The Dez Bryant catch.

[fyo]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

[Phishfan]

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.

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

[Brian Fein]

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.

[Tenshot13]

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?

[CF DolFan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Phishfan]

- Similar to the old "the ground can't cause a fumble" scenario.

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.

[Brian Fein]

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.

[Phishfan]

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?

[Pappy13]

To everyone saying "change the rule", my question is simple: What should the new rule be?

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Brian Fein]

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)

[Spider-Dan]

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.