Thread: Possession of a Catch.

Originally Posted by Joel

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 The League finally addressed the problem this season: They repealed the rule (WRONG solution, IMHO, but at least they aren't just ignoring it anymore).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.

Originally Posted by spikerman

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....

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.

Originally Posted by Joel

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....

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.