. You showed two plays, one in which the receiver did not have two feet down, incomplete, and a college play where the receiver did not have two feet down...irrelevant.
I then posted a link where a receiver had two feet down and instantaneously, pop, the ball came out...fumble. If that happened in the end zone, I would argue that it would have to be a touchdown. If you look at the link I posted, during that catch and fumble, the receiver has less control over the ball than SS did in the end zone.
I am not suggesting any stride is needed anywhere.
Bottom line is this. People know the rules better than I do, but that was clear a touchdown catch by SS. If there is some rule that makes it a non-catch, the rule does not comport with what is actually happening on the field...and that would be my gripe.
With only two feet you go back to guys barely holding onto the ball and it being called a catch. I also think if a defender makes contact you have to hold onto it to the ground and after regardless of steps. However IMO if a guy catches it and is untouched and gets more than two feet down he is basally running with it and has established possession. So if he then drops it even if having fell it is a catch and would either be a fumble if in bounds or a catch if falling out of bounds.
Just simple common sense IMO
Whether a player is in the endzone or approaching the endzone, he does not catch the ball if as part of the catch he starts going to the ground and loses the ball when he hits the ground. This is true whether he falls out of bounds or reaches the ball out over the goaline.
However, if going to the ground is NOT part of the catch but comes after he has "established himself as a runner" then it doesn't matter if the ball comes out when he hits the ground.
The only question on Shepard's TD is whether the third step which was a toe tap established him as a runner/whether him going to the ground was part of the catch.
A subtle point that I'm unsure of (which I posted elsewhere) is that the ball seems to move a bit between his first and second steps before he secures it. Does that mean the first step doesn't count? If so, the third step is actually his second step in terms of establishing possession and the resultant fall to the ground seemingly has to be part of the catch process. Therefore incomplete. If, on the other hand, he had completed the catch by step two, I think it's debatable whether the the third step should be construed as establishing himself as a runner (and therefore the subsequent fall/loss of the ball is irrelevant). Gif of the play - ( New Window )
I respect that but it is not what I saw in your GIF. I saw him clearly holding the ball with two hands, looking right at the ball as if to emphasize the fact.
I would argue that is this more clearly a reception than OBJs TD later in the game. On that play, he secures the ball with one hand against his helmet, then really secures the possession after he is on the ground out of bounds. I think they are both TDs, but SS's non-TD looked rock solid to me.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2. Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Item 3. End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.
SO...in answer to my own question, the slight movement between steps 1 and 2 does not constitute a loss of possession. After step 2, Shepard has possession and has taken two steps. According to the rule, to complete the catch, Shepard has to maintain possession long enough after this to "clearly become a runner." He "clearly becomes a runner" when "he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.
So as I read this again, it certainly seems like that third step should have completed the catch....regardless of whether he goes to the ground afterwards or not. Rules mavens....what am I missing?
Exactly what constitutes going to ground while making the catch? He got three feet down before falling out of bounds, uncontacted by a defender. What if he took 5 steps? 7 steps? Is there a magic number, because that's where the rule is absurd.
He didn't lose the ball in the process of making the catch, he lost the ball after hitting the ground AFTER getting three feet down in the field of play.
The rule is a shitty one if you can't determine what decides making a catch in bounds before going to the ground.
Exactly what constitutes going to ground while making the catch? He got three feet down before falling out of bounds, uncontacted by a defender. What if he took 5 steps? 7 steps? Is there a magic number, because that's where the rule is absurd.
He didn't lose the ball in the process of making the catch, he lost the ball after hitting the ground AFTER getting three feet down in the field of play.
The rule is a shitty one if you can't determine what decides making a catch in bounds before going to the ground.
That's the point I have been trying to make.
except the player you show in the clip does have two feet down...catches the ball and the ball is dislodged before the receiver takes any stride.
Early Doucet gets his second foot down and gets popped immediately and the ball comes loose for an obvious incomplete pass.
Your comment about taking strides seemed to be a further requirement for making a catch.
In the Michgan play, the receiver not only gets two feet down but also lands on his back (which alone would have been enough to down him). That play, too, was obviously ruled incomplete.
In the clip you presented, the Raider takes three steps as he is turning upfield and gets hit right before taking his fourth step after "securing" the ball.
How you make that determination is a mystery.
And they are supposed to review any plays in the last 2 minutes that are inconclusive.
Quote:
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2. Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Item 3. End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.
SO...in answer to my own question, the slight movement between steps 1 and 2 does not constitute a loss of possession. After step 2, Shepard has possession and has taken two steps. According to the rule, to complete the catch, Shepard has to maintain possession long enough after this to "clearly become a runner." He "clearly becomes a runner" when "he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.
So as I read this again, it certainly seems like that third step should have completed the catch....regardless of whether he goes to the ground afterwards or not. Rules mavens....what am I missing?
Yeah, it is pretty messed up. I posted this link above. Check it out and keep the rule that you posted in mind. How is it that this player establishes possession, so the play is ruled a catch and fumble, but SS did not make a catch at all.
I don't blame the refs for blowing a judgement call in real time, but in the era of instant replay, there is no excuse.
And by the way, Megatron was deprived of a TD as was Dez Bryant under similar cirumstances...I am not just being a homer here..
lonk - ( New Window )
In the play you posted, the runner has clearly become a runner by turning up field, almost immediately afterwards, he gets blasted by the defender. So, fumble. In the endzone, TD.
The distinction is the going to the ground point. As noted, the ambiguity is when Shepard started going to the ground. If it was before he finished his 3 steps...this is the right call under the rule. If he didn't start going to the ground until after 3 steps...it's a catch. No idea how to make that determination.
Quote:
except the player you show in the clip does have two feet down...catches the ball and the ball is dislodged before the receiver takes any stride.
.
Early Doucet gets his second foot down and gets popped immediately and the ball comes loose for an obvious incomplete pass.
Your comment about taking strides seemed to be a further requirement for making a catch.
In the Michgan play, the receiver not only gets two feet down but also lands on his back (which alone would have been enough to down him). That play, too, was obviously ruled incomplete.
In the clip you presented, the Raider takes three steps as he is turning upfield and gets hit right before taking his fourth step after "securing" the ball.
I can see that some of what we are disagreeing about is a misunderstanding. However, I urge you to look at these plays again. In your first play, the receiver catches the ball in the air and the ball is dislodged before he touches the ground. In the Michigan clip the receiver falls backward and plants one foot before falling on his back. In the clip I show, the receiver plants one foot, then the other, then is hit and a fumble results,
I can't see how anyone interpret his play as "remain[ing] upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."
The ball popped out as soon as he contacted the ground. seems like an easy incomplete call
As stated above...it's all a question of when he starts going to the ground. And to me, that's very unclear. As Fatman states, the fact that they didn't even review it is pretty ridiculous.
In the play you posted, the runner has clearly become a runner by turning up field, almost immediately afterwards, he gets blasted by the defender. So, fumble. In the endzone, TD.
The distinction is the going to the ground point. As noted, the ambiguity is when Shepard started going to the ground. If it was before he finished his 3 steps...this is the right call under the rule. If he didn't start going to the ground until after 3 steps...it's a catch. No idea how to make that determination.
I see that ambiguity, but even in the note you quote above it says, "if a catch of a forward pass has been completed...blah blah blah". In my humble opinion, the the pass from Eli Manning to SS was completed in the end zone. Since it was in the end zone, nothing else matters. It was either completed or it wasn't and the officials rule that it wasn't.
In the Raider's clip, if there was a fumble and a TD, one has to say the pass was completed first. It strikes me that SS had a clear catch.
Again, I have refereed games and you make judgment calls and you get things wrong. But to see this was such a clearer catch, and maybe there are ambiguities in the rules, but to not even have this play reviewed ... I didn't like it.
In the Michigan play, he jumps up, secures the ball in mid air, then lands on his right foot, then on his left foot, then hits his butt and then hits his back and the ball pops out when he hits his back on the ground. The two feet, the but and the back all would have sufficed to be considered "down."
Again, but having no other criteria between a catch and two feet, it would lead to plays like that being considered a completed catch by Michigan and a dead play because of a ground caused fumble since he would have already been down when his feet touched. Had the defender not tackled him mid air, the simple catch rule would make that a fumble.
Quote:
"Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed."
In the play you posted, the runner has clearly become a runner by turning up field, almost immediately afterwards, he gets blasted by the defender. So, fumble. In the endzone, TD.
The distinction is the going to the ground point. As noted, the ambiguity is when Shepard started going to the ground. If it was before he finished his 3 steps...this is the right call under the rule. If he didn't start going to the ground until after 3 steps...it's a catch. No idea how to make that determination.
I see that ambiguity, but even in the note you quote above it says, "if a catch of a forward pass has been completed...blah blah blah". In my humble opinion, the the pass from Eli Manning to SS was completed in the end zone. Since it was in the end zone, nothing else matters. It was either completed or it wasn't and the officials rule that it wasn't.
In the Raider's clip, if there was a fumble and a TD, one has to say the pass was completed first. It strikes me that SS had a clear catch.
Again, I have refereed games and you make judgment calls and you get things wrong. But to see this was such a clearer catch, and maybe there are ambiguities in the rules, but to not even have this play reviewed ... I didn't like it.
Don, it has nothing to do with endzone or not and Shepard's play has nothing to do with the raiders play. On the raiders play, the catch is complete the instant the runner turns up field as this is one of the listed factors for establishing yourself as a runner after two feet down.
The issue in the Shepard play is whether he's going to the ground before the third step (the factor Shep would rely on to establish the catch). If he starts going to the ground before completing the third step, it doesn't matter under the rule how many steps follow. He has to maintain possession when he hits the ground. Thus, the real issue with the rule is how you determine when he started the process of going to the ground.
Quote:
some excellent examples.
The NFL, contrary to popular belief, does put some thought into these things lol..............
That's a pretty silly post...so we are not allowed to question the rules and practices of the NFL because the league put some thought into it?
Not at all. But Paul exhibited why a football move is imperative to defining "a catch" with his examples.
To not include a football move, like some had said on here, didn't put much thought into it.
That's my only point. NFL has lots of room for improvement.
In the Michigan play, he jumps up, secures the ball in mid air, then lands on his right foot, then on his left foot, then hits his butt and then hits his back and the ball pops out when he hits his back on the ground. The two feet, the but and the back all would have sufficed to be considered "down."
Again, but having no other criteria between a catch and two feet, it would lead to plays like that being considered a completed catch by Michigan and a dead play because of a ground caused fumble since he would have already been down when his feet touched. Had the defender not tackled him mid air, the simple catch rule would make that a fumble.
Paul, I see your point on the Michigan play. You have to define a catch first...a fumble happens after the catch, except in the end zone where nothing happens after the catch. I think SS clearly caught the ball by any standard I have seen. And my cop out is that if the NFL rules say that such a thing is not a catch, I'll stop griping about the call and instead gripe about the rules...that way I have my cake and eat it too! Cheers, DQ
Exactly what constitutes going to ground while making the catch? He got three feet down before falling out of bounds, uncontacted by a defender. What if he took 5 steps? 7 steps? Is there a magic number, because that's where the rule is absurd.
He didn't lose the ball in the process of making the catch, he lost the ball after hitting the ground AFTER getting three feet down in the field of play.
The rule is a shitty one if you can't determine what decides making a catch in bounds before going to the ground.
FMIC - it's definitely subjective. As soon as I saw it, it happened so successively that I saw it as no catch. The refs agreed.
It's really the Dez Bryant catch from a few years ago - almost - except not a high profile playoff game.
It would be nice if we could make it an easier interpretation, heck the refs I am sure would like it (much like the force out rule that was instituted).
If the steps are taken in an upright position, i.e. Seen as running by the refs and then a player goes to the ground it would be a catch even if he loses it. Problem lies in the refs view of those steps. If he or the replay booth see them as a stumble or never being upright, then a receiver has to maintain control through contact with the ground.
Just look back at the Dez Bryant non TD catch in the playoffs vs Green Bay a couple of years ago. It was ruled incomplete even though he took 2-3 steps after catching the ball because he was stumbling and going to the ground. The amount of steps didn't matter it was the type of steps. Had he taken those steps upright, under control of his footing, it would've been a catch and TD. By stumbling he was ruled to be "going to the ground". Only difference in the SS play was SS was going towards the out of bounds line and had to get two feet in bounds while Dez's was an inbounds play heading toward the goal line. Both guys were going to the ground and not upright in their steps so the ruling of incomplete pass was correct in both cases, though I think Dallas fans had a bigger gripe because Dez took even more steps than Shepard.
Quote:
I think no matter how many steps he took the receiver has to hold onto the ball when going to the ground. Although if either of sheps 2 catches were ruled touchdowns I don't see how anyone could've made a fuss about them. Seems to me like they could've been called either way and just like everything so far this season, we were on the short end of the stick. He had a great game but those are plays he has to make. I can understand one but he had 2 chances to make a difference and didn't
If the steps are taken in an upright position, i.e. Seen as running by the refs and then a player goes to the ground it would be a catch even if he loses it. Problem lies in the refs view of those steps. If he or the replay booth see them as a stumble or never being upright, then a receiver has to maintain control through contact with the ground.
Just look back at the Dez Bryant non TD catch in the playoffs vs Green Bay a couple of years ago. It was ruled incomplete even though he took 2-3 steps after catching the ball because he was stumbling and going to the ground. The amount of steps didn't matter it was the type of steps. Had he taken those steps upright, under control of his footing, it would've been a catch and TD. By stumbling he was ruled to be "going to the ground". Only difference in the SS play was SS was going towards the out of bounds line and had to get two feet in bounds while Dez's was an inbounds play heading toward the goal line. Both guys were going to the ground and not upright in their steps so the ruling of incomplete pass was correct in both cases, though I think Dallas fans had a bigger gripe because Dez took even more steps than Shepard.
Completely agree. SS main problem is, well, he tripped during the catch........
That's a little bit different, hence no incompletion, but a fumble (I think it went out of bounds)............
Quote:
I think no matter how many steps he took the receiver has to hold onto the ball when going to the ground. Although if either of sheps 2 catches were ruled touchdowns I don't see how anyone could've made a fuss about them. Seems to me like they could've been called either way and just like everything so far this season, we were on the short end of the stick. He had a great game but those are plays he has to make. I can understand one but he had 2 chances to make a difference and didn't
If the steps are taken in an upright position, i.e. Seen as running by the refs and then a player goes to the ground it would be a catch even if he loses it. Problem lies in the refs view of those steps. If he or the replay booth see them as a stumble or never being upright, then a receiver has to maintain control through contact with the ground.
Just look back at the Dez Bryant non TD catch in the playoffs vs Green Bay a couple of years ago. It was ruled incomplete even though he took 2-3 steps after catching the ball because he was stumbling and going to the ground. The amount of steps didn't matter it was the type of steps. Had he taken those steps upright, under control of his footing, it would've been a catch and TD. By stumbling he was ruled to be "going to the ground". Only difference in the SS play was SS was going towards the out of bounds line and had to get two feet in bounds while Dez's was an inbounds play heading toward the goal line. Both guys were going to the ground and not upright in their steps so the ruling of incomplete pass was correct in both cases, though I think Dallas fans had a bigger gripe because Dez took even more steps than Shepard.
Eman...but you can easily watch the Shep catch and determine that he takes two upright steps, taps his toe on the third step for good measure, AND THEN falls as a result of the toe tap.
For the record, I think Shep's play was clearly an incompletion.
He took too many steps after catching the ball and clearly stumbled while running out of bound for the fall to be part of the catch. I think it's really hard to get to the "must complete the catch" argument from here because he had already completed the act and then took several steps.
Make it cut and dried. Two feet down = a catch no matter what or where. It isn't that difficult to change and it makes these plays easy to rule on.
This going to the ground crap is absurd because I've seen plays similar to Shep's where they rule it a catch because they say the runner established possession.
And I'll reiterate the comment that as much as the league talks about reviewing every close play, they determined not to replay this one - even though the first ref signalled a TD.
There's no consistency
Quote:
I think no matter how many steps he took the receiver has to hold onto the ball when going to the ground. Although if either of sheps 2 catches were ruled touchdowns I don't see how anyone could've made a fuss about them. Seems to me like they could've been called either way and just like everything so far this season, we were on the short end of the stick. He had a great game but those are plays he has to make. I can understand one but he had 2 chances to make a difference and didn't
If the steps are taken in an upright position, i.e. Seen as running by the refs and then a player goes to the ground it would be a catch even if he loses it. Problem lies in the refs view of those steps. If he or the replay booth see them as a stumble or never being upright, then a receiver has to maintain control through contact with the ground.
Just look back at the Dez Bryant non TD catch in the playoffs vs Green Bay a couple of years ago. It was ruled incomplete even though he took 2-3 steps after catching the ball because he was stumbling and going to the ground. The amount of steps didn't matter it was the type of steps. Had he taken those steps upright, under control of his footing, it would've been a catch and TD. By stumbling he was ruled to be "going to the ground". Only difference in the SS play was SS was going towards the out of bounds line and had to get two feet in bounds while Dez's was an inbounds play heading toward the goal line. Both guys were going to the ground and not upright in their steps so the ruling of incomplete pass was correct in both cases, though I think Dallas fans had a bigger gripe because Dez took even more steps than Shepard.
Once he re-secures the ball, is he upright long enough to be CLEARLY considered a runner? I don't see how anyone could arrive at that conclusion.
So there has to be an additional requirement-- whether it's called a "football move" or something else.
But what is that something else? Is it an amount of time the receiver holds onto the ball? Is it a separate act by the receiver? That's what the NFL is trying to define as it keeps tweaking the rules.
I'm not saying I love the current definition, just that it is perhaps an impossible task to do so without people saying "I no longer know what a catch is." The game is too high speed, the plays are too bang-bang, and the camera footage is too well-equipped with HD and slow motion.
Quote:
In comment 13620576 Bleedblue10 said:
Quote:
I think no matter how many steps he took the receiver has to hold onto the ball when going to the ground. Although if either of sheps 2 catches were ruled touchdowns I don't see how anyone could've made a fuss about them. Seems to me like they could've been called either way and just like everything so far this season, we were on the short end of the stick. He had a great game but those are plays he has to make. I can understand one but he had 2 chances to make a difference and didn't
If the steps are taken in an upright position, i.e. Seen as running by the refs and then a player goes to the ground it would be a catch even if he loses it. Problem lies in the refs view of those steps. If he or the replay booth see them as a stumble or never being upright, then a receiver has to maintain control through contact with the ground.
Just look back at the Dez Bryant non TD catch in the playoffs vs Green Bay a couple of years ago. It was ruled incomplete even though he took 2-3 steps after catching the ball because he was stumbling and going to the ground. The amount of steps didn't matter it was the type of steps. Had he taken those steps upright, under control of his footing, it would've been a catch and TD. By stumbling he was ruled to be "going to the ground". Only difference in the SS play was SS was going towards the out of bounds line and had to get two feet in bounds while Dez's was an inbounds play heading toward the goal line. Both guys were going to the ground and not upright in their steps so the ruling of incomplete pass was correct in both cases, though I think Dallas fans had a bigger gripe because Dez took even more steps than Shepard.
Eman...but you can easily watch the Shep catch and determine that he takes two upright steps, taps his toe on the third step for good measure, AND THEN falls as a result of the toe tap.
We can definitely see it that way, but the problem is as I said above, it's how the ref or booth sees those two steps. They saw it as two feet in but must've seen one or all of those steps as not being upright, and had him going to the ground.
Honestly, watching it live I thought the same as you but once I saw the ball come out I thought uh oh, they're going to rule that as him going to the ground and not upright steps. Sure enough, they did.
I can see why they ruled the way they did and I have a bigger problem with SS not turning or twisting his body to protect the ball as he went to the ground. We see pros do that all the time even while airborn, and landing on a shoulder or back, not their belly. All he had to do was turn or twist a little and the impact doesn't knock the ball loose,IMO.
So there has to be an additional requirement-- whether it's called a "football move" or something else.
But what is that something else? Is it an amount of time the receiver holds onto the ball? Is it a separate act by the receiver? That's what the NFL is trying to define as it keeps tweaking the rules.
I'm not saying I love the current definition, just that it is perhaps an impossible task to do so without people saying "I no longer know what a catch is." The game is too high speed, the plays are too bang-bang, and the camera footage is too well-equipped with HD and slow motion.
The only ambiguity here is caused by the question of when Shepard starts going to the ground. All the other elements of a catch are satisfied. Two feet down and an additional step afterwards. The issue I have on re-watching (I initially agreed with the call) is that I think the third step caused him to fall. I don't think he was going to the ground before that. So, reading the rule....seems like it should be a TD to me.
And the question about it being a catch is 100% due to the ambiguity of the rule. I have no problem saying a catch is a catch with two feet down, no matter where you are.
It makes the rule a pretty air-tight one, and if it results in more turnovers because of players getting hit after the 2nd foot lands, I don't see why that's bad - it is a lot easier to rule than the convoluted thought process that currently has to take place.
No float - ( New Window )
So I must resort to my fall back and unassailable position, that it is a stupid rule if SS does not score a TD on that play. ;)
lonk - ( New Window )
Quote:
that's what I'm talking about-- defining a catch. It can't simply be ball security and two feet down (or elbow/knee/butt/back) because of all the bang-bang plays where the ball pops out a split second later, whether ground caused on a diving attempt, or because a receiver was facing the QB and as soon as the ball hits his gloves, a defender spears him in the back to break up the play-- those would both be considered fumbles.
So there has to be an additional requirement-- whether it's called a "football move" or something else.
But what is that something else? Is it an amount of time the receiver holds onto the ball? Is it a separate act by the receiver? That's what the NFL is trying to define as it keeps tweaking the rules.
I'm not saying I love the current definition, just that it is perhaps an impossible task to do so without people saying "I no longer know what a catch is." The game is too high speed, the plays are too bang-bang, and the camera footage is too well-equipped with HD and slow motion.
The only ambiguity here is caused by the question of when Shepard starts going to the ground. All the other elements of a catch are satisfied. Two feet down and an additional step afterwards. The issue I have on re-watching (I initially agreed with the call) is that I think the third step caused him to fall. I don't think he was going to the ground before that. So, reading the rule....seems like it should be a TD to me.
Quote:
In comment 13620576 Bleedblue10 said:
Quote:
I think no matter how many steps he took the receiver has to hold onto the ball when going to the ground. Although if either of sheps 2 catches were ruled touchdowns I don't see how anyone could've made a fuss about them. Seems to me like they could've been called either way and just like everything so far this season, we were on the short end of the stick. He had a great game but those are plays he has to make. I can understand one but he had 2 chances to make a difference and didn't
If the steps are taken in an upright position, i.e. Seen as running by the refs and then a player goes to the ground it would be a catch even if he loses it. Problem lies in the refs view of those steps. If he or the replay booth see them as a stumble or never being upright, then a receiver has to maintain control through contact with the ground.
Just look back at the Dez Bryant non TD catch in the playoffs vs Green Bay a couple of years ago. It was ruled incomplete even though he took 2-3 steps after catching the ball because he was stumbling and going to the ground. The amount of steps didn't matter it was the type of steps. Had he taken those steps upright, under control of his footing, it would've been a catch and TD. By stumbling he was ruled to be "going to the ground". Only difference in the SS play was SS was going towards the out of bounds line and had to get two feet in bounds while Dez's was an inbounds play heading toward the goal line. Both guys were going to the ground and not upright in their steps so the ruling of incomplete pass was correct in both cases, though I think Dallas fans had a bigger gripe because Dez took even more steps than Shepard.
Dez was stumbling, catching, never recovered. It was all part of the same action. I think Shepard caught, ran, subsequently stumbled and fell. The stumble was a separate act.
I 100% agree about the Dez part. The SS part I'm not so sure about. It was bang bang and I can't honestly say I thought he was "running". More like trying to make sure he got two feet down and in bounds, and that caused the stumble to the ground. It was a lot quicker than the Dez play and I can see how the ref saw it as one action by SS and had him going to the ground. I didn't like it obviously but wasn't surprised it was ruled the way it was, and I can't really gripe about the call because to me I can see why the ref called it as going to the ground. I might disagree with how he saw it but I can understand why he saw it the way he did.
It states that in regards to contact with the ground as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground. A receiver can maintain possession through contact with the ground even if the ground causes it to come loose, as long as he regains possession without the ball hitting the ground first. Eg, he can hit the ground, the ball can pop straight up in the air but as long as he regains possession and the ball doesn't hit the ground, it's a catch.,
That is a much better angle and shows less ball movement than the first GIF.
But it leads to another question as to whether trying to get/keep feet in bounds is a part the act of completing a catch, or if it is an entirely separate action.
It does bring up an essential unfairness. If the ref had (correctly or incorrectly called it a TD). then the booth would automatically review. In this case, same circumstances you get no review (or discretionary review). SO, it's pretty much dependent upon the ref's whimsy in making a call...which is the exact reason there is a review in the first place.
Quote:
no it doesn't. I had the same thought. The rule clearly states that the ball moving doesn't count as a loss of possession.
It states that in regards to contact with the ground as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground. A receiver can maintain possession through contact with the ground even if the ground causes it to come loose, as long as he regains possession without the ball hitting the ground first. Eg, he can hit the ground, the ball can pop straight up in the air but as long as he regains possession and the ball doesn't hit the ground, it's a catch.,
This is what I was referring to:
"Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."
This related to the movement of the ball in between Shep's first and second steps and whether that restarted the count. It does not.
The rule needs to be altered...the play should stop as soon as SS steps out of bounds with the ball being possessed. If out of bounds does not stop the play, why can't a DB hit a WR out of bounds to dislodge the ball?
We know if that happens, it's a personal foul, but why should the DB be penalized if the player out of bounds is still in play?
would they have still ruled it incompletion?
or was it the fact that the ball hit the ground and bounced out of his hands
The stutter step makes it clear that Shepard was still establishing the catch, he had not yet become a runner. If not, why stutter that third step?
It's not about how many steps you take, it's about what those steps are. The catch is not complete until you have become a runner, which means you have stopped the process of completing the catch. Shep wasn't there yet, and in his process of becoming a runner he went to the ground. That means he has to maintain control.
lonk - ( New Window )
Quote:
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
The stutter step makes it clear that Shepard was still establishing the catch, he had not yet become a runner. If not, why stutter that third step?
It's not about how many steps you take, it's about what those steps are. The catch is not complete until you have become a runner, which means you have stopped the process of completing the catch. Shep wasn't there yet, and in his process of becoming a runner he went to the ground. That means he has to maintain control.
Dan, so you're saying for the purposes of a catch, it matters whether the WR believes he needs to get another foot in or not? Shep doesn't know in the moment that he's already gotten two feet down. He then twists his body to make sure he gets a third short step down in bounds. I would argue that at this moment...he's no longer completing the act of catching the ball but has transitioned to a runner making sure he establishes himself in bounds.
Here's Riveron, the head of officiating discussing it. He notes the three steps but says he was going to the ground. I think it's a pretty lazy analysis (especially to only show the one angle). But he, like the official on the field, doesn't seem to have any doubt that he started going to the ground as part of the catch process.
Riveron - ( New Window )