Thread: Eric Decker Touchdown discussion

Was ED's catch a touchdown? He clearly 'caught' the ball, but dropped it out of bounds after scoring.

The explanation I've heard is that you have to 'complete the catch'. It's unclear to me though for how long you must maintain possession after going out of bounds. Isn't it a touchdown as soon as you break the plane of the goal line?

What if he doesn't drop it right there, but stands up out of bounds and then drops it. Is that incomplete?

Discuss.

I'm going to guess that in the hypothetical situation you propose, that it would indeed be a touchdown. That being said, I thought I saw that he had control and broke the plane. I thought that was what you needed.

******* NFL.

Should have been challenged at least. I thought it was similiar to the Thomas TD from earlier this year and had a fair chance to be overturned. Certainly couldn't been worse than the challenge he threw away last week.

Should have been challenged. The "maintain possession" rule seems to be selectively enforced in different games and enforced differently by various ref crews. To me, the minute the ball crossed the plane and Decker in full control of the ball, it was a TD.

Originally Posted by Mike

Should have been challenged at least. I thought it was similiar to the Thomas TD from earlier this year and had a fair chance to be overturned. Certainly couldn't been worse than the challenge he threw away last week.

Are you talking about the challenge on Justin Blackmon? LOL. What a bone head John Fox is.

That's not a catch anywhere on the field. He never maintained control.

Originally Posted by wayninja

Was ED's catch a touchdown? He clearly 'caught' the ball, but dropped it out of bounds after scoring.

The explanation I've heard is that you have to 'complete the catch'. It's unclear to me though for how long you must maintain possession after going out of bounds. Isn't it a touchdown as soon as you break the plane of the goal line?

What if he doesn't drop it right there, but stands up out of bounds and then drops it. Is that incomplete?

Discuss.

First of all, there is a difference between a runner who has possession of the ball crossing the plane of the goal line....TD as soon as he does. A receiver, on the other hand, has to have possession AND, if in the act of receiving the ball, maintain control thruout the play.


Decker did not appear to have complete control of the ball, hence no score.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

That's not a catch anywhere on the field. He never maintained control.

I wish I could find a replay, but if I remember correctly, he caught the ball and took a few steps, twisted and lunged for the pylon. He only lost control after diving out of bounds.

Originally Posted by wayninja

I wish I could find a replay, but if I remember correctly, he caught the ball and took a few steps, twisted and lunged for the pylon. He only lost control after diving out of bounds.

He took two steps as he was going down. The rule is you have to maintain possession for it to be a catch, which he did not. If he would have brought the ball in instead of trying to reach for the pylon he would have been fine.

Calvin Johnson rule. I think that the play should be over the moment he has the ball in his grasp in the end zone, but the rules committee disagrees and wants him to possess it all the way to the ground.

Originally Posted by wayninja

I wish I could find a replay, but if I remember correctly, he caught the ball and took a few steps, twisted and lunged for the pylon. He only lost control after diving out of bounds.

It seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't a catch. You have to get two feet down, maintain control and then "make a football move." While turning towards the pylon may have been the football move, he didn't maintain control when he went to the ground after just two steps. So no catch. If he holds it for any length of time while on the ground it would have been a catch and maybe a TD.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

It seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't a catch. You have to get two feet down, maintain control and then "make a football move." While turning towards the pylon may have been the football move, he didn't maintain control when he went to the ground after just two steps. So no catch. If he holds it for any length of time while on the ground it would have been a catch and maybe a TD.

As soon as he lost it I knew it was going to be incomplete.

No way this would have been overturned if challenged. It would have just been a wasted challenge and lost time out.

MO and Bojangles have it right. He has to maintain control throughout on his way to the ground. He lost it as soon as it hit the ground.

I can't find video of the catch either, and I'm going off a hazy beer induced memory. To me, the play is two parts. The catch in the field of play has to be followed by a "football move" which was done when he turned to the endzone with two steps. This completes the catch I though. After completing a catch all a player has to do is break the plane of the endzone. When Decker dove to break the endzone the resulting lost ball is secondary after the plane is broken. Had the catch been made in the endzone then control all the way through and to the ground would have been necessary. However, since the football move completed the pass all he had to do was break the plane to ensure a TD.
Am I that far off on my thought?

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

No way this would have been overturned if challenged. It would have just been a wasted challenge and lost time out.

MO and Bojangles have it right. He has to maintain control throughout on his way to the ground. He lost it as soon as it hit the ground.

Yet, the ground cannot cause a fumble in the case of a runner. Seems a little incongruous, on the face of it.