What is a catch?

[Dback Jon]

Jets had a TD reversed based on the "control" issue.

Will try to find clip but sure seemed like a catch to me. Announcers and Dean Blandino seemed to think so as well

 

[WisconsinCard]

Nobody knows

 

[clif]

It moved.

 

[Cardiac]

It moved.

It can move but in this case it moved too. The call could have gone either way IMO.

 

[Dude]

A catch for me is a short brunette with all the right curves.

 

[Jetstream Green]

That thingy Foster did for the win

 

[NMCard]

I thought it was a legitimate touchdown. A momentum shifting change by the officials who feel the need to become part of the game.

 

[Harry]

It’s a shame this is still a question. Take the grab Fitz made on the deflected ball. If that’s ruled a catch on the field it stands, I think. I thought it was a catch. So much has to do with the field impression. This take it to the ground is a stupid interpretation - no sense of history!

 

[daves]

This take it to the ground is a stupid interpretation - no sense of history!

I totally disagree. Doesn't anyone remember all of the controversial plays that were ruled fumbles, when it was obvious that the receiver never really had possession and the ball popped out when he hit the ground?

If you're diving to the ground in the process of making the catch, you can't be said to have possession of the ball unless you continue to hang onto it after hitting the ground - even if you take some rumbling bumbling stumbling steps on the way down. Much better rule than what was in place before.

If the catch wouldn't have been made but for the ball hitting the ground and thus being pushed into the receiver's possession, it's not a catch. If the receiver has his hands or arm under the ball and keeps it from moving even when it touches the ground, that's a catch. Makes sense.

The only legitimate controversy i've seen lately comes from the subjective interpretation of whether the ball moved enough to be considered a bobble or loss of possession when hitting the ground or while the receiver was going out of the field of play. Some of those calls seem to have been too ticky-tacky to me - and since that's subjective, it's tough for the officials to be 100% consistent.

But the last thing we need is to go back to the days where a receiver has the ball in his hands for a moment, then hits the ground, the ball pops out, and it's ruled a "fumble".

Everyone needs to get over this "I don't even know what a catch is any more". The rule is really clear now, and makes sense.

(Harry, i certainly don't mean to single you out with this response - it's something that's been bugging me for a while!)

...dave

 

[Solar7]

@daves, I agree with you. I haven't had much of an issue over the past two years calling whether or not something is a catch. The rules are pretty clear: maintain possession all the way through going to the ground before going out of bounds, or it's not a catch. Simple as that.

There are maybe one or two instances where I was surprised the call went the other way, and that's just football. It's amazing we have the technology and amazing camera angles to even make these calls.

 

[JeffGollin]

Whether it be over a catch or some other issue "up for review" -

The amount of time wasted on official discussions, challenges, reviews etc. are slowing the game down to a mere crawl and IMHO is the main reason for the drop-off in adience ratngs.

If I want to watch a bunch of conferences, I'd rather flip the channel to Judge Judy. When in doubt, flip a freakin' coin and save the wasted minutes.

 

[daves]

If I want to watch a bunch of conferences, I'd rather flip the channel to Judge Judy. When in doubt, flip a freakin' coin and save the wasted minutes.

Uh no, i'd rather see them get it right. The days before instant replay were much worse. The tweaks they've made to instant replay over the years have made it much better - still not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than just having to live with a bad call. Flip a coin to save some time? Why even play the game then, just flip a coin and decide who won.
...dave

 

[Mitch]

The Jets got screwed on a TD call that was reversed...clean catch by the receiver, he landed in bounds, the ball never out of his grasp but moved ever so slightly when he hit the ground as virtually any ball would on impact, but the receiver never bobbled or lost possession of the ball. Even Dean Blandino said there wasn't enough evidence to change the call. Man, I wanted the Jets to beat the Panthers and they were so close. But they made three boneheaded plays at the end which cost them. Dang.

 

[Dback Jon]

The Jets got screwed on a TD call that was reversed...clean catch by the receiver, he landed in bounds, the ball never out of his grasp but moved ever so slightly when he hit the ground as virtually any ball would on impact, but the receiver never bobbled or lost possession of the ball. Even Dean Blandino said there wasn't enough evidence to change the call. Man, I wanted the Jets to beat the Panthers and they were so close. But they made three boneheaded plays at the end which cost them. Dang.

That is the play that inspired this thread.

And boggles my mind they had enough to reverse it.

 

[Big D]

I hate the ones where they whistle the play dead and nothing that happens afterwards counts even though they missed the call in the first place. I know they are instructed to hold off on blowing plays dead as long as possible yet they continue to do it when the ball is still live. Look for the damn ball before you blow the whistle.

That likely cost us a TD on the fumble Dansby recovered and took off running untouched - assuming his old man legs don't give out on him before he crosses the goal line, of course.