Ball breaks plane...touchdown! End. Done. Over.

[TGH-Adfabre]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Sometimes i think the NFL trys to over complicate it. I mean how bad were the calls before the rule changes?
I remember the Renfro's no catch against the steelers in the AFC championship and Butch Johnson's catch against the Broncos in SB 12
but i don't recall just about every great catch being questioned.

They became horrible with the advent of high quality super slow motion cameras that cover almost every angle of a football field. This is not really a rule problem, it is a technology problem.

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by old fat bald guy

Yeah, I'm not saying it's the best of all possible rules. I'd be fine with it if the rule said he established control of the ball by thrusting it over the goal line, but it doesn't. The NFL is a letter-of-the-law kind of organization when it comes to things like this. I suspect the rule is written the way it is to reduce the necessity for judgment as much as possible. It's not always going to be that clear whether a receiver made a "football move," and there are times it's not clear if he's "going to ground," either, but I think "going to ground" is clear more often. And I think it's obvious in this case.

cough, cough, the tuck rule, anybody?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by old fat bald guy

No. "A football move" is a phrase that is no longer in the rule book, because it created confusion. If you are on your way to the ground when you catch the ball, and you lose the ball when you hit the ground, it is an incomplete pass. It doesn't matter if you make a "football move" or a Macarena move while you are falling. You are considered a runner when you are no longer a faller.

James' lunge doesn't affect the call one way or the other. He was falling when he caught it, and he lost it when he fell, so legally, he did not catch the ball. A pass that ends up on the ground without being legally caught is incomplete, whether the receiver is in the end zone, at midfield, or counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike.

This is what I mean. This happened last year and the same rules apply. This was ruled a TD because the WR was considered a runner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALZeQtvdpA

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

This is what I mean. This happened last year and the same rules apply. This was ruled a TD because the WR was considered a runner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALZeQtvdpA

Good example. The NFL will probably say Beasley was more upright and no one probably would think to challenge that because common sense says it is a TD. I don't want judgement calls because that leaves things open for manipulation & takes away consistency. But there has got to be a way to allow for common sense. Again, there is supposed to be conclusive evidence. I don't see conclusive evidence. If it's open to interpretation, then it can't be indisputable. There is no need to change the call if there isn't indisputable evidence.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Good example. The NFL will probably say Beasley was more upright and no one probably would think to challenge that because common sense says it is a TD. I don't want judgement calls because that leaves things open for manipulation & takes away consistency. But there has got to be a way to allow for common sense. Again, there is supposed to be conclusive evidence. I don't see conclusive evidence. If it's open to interpretation, then it can't be indisputable. There is no need to change the call if there isn't indisputable evidence.

My entire argument is that everyone knows what a catch and possession is. I can understand if a WR is diving for a ball and it comes loose when he hits the ground. But when you see clear possession of the ball it has to be a completion. Everything after that is either down by contact or a fumble, not an incompletion.

The Beasley TD and the Pitt non catch TD are not much different. The Pitt WR didn't have to actually fall, he did so to get into the endzone on his own. This is why I brought up a football move that someone said was confusing. It's not confusing to anyone that isn't an idiot. But at the same time there is no reason to even use that terminology. A football move is just another way of saying you have possession of the ball. They need to address this.

[Cobra Mgr]

You compare what James did in comparison to this TD by Byrd last week. Tell me which looks more like a legal catch.

[ForeverRoyalKC]

This probably wont be popular, but I believe the catch is as good as the run.

If a RB leaps up and the ball touches/crosses the goalline and the defense smacks him backwards and/or knocks the ball out of his hands, he already touched/crossed the goalline, it stands as a touchdown. He had the ball, he had control of it in both hands/cradled into his stomach, he hit the goalline, touchdown.

If a WR catches the ball, has it in control in his hands/tucked into his stomach, he hit the goalline, touchdown.

S-i-m-p-l-e. I dont anyone to take me being an a*s, but, simply, if you have full control of the ball as a WR and you touch/cross the line, touchdown. End. Done.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoyalKC

This probably wont be popular, but I believe the catch is as good as the run.

If a RB leaps up and the ball touches/crosses the goalline and the defense smacks him backwards and/or knocks the ball out of his hands, he already touched/crossed the goalline, it stands as a touchdown. He had the ball, he had control of it in both hands/cradled into his stomach, he hit the goalline, touchdown.

If a WR catches the ball, has it in control in his hands/tucked into his stomach, he hit the goalline, touchdown.

S-i-m-p-l-e. I dont anyone to take me being an a*s, but, simply, if you have full control of the ball as a WR and you touch/cross the line, touchdown. End. Done.

You just described how it's been since forever. It's only sometime in the last decade I think did they changed what it means to catch a football.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

You compare what James did in comparison to this TD by Byrd last week. Tell me which looks more like a legal catch.

This vid looks like they could have called him out of bounds.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

This vid looks like they could have called him out of bounds.

I agree. And I'm a die hard Panther fan. I was shocked they called it good. Something is wrong when the rules can say this was a legal catch & James' wasn't.