The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

It's a catch.  Start there.

If you say that it's not a catch because of the rule, you need to change the rule.

This is the perfect example of the NFL over-officiating itself out of great plays.  Everyone knows a catch when they see it, so if you have rules that make the best play of the game overturned by refs and called not a catch because of some technicality, you need to change the rule.

He catches the ball at the 5 and it gets slightly dislodged after 3 steps at the goal line.  ...and he retains possession anyway.

The fact that what constitutes a catch when you're falling vs. when you're not vs. when you're in the endzone, etc -- it's all dumb.

Fix it, NFL.

The rule blows.  I've said that for years.  I hate it.

I saw some carefully-selected photos on the interwebs that show that the ball never even touched the ground.  His hand was under the ball when it became dislodged.  Also saw someone else say that if you move the goal line closer, not only would it have been ruled a catch, but likely a TD, since the ball would have come out after breaking the plane of the end zone.

Its impossible to put a clearly-defined and concrete set of circumstances on something as subjective as "did he catch it or not."  But the NFL is trying to do that to take the subjectivity out of making the call.

The rule should have been changed after Calvin Johnson's TD reversal against the Bears.

It was clearly a catch. I've hated this type of rule.

It doesn't even matter if the ball touches the ground or not.  Whatever happens is 5 yards later, after he'd already caught the ball.  I have no love for the Cowboys.  I even enjoy the schadenfreude of them losing by a shitty call, the week after they benefited from it.  But this could've been one of the all time great plays in NFL history and it's negated by a stupid rule.

The rule is clear cut so we aren't starting with it is a catch because it isn't. That is simple; argument over.

Brian, I'd love to see those pics because I'm pretty sure my eyes saw it on the ground. As for the goal line guy, the rule doesn't change because of position on the field.

it ABSOLUTELY matters if it touches the ground or not.  If the ball never touches the ground, how could it POSSIBLY be an incomplete pass?  

If you catch, fall, ball dislodges and you are laying on the ground and re-catch, ITS A CATCH, even by today's rule.  In this case the ASSUMPTION was that it was the ground that caused the ball to become dislodged.  If the ball never touched the ground, its a catch by any set of rules.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7M6NpaCMAA3A3B.jpg)
 its small, i couldn't find a bigger one...

That is a compelling photo, but I'm not sure it can be taken exclusively though as a set of photos doesn't show the entire course of events. In this one, I don't see how the ball could not have touched the ground.

(http://s1.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Dez-Bryant-catch-overturned.jpg)

More likely it had already hit the ground before that first photo in your series.

Perhaps, but in your photo he still has control of the ball...  Which is perfectly allowed. 

In any case, since assumptions are not allowed, the VERY MOST you can say from that view is "inconclusive"

Inconclusive? We have very different perceptions.

But he catches the ball, is my point, Phish.  If you say that the rule is clear, then you need a new rule.  If the rule is that whatever Dez did isn't a catch, it's a bad rule -- because it's a catch.  He catches the ball and runs 5 yards.

If you have ever seen Dez Bryant run, I wouldn't use that term to describe what he was doing. It looked like he was stumbling to the ground. The guy never had his feet underneath him.

Problem with the NFL is they have too many rules. They have taken a simple sport and complicated it to the point the refs and announcers covering the games don't even understand it and they get paid by the league!

Tuck Rule (i know they got rid of it last year)....this catch rule....what is and isn't review-able...fumbles that aren't fumbles cause a QB's hand is moving forward. Some of the rules are just dumb. Flat out dumb.

They need to get rid of like 4 or 5 of these silly rules. Let coaches challenge EVERYTHING, you get only 2 challenges a game even if you get one or both right...and be done with it. So they will use them wisely knowing they only got 2 and it won't slow down games and make them 4+ hour games.

To me that is a catch 10 times out of 10 (and I hate Dallas) but by their over-complicated rule its not.

This is pretty much what should happen. Simplify the game and you'll get a lot more fans as well. My fiancee wants to watch the game and get involved but she can't enjoy it because all of the rules are complex and have exceptions, blah blah blah. Just simplify some of the rules.

It's not a catch, so let's stop there before you get started.


Technically two steps, but not really steps, because he's falling to the ground. It is important to note that "falling to the ground" does not constitute a football move.


It does matter if the ball touches the ground, and it was 3 yards, not 5.

If you want to change the rule, no problem...I'm totally in favor of it. As the rule currently stands (read: what the referees were required to abide by at the time the play occurred), it wasn't a catch.

It was a completely awesome almost-catch


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it)

To everyone saying "change the rule", my question is simple: What should the new rule be? And don't say "subjective", because that's just stupid... we'd be arguing even more than we already do.

I remember when the refs considered the ball even touching part of the ground to be a non-catch, regardless of player control. I like that aspect of the new rule. The Calvin Johnson part can get silly at times, but I really haven't seen anyone propose a better rule that doesn't either contain massive loopholes or is completely subjective.

Imho it was not a catch.  To remove all ambiguity I would amend the rule to say that if a reciever fumbles the ball without first clearly and obviously securing the ball then by rule it is an incomplete pass

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner right here folks. I have not heard anyone complaining about the rule propose anything that would work any better.

I don't think there is a way to improve the current rule.  Subjectivity is not the answer. 

I think the only way to improve it is to say that "if the contact with the ground causes the ball to become dislodged, but the player retains possession afterward, it is still a catch" - Similar to the old "the ground can't cause a fumble" scenario.

Why can't it be if a player catches the ball with two feet down and has control of the ball, the ground cannot cause an incompletion?

I like the fact you have to secure the ball. No different than baseball. You have to come up with the ball without it hitting the ground. To me that is the simplest idea of having "caught" the ball.

Mike Pereira was on the local (Sacramento) radio yesterday and said that after the Megatron catch, the competition committee reviewed this rule.  They ultimately chose to keep it as is because they thought that changing it would create a significant number of "cheap fumbles," where a receiver is hit right as he lands and the ball pops out.

So your solution is to make it similar to one of the most misquoted rules in the game? The ground absolutely can cause fumbles in the NFL as a player is not down until contacted by an opponent. If the guy falls on his own and drops the ball it is still a fumble.

Yes I know that.  Sorry, I figured that was common sense.

I've quit giving the benefit of the doubt to people on things I think are common sense. You know how many dumb asses I've see screaming about this during a game?

The ground can't cause you to lose control of caught pass just like the ground can't cause a fumble. If you have control of the ball all the way to the ground and then the ball hits the ground and is dislodged by the ground, it's a catch. The key to this is you would have had to show control of the ball up to that point which to me means 2 steps with the ball or 1 step and a knee or something like that. So you can't catch the ball 2 inches off the ground and then the ball hits the ground and it's a catch because you haven't taken 2 steps with the ball. And I'm counting 2 steps while going to the ground as 2 steps. There would still be a bit of wiggle room on whether or not you had control, but I think you end up with a better rule than the current one which is counter intuitive.

Why? It's not a fumble if the running back drops the ball when he hits the ground. Why would a caught pass be a fumble when it hits the ground? When the ball hits the ground the play is dead.

It's not just about hitting the ground.

If you count possession as two feet on the ground and any sort of minor movement, there are a lot of balls jarred loose in that timeframe (before the receiver is downed) that are currently ruled incomplete passes.  Lots of bang-bang plays that are incomplete passes today would be fumbles tomorrow.

How about this...  This actually speaks more to what I dislike about the rule.

A player who is down by contact after making a catch is down by contact.  If, after he is down by contact, the ball is dislodged, it remains a catch.  The play ends the instant a player is down by contact.  What happens afterwards doesn't matter.  The rule would act similarly for players going out of bounds or crossing a goal line.  The play is over when it is over, and what happens after the end of the play is inconsequential.

This rule would be similar to the fumble rules.  A fumble after a player is down by contact is not ruled a fumble.  Similarly a ball that becomes dislodged after a player is down by contact is not ruled an incomplete pass.

(Of course, all of this is contingent upon demonstrating control of the ball prior to it being dislodged.  Control means possession and 2 feet/1 knee down in bounds)

Brian, the problem is that you are creating two different rules for possession based on whether or not the player is in the process of being downed.

The current rules already say that a player who has possession that is down by contact cannot fumble after being downed, so either you are creating two different standards for what constitutes "possession," or you are lowering the threshold for what constitutes "possession" and there will be many more open-field "fumbles" on passes that are broken up.

When you lower the requirements for a completed pass, you are necessarily increasing the possibility of fumbles.

I don't see where you are getting your information.

My proposal includes all rules of acquiring the football that are in place today.  No change to any rules or judgment until the receiver goes to the ground.  The difference is that when the player is tackled, the play ends.  Ball comes out after the knee is down?  Who cares?  Catch and down by contact.

I don't see any situation where that could be called a fumble.

Player gets hit WHILE catching the ball and ball is jarred loose?  Incomplete pass.  Plain and simple.

I'm essentially removing the "retain possession throughout the act of going to the ground" requirement, which is the one I think is the most objectionable.  When the player hits the ground, the play is over.

Please re-read my proposal and give me an example of a play where it would create a fumble under the rule set I proposed, where today it would be called an incomplete pass.

Here is a PERFECT EXAMPLE...

Watch this video in full.  The referee's explanation is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v6FaNGZGtg

This is a catch.  Full on.  The play should be OVER the instant any contact is made with the white line.  The fact that the ball was dropped AFTER the player went out of bounds should have NO BEARING on the fact that he caught the ball, took two steps in bounds, and then fell down out of bounds.

In the case of the Dez Bryant play, it would be a question of which happened first - the knee touching the ground or the ball coming loose?  I think the knee was down, thus the ruling would be "completed pass, down by contact" at that spot.

Again, here's the issue: possession is possession, whether you're at a sideline, the goal line, or the middle of the field.  So this kind of rule change eliminates "incomplete pass" as an option in many situations, and turns more loose balls at the end of the play into either "down by contact" or "fumble."

You can't have one standard for possession at a boundary line and another standard for possession in the middle of the field.

When did I propose a different standard?  In fact...


Unless now you're arguing the semantics of my choice of the word "similarly" as opposed to "identically"

You're proposing these changes (and that's what they are: changes from the status quo) in a bunch of situations (out-of-bounds, end zone, grounded player) where as soon as possession is confirmed, the play is almost immediately over anyway before there's an opportunity to fumble.  OK, great.  But what about when it's NOT immediately over?

You cannot determine whether or not it is possession based on whether he would be down, or in the end zone, etc.  So if we reduce the threshold for what constitutes possession (which is what you are talking about), then there will be many more bang-bang plays in the middle of the field (when a player ISN'T diving to the ground) that are now "cheap fumbles."  These plays are currently ruled incomplete passes.

Brian, what about the situation where a player goes up and grabs a ball, full control, and falls down on his back, the ball popping out immediately. That doesn't feel like a catch to me,  but since the player's back hits the ground first, it's a completed pass (and a fumble, unless he was touched in the air).

Just as wrong from a gut feeling as the Calvin Johnson non-catch.

I really don't have a big preference... Both ways result in calls I disagree with from that instinctive "was it a catch" place. For once, the NFL has chosen a rule that favors the defense. Hard to complain about that.

Thanks, this is a great example of how my theory wouldn't work in practice. 

So, how do you modify it to make it better?

I don't think it would be as many as you think it would be and really what's wrong with a WR catching a pass being hit and fumbling the football? What's cheap about that? I think there are a lot of plays ruled as an incomplete pass that should have been ruled a catch and fumble. With all the rules there are now about you can't hit a defenseless player (WR) CB's and Safeties can't just head hunt the way they used to. Most of the time a WR has an opportunity to catch a pass with being decked in next fraction of a second.

And that's fine: if you don't mind an increase in both catches AND fumbles, then so be it.  But let's not pretend that we can have one without the other.