PDA

View Full Version : Possession of a Catch.



BroncoWave
02-08-2010, 12:06 AM
I have a question. Why is it required that you have possession all the way to the ground when you are falling out of bounds but the play is ruled dead the second you hit the ground in bounds? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Every time a player catches it and his knee or elbow hits the ground in bounds they call it dead right there but when they hit the ground out of bounds and the ball pops out they always call it incomplete.

I bring this up because of the Saints player who got the 2PT conversion and had the ball pop out as he hit the ground but was still called complete. Whenever that exact same thing happens out of bounds they call it incomplete every time. That just makes no sense to me.

Northman
02-08-2010, 12:08 AM
Watch it again. He catches the ball, starts to lose it, regains control and then the defender touches his knee before the ball gets kicked out. Thus, he had control and was down by contact with the ball going across the plane of the goalline.

shank
02-08-2010, 12:10 AM
i don't know the rules, but there's no doubt in my mind that that was a catch.

broncogirl7
02-08-2010, 12:10 AM
I think it's a legitmate question whether he knows the rules or not.

Northman
02-08-2010, 12:12 AM
I think it's a legitmate question whether he knows the rules or not.

Uh, no its not. The rules are pretty clear about that particular situation on the goalline. If you have control of the ball and reach across the goalline its a score. There's no confusion there. :lol:

Broncolingus
02-08-2010, 12:12 AM
I'm glad the game didn't come down to that call...

BroncoWave
02-08-2010, 12:12 AM
**Deleted commemt**

That's why I asked the question, so I could be clarified on the rules.
It just seems like they always call that a catch when it's in bounds and incomplete when it's out of bounds.

broncogirl7
02-08-2010, 12:17 AM
Uh, no its not. The rules are pretty clear about that particular situation on the goalline. If you have control of the ball and reach across the goalline its a score. There's no confusion there. :lol:

I thought this was Football 101 where one could ask questions and get clarifications without being made to look stupid.

BroncoWave
02-08-2010, 12:19 AM
**DELETED POST**

This has nothing to do with what I said in the game thread. I am asking this completely independently about how I feel about the officiating in the game.

sneakers
02-08-2010, 12:30 AM
Does it count if you have it stuck in your facemask like in the movies?

Broncolingus
02-08-2010, 12:45 AM
Does it count if you have it stuck in your facemask like in the movies?

heh, heh...

http://everythingua.com/images/OrlandoJonesUnderArmour.jpg

"I'm scared of spiders."

BroncoBJ
02-08-2010, 12:49 AM
Colts would have won if the Refs got that call right. :mad:

Man I really really hate the Refs sometimes. :fight:

Dirk
02-08-2010, 09:57 AM
I have a question. Why is it required that you have possession all the way to the ground when you are falling out of bounds but the play is ruled dead the second you hit the ground in bounds? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Every time a player catches it and his knee or elbow hits the ground in bounds they call it dead right there but when they hit the ground out of bounds and the ball pops out they always call it incomplete.

I bring this up because of the Saints player who got the 2PT conversion and had the ball pop out as he hit the ground but was still called complete. Whenever that exact same thing happens out of bounds they call it incomplete every time. That just makes no sense to me.

Anytime a player catches the ball but is "out of bounds" it counts as an incomplete pass. Due to the fact that he is not "in bounds" which would make it a complete pass because it was a good catch. Being out of bounds it can't count as a catch so they rule it "incomplete".

I hope that helps ya.

Lonestar
02-08-2010, 10:11 AM
OK folks let me jump in here and say this right now.

FOOTBALL 10, was INDEED designed for asking questions without fear of being jumped on and for archives. A safe place to come and LEARN.

Why do I say this, because I was the MOD that pushed for this.

It took along time to convince the other mods and Tned to do this. It should be a safe place to go and ask questions. To learn about something when you are not sure.

If Y'all are not able to deal with this concept, stay out of it.

BroncoWave
02-08-2010, 10:17 AM
Anytime a player catches the ball but is "out of bounds" it counts as an incomplete pass. Due to the fact that he is not "in bounds" which would make it a complete pass because it was a good catch. Being out of bounds it can't count as a catch so they rule it "incomplete".

I hope that helps ya.

I mean when a player catches it, taps 2 feet in bounds, then the ball pops out when he lands out of bounds. It counts as a catch until the ground knocks it out when a player lands out of bounds but they never seem to call it incomplete when a player lands in bounds and it pops out.

Mike
02-08-2010, 10:25 AM
The WR juggled possession of the ball then gained full possession, was touched by the defender, then the ball was knee'd out of his hands. He was down by contact with the ball in his possession across the endzone. He maintained the catch and was downed by contact. In my mind, there was no contradiction of the rules and the correct call was made.

Northman
02-08-2010, 10:56 AM
The WR juggled possession of the ball then gained full possession, was touched by the defender, then the ball was knee'd out of his hands. He was down by contact with the ball in his possession across the endzone. He maintained the catch and was downed by contact. In my mind, there was no contradiction of the rules and the correct call was made.

Exactly.

spikerman
02-08-2010, 05:57 PM
I can tell you how about the college rule (we use college rules in Texas HS football) and I think it's the same as the NFL. The receiver must control the ball "through the catch". Whether the player is in bounds or out of bounds, the rule is the same. If the player catches the ball and goes to the ground, he must maintain control of the ball until the catch is completed. That is a judgement call by the official, but if the ball is knocked loose by going to the ground, he is not deemed to have maintained control "through the catch".

If a player does not have control of the ball and gains control with any part of his body out of bounds, it is by rule, an incomplete pass.

Last night's call was correct, in my opinion, because the receiver, after initially juggling the ball, gained control, was touched and then the ball was knocked loose by the defender's leg. IMO, even if he hadn't been touched by the defender's hand the call would have been a completed pass, because the act of the defender's leg hitting the receiver's arm is what knocked the ball loose. As soon as that leg touched that arm, the receiver is down by contact.

missingnumber7
02-09-2010, 02:49 PM
I can tell you how about the college rule (we use college rules in Texas HS football) and I think it's the same as the NFL. The receiver must control the ball "through the catch". Whether the player is in bounds or out of bounds, the rule is the same. If the player catches the ball and goes to the ground, he must maintain control of the ball until the catch is completed. That is a judgement call by the official, but if the ball is knocked loose by going to the ground, he is not deemed to have maintained control "through the catch".

If a player does not have control of the ball and gains control with any part of his body out of bounds, it is by rule, an incomplete pass.

Last night's call was correct, in my opinion, because the receiver, after initially juggling the ball, gained control, was touched and then the ball was knocked loose by the defender's leg. IMO, even if he hadn't been touched by the defender's hand the call would have been a completed pass, because the act of the defender's leg hitting the receiver's arm is what knocked the ball loose. As soon as that leg touched that arm, the receiver is down by contact.


Down by contact doesn't matter. As soon as the ball crosses the goal line with an offensive player in possession it is a score. Play becomes dead at that point.

Ravage!!!
02-09-2010, 03:17 PM
The goal line and the side line are different.

If he has possession of the ball, the micro-second the tip of that ball touches the front end of that goal-line, its a touchdown. Anything after that, doesn't matter. He crossed the goal-line with possession of the ball....


GREAT play by that receiver. To catch and turn in the air and put it across the line.... is EFFING fantastic. One of the best plays of the game.

BroncoWave
02-09-2010, 04:05 PM
The goal line and the side line are different.

If he has possession of the ball, the micro-second the tip of that ball touches the front end of that goal-line, its a touchdown. Anything after that, doesn't matter. He crossed the goal-line with possession of the ball....


GREAT play by that receiver. To catch and turn in the air and put it across the line.... is EFFING fantastic. One of the best plays of the game.

What about when a player catches the ball in the endzone on the sideline and falls out of bounds and the ball pops out as he hits the ground? I seem to remember passes being called incomplete when that happened. While technically having possession and being over the goal line, I think the WR still has to maintain possession all the way to the ground for it to count.

Northman
02-09-2010, 04:08 PM
What about when a player catches the ball in the endzone on the sideline and falls out of bounds and the ball pops out as he hits the ground? I seem to remember passes being called incomplete when that happened. While technically having possession and being over the goal line, I think the WR still has to maintain possession all the way to the ground for it to count.

Most likely in the cases your talking about the player is never down by contact when going out of bounds so i can see that rule being applied. However, the guy the other night was down by contact with the ball across the goalline.

BroncoWave
02-09-2010, 04:17 PM
Most likely in the cases your talking about the player is never down by contact when going out of bounds so i can see that rule being applied. However, the guy the other night was down by contact with the ball across the goalline.

Ok that makes sense. Thank you.

spikerman
02-10-2010, 02:44 PM
Down by contact doesn't matter. As soon as the ball crosses the goal line with an offensive player in possession it is a score. Play becomes dead at that point.

Yes and no. If the player already has possession of the ball and crosses the goal line, then it's a score. If ball possession is gained after it crosses the goal line, i.e. the pass is thrown into the end zone or on a play like in the the Super Bowl, the player must maintain possession through the catch for it to count. That's why the Raiders (I think) and others had what looked to be sure touchdowns taken away during the season after their receivers lost control of the ball after initially catching it in the end zone.

spikerman
02-10-2010, 02:50 PM
The goal line and the side line are different.

If he has possession of the ball, the micro-second the tip of that ball touches the front end of that goal-line, its a touchdown. Anything after that, doesn't matter. He crossed the goal-line with possession of the ball....


GREAT play by that receiver. To catch and turn in the air and put it across the line.... is EFFING fantastic. One of the best plays of the game.

You're right, but since that ball was across the line when he gained control of it he still had to complete the catch - which he did when he was down by contact. Had he dropped the ball when he hit the ground with no contact, imo, it would have been an incomplete pass. If he already had possession and was diving for the end zone as soon as the tip crossed the goal line you have a score.

Think of it this way. If a receiver catches the ball in the air in the end zone and is knocked out of bounds before he comes down with the ball it is an incomplete pass - even though the ball crossed the goal line and is in possession of an offensive player. The problem would be that the player did not complete the catch. It's a subtle thing and I think the right call was made in this case.

spikerman
02-10-2010, 02:51 PM
What about when a player catches the ball in the endzone on the sideline and falls out of bounds and the ball pops out as he hits the ground? I seem to remember passes being called incomplete when that happened. While technically having possession and being over the goal line, I think the WR still has to maintain possession all the way to the ground for it to count.

That's correct.

spikerman
02-10-2010, 02:52 PM
Most likely in the cases your talking about the player is never down by contact when going out of bounds so i can see that rule being applied. However, the guy the other night was down by contact with the ball across the goalline.

And that's the key.

KCL
10-07-2010, 12:02 PM
ok folks let me jump in here and say this right now.

Football 10, was indeed designed for asking questions without fear of being jumped on and for archives. A safe place to come and learn.

Why do i say this, because i was the mod that pushed for this.

It took along time to convince the other mods and tned to do this. It should be a safe place to go and ask questions. To learn about something when you are not sure.

If y'all are not able to deal with this concept, stay out of it.

JR for mod...:D

KCL
10-07-2010, 12:04 PM
I think it's a legitmate question whether he knows the rules or not.


Uh, no its not. The rules are pretty clear about that particular situation on the goalline. If you have control of the ball and reach across the goalline its a score. There's no confusion there. :lol:


Uh, no its not. The rules are pretty clear about that particular situation on the goalline. If you have control of the ball and reach across the goalline its a score. There's no confusion there.

____________________
watch movies online (http://moviesonlinefree.biz/)

What the..........:shocked:

Joel
11-20-2010, 06:09 AM
I mean when a player catches it, taps 2 feet in bounds, then the ball pops out when he lands out of bounds. It counts as a catch until the ground knocks it out when a player lands out of bounds but they never seem to call it incomplete when a player lands in bounds and it pops out.
This seems like the sticking point to me: A receiver must have possession and control of a ball or dragging his feet is useless. We see plays all the time where in/complete comes down to whether the receiver had possession and control before the ground knocked it loose: If he did, it's a catch; if he didn't it's incomplete. The same rule applies whether he drags his feet before going out of bounds of lands on a hashmark.

I think the problem is that a receiver going out of bounds has a much narrower window of opportunity to show possession and control. Once his feet leave the turf, achieving possession and control no longer does any good, because he can't establish himself in the field of play. It's also quite possible that NFL refs, who are human beings essentially indulging a weekend hobby while holding full time jobs, call those passes a little more closely. It's similar to the rule that if a receiver WOULD HAVE come down in bounds if not forced out by a defender, it's a catch: Most people didn't know about that rule, for which NFL refs should be very grateful, because I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it enforced. The League finally addressed the problem this season: They repealed the rule (WRONG solution, IMHO, but at least they aren't just ignoring it anymore).

The rule on possession and control, however, is the same wherever the catch is made, but a receiver going to the ground in the field of play has more time to turn a juggle into a catch than one on his way out of bounds.

spikerman
11-20-2010, 02:57 PM
This seems like the sticking point to me: A receiver must have possession and control of a ball or dragging his feet is useless. We see plays all the time where in/complete comes down to whether the receiver had possession and control before the ground knocked it loose: If he did, it's a catch; if he didn't it's incomplete. The same rule applies whether he drags his feet before going out of bounds of lands on a hashmark.

I think the problem is that a receiver going out of bounds has a much narrower window of opportunity to show possession and control. Once his feet leave the turf, achieving possession and control no longer does any good, because he can't establish himself in the field of play. It's also quite possible that NFL refs, who are human beings essentially indulging a weekend hobby while holding full time jobs, call those passes a little more closely. It's similar to the rule that if a receiver WOULD HAVE come down in bounds if not forced out by a defender, it's a catch: Most people didn't know about that rule, for which NFL refs should be very grateful, because I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it enforced. The League finally addressed the problem this season: They repealed the rule (WRONG solution, IMHO, but at least they aren't just ignoring it anymore).

The rule on possession and control, however, is the same wherever the catch is made, but a receiver going to the ground in the field of play has more time to turn a juggle into a catch than one on his way out of bounds.

You're right, the rule is the same no matter where the "catch" takes place. The player has to control the ball all the way through the catch whether it's inbounds or out of bounds. The player in bounds has an advantage if he is juggling the ball because if he gains possession after juggling it it's still a catch. If a player has it, drags his feet then loses possession of it out of bounds, it will be ruled incomplete even if the ball doesn't hit the ground because he was OOB when possession was gained. I may not be explaining it well, but that's the gist of it. I've had to rule several times on whether a player maintained "possession through the catch". It's a difficult thing to call.

As for a player having to come down in bounds, I'm all for the rule change. It was too much of a judgement call as to whether a player would have come down in bounds or not. Now, he either did come down in bounds or he didn't. It's much cleaner and both teams know it's the rule. There is much less argument.

Joel
11-21-2010, 07:49 AM
You're right, the rule is the same no matter where the "catch" takes place. The player has to control the ball all the way through the catch whether it's inbounds or out of bounds. The player in bounds has an advantage if he is juggling the ball because if he gains possession after juggling it it's still a catch. If a player has it, drags his feet then loses possession of it out of bounds, it will be ruled incomplete even if the ball doesn't hit the ground because he was OOB when possession was gained. I may not be explaining it well, but that's the gist of it. I've had to rule several times on whether a player maintained "possession through the catch". It's a difficult thing to call.

As for a player having to come down in bounds, I'm all for the rule change. It was too much of a judgement call as to whether a player would have come down in bounds or not. Now, he either did come down in bounds or he didn't. It's much cleaner and both teams know it's the rule. There is much less argument.
Heh, thanks for the confirmation. Didn't know you had referee experience; the toilet paper and rotten eggs are on their way to your house even as I type.... :tongue:

It's too often a judgment call, but maybe that's just life. How many times have I wished the NFL had something like the old Cyclops system tennis used to tell us when a ball breaks the plane or goes out of bounds? I've always identified with receivers though, and I liked the old rule, I just would've liked to see it enforced more often, because I'm not kidding: In 30+ years of watching NFL games I saw that call made MAYBE half a dozen times. My impression is that the League did the same thing it did after a Portsmouth Spartans pass from far less than four yards behind the LoS won them a championship: They made what everyone was already doing anyway the official rule. ;)

Still, I've railed at NFL refs as much as anyone (the '94 NFCCG... ugh, and it was the last game my father ever saw his beloved Cowboys play), but try to remember what my best friend always says: As long as the NFL is using part time refs, it can't demand perfection. Personally, I think the obvious solution is to make the best refs full time salaried positions, as career, but I'm not sure how fans would react to being told that ticket prices will increase because neither players nor owners will accept less money but the refs are on salary.

spikerman
11-21-2010, 09:18 AM
Heh, thanks for the confirmation. Didn't know you had referee experience; the toilet paper and rotten eggs are on their way to your house even as I type.... :tongue: hahahahaha... you'll have to get in line!



It's too often a judgment call, but maybe that's just life. How many times have I wished the NFL had something like the old Cyclops system tennis used to tell us when a ball breaks the plane or goes out of bounds? I've always identified with receivers though, and I liked the old rule, I just would've liked to see it enforced more often, because I'm not kidding: In 30+ years of watching NFL games I saw that call made MAYBE half a dozen times. My impression is that the League did the same thing it did after a Portsmouth Spartans pass from far less than four yards behind the LoS won them a championship: They made what everyone was already doing anyway the official rule. ;)

Still, I've railed at NFL refs as much as anyone (the '94 NFCCG... ugh, and it was the last game my father ever saw his beloved Cowboys play), but try to remember what my best friend always says: As long as the NFL is using part time refs, it can't demand perfection. Personally, I think the obvious solution is to make the best refs full time salaried positions, as career, but I'm not sure how fans would react to being told that ticket prices will increase because neither players nor owners will accept less money but the refs are on salary. I definitely understand the frustration. I used to get on the officials as much as anybody before I started doing it. In fact, when I first started I just KNEW that I was going to show those guys how a game should be called. What I found, though, is that it's damn hard. People would be amazed at how much more you can see from the stands (or TV) that you can on the field. Judgement calls are the worst because you have to make a split second decision and inevitibly one team (and one group of fans) is going to think you're the biggest idiot walking.

Now I have a lot more respect and understanding for why and how something is called. It's a really tough job, but it's definitely rewarding.

Sponsored Links