Here we go again with the "catch" rule

[Mr. Cynical]

So once again, if you catch the ball with two feet on the ground and show possession yet bobble it when you hit the ground, should it be a catch?

[Mr. Cynical]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

....guess not

[hydro014]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

That was a BAD call!!!

[Mr. Cynical]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

The rule needs to be revised.....too many non-catches are catches and vice-versa.

[Ebenezer]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

The rule needs to be revised.....too many non-catches are catches and vice-versa.

is it the rule or the interpretation?? The rule exists...just enforce it.

[Mr. Cynical]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

The rule sucks.

[Ebenezer]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

The rule sucks.

everything was easy before replay. catch the ball and two feet touch then it is a catch...if the ball got dislodged by anything, including the ground, no catch...simple.

[FirstDownBills]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

So once again, if you catch the ball with two feet on the ground and show possession yet bobble it when you hit the ground, should it be a catch?

What are you talking about? The interception that was ruled an incomplete pass? When did he bobble it? The replay show he had full possession while rolling on the ground which is a football move. It's just as he was getting up to make another football move his knee popped the ball out. But the referee's interpretation was that his other knee was still on the ground when the ball came out so therefore it was ruled an incomplete pass which makes no sense to me. The rule does not need to be revised, it's the referees who need another rulebook class.

[Mr. Cynical]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

the referee's interpretation was that his other knee was still on the ground when the ball came out so therefore it was ruled an incomplete pass which makes no sense to me.

That's just it - assuming his other knee was on the ground when he lost the ball, according to the rules that constitutes a non-catch. I agree that the call itself was bad, i.e., he lost the ball *after* making the catch, but the rule about it being a non-catch if you lose it while you have a knee on the ground (even tho you show possession before that point) is what I think needs to be changed.

Two feet (or knee) on the ground with possession of the ball should = catch. It happens all the time where a WR catches it with a toe tap and then flies out of bounds. The same rule should apply in bounds as well. That's my opinion and isn't going to change (not saying this directly to you...just in general)

P.S. You are right about my term bobble...I didn't mean to say that. However the spirit of the debate is still about the same idea, i.e., when is a catch a catch.

[Philagape]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

You all forget Rule 59, section 4, paragraph 6b: "Any questionable calls involving Peyton Manning must be ruled in his favor."

[dplus47]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

that interception was one of the worst calls i have ever seen. as a poster at finheaven pointed out: how do you roll over and keep your knees on the ground the whole time? the ref pulled that one from somewhere, and it wasn't the rulebook or even the spirit of the rulebook.

[MikeInRoch]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

I'd really like to see an official NFL explanation, but I won't hold my breath.

[MikeInRoch]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

You all forget Rule 59, section 4, paragraph 6b: "Any questionable calls involving Peyton Manning must be ruled in his favor."

I guess his petition to the league to insert his name and remove "New England Patriots" must have worked. New England got jobbed this week for the first time in recent memory.

[mybills]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

New England got jobbed this week for the first time in recent memory.

Not a single penalty or ruling was going to change the outcome.
NE sucked (period)!

[MikeInRoch]

Re: Here we go again with the "catch" rule

Not one, but two. The first Denver TD was bogus, since the PI should have been called on the offensive player instead of the defensive player. The fumble into the endzone gave them another TD when it was ruled out at the 1.