WTF is a catch?

[red]

i'm even more confused after todays game as to what the rules are

there were like 4 boarderline catches today, and i got all of them wrong

if you're going out of bounds you still have to maintain possession, right? dude clearly lost the ball going to the ground

refs were horrible overall today, game lasted way too long

[ND72]

Buddy of mine & I had this exact same discussion. NFL rules are so inconsistent its pitiful. If finleys catch was incomplete last week, Johnson's was today as well.

[pbmax]

I understand offside in soccer better than I understand a legal catch in the NFL.

[ND72]

I understand offside in soccer better than I understand a legal catch in the NFL.

Now THAT made me laugh.

[red]

also, what about that one catch by megatron. he caught the ball out of the endzone, reach the ball in while in the air then let the ball go, like .02 seconds after he caught it.

don't you have to maintain that catch? he did not there

[Tarlam!]

I understand offside in soccer better than I understand a legal catch in the NFL.

Oh come on! That is really easy to understand!! When picking out their marital partners in Europe, men will explain this to their future brides as a type of Wonderlic for Women!!!

[MJZiggy]

Oh come on! That is really easy to understand!! When picking out their marital partners in Europe, men will explain this to their future brides as a type of Wonderlic for Women!!!

How can they explain the catch rule to their prospective brides when not even the officials understand it?

[Tarlam!]

How can they explain the catch rule to their prospective brides when not even the officials understand it?

Whew, when I saw you name I thought I was gonna get smacked for my Wonderlic crack. :lol:

The officials understand it, Ziggy, it's just that they all understand it differently!

[pbmax]

Oh come on! That is really easy to understand!! When picking out their marital partners in Europe, men will explain this to their future brides as a type of Wonderlic for Women!!!

In America that test would be the infield fly rule. But unlike football, that baseball rule doesn't change after every TV timeout.

[StPaulPackFan]

The NFL has been dicking around with the catch parameters for far too long in an attempt to cover extreme end cases. As far as I can tell the only rule change in recent history that actually improved the definition of a catch was getting rid of the "force out". IMHO, the NFL would avoid alot of headaches if they changed the parameters of a "catch" to the following:

1. Two feet, one knee or one elbow down in bounds with secured possession (no ball movement).
2. Ball cannot touch the ground before parameter 1 is satisfied.
3. The first two parameters apply to the entire field. No special rules for the end zone.

I believe all three of these parameters are consistent and they leave very little room for individual interpretation. Plus, we won't need a decoder ring to figure out if a ball is actually caught or not. More importantly, neither will the refs.

[pbmax]

I agree, I like the elimination of the force out rule. But I also like the Bert Emanuel rule (I think from a Tampa v St. Louis playoff game), where while landing and rolling over, the ball did tough the ground but never moved or came loose from Emanuel's grip. That is what started all this non-sense. It got very complicated and then, to help the refs, the came up with control ball while completing catch to the ground stuff. It helped eliminate "football move" and trying to determine in slow motion when control was decisive established.

The problem with the end zone is that a throw IN there is in no one's possession. So you need to both get the ball over the goal line AND establish possession. A player who runs into the endzone already HAS possession.