n/s Russell Wilson TD Catch-Was it a catch? (1 Viewer)

[CajunSaint]

In the world of "why are NFL ratings down", because the fact is no one really knows what a catch is anymore. IN the words of Bill Clinton, "depends on what your definition of "is" is?" But why is this a catch? Sure you could argue, he was a runner...but the Dez Bryant 3 step rule still says when going to the ground you still must maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Look, i get the argument for. Common sense says it was a catch. But sadly, the NFL rule book is anything but common sense. So is it a catch? What am i missing here?

Can't-Miss Play: Russell Wilson touchdown catch! - NFL Videos

 

[duckjr78]

Wasn't there a Jordy Nelson catch/no catch play this week as well?

 

[CajunSaint]

Wasn't there a Jordy Nelson catch/no catch play this week as well?

Yes. However, Jordy didnt go to the ground.

But that is certainly up for debate.

 

[SAINTSFAN]

Wasn't there a Jordy Nelson catch/no catch play this week as well?

I was a little surprised that Nelson's was ruled a catch honestly.

 

[LoE]

Sure it's a catch. But I guess it depends on which team is doing the catching.

If, for example, that was a Browns player catching the ball - then no, maybe not a catch. Or if the ball was fumbled by the passer before it left the pocket, and it was Tom Brady, then no, it would just be an incomplete pass.

That's what I can't stand. The subjectivity of it. Common sense takes a back seat - if Boston, Dallas, or Seattle is playing.

 

[St. Geezy]

He secured the ball, two feet down, and made a football move by extending the ball (see Moore, Lance - Super Bowl 44), so it's a catch.

 

[CajunSaint]

Sure it's a catch. But I guess it depends on which team is doing the catching.

If, for example, that was a Browns player catching the ball - then no, maybe not a catch. Or if the ball was fumbled by the passer before it left the pocket, and it was Tom Brady, then no, it would just be an incomplete pass.

That's what I can't stand. The subjectivity of it. Common sense takes a back seat - if Boston, Dallas, or Seattle is playing.

Best explanation yet.

 

[bobad]

Is it still true that the instant you break the plane with control, nothing that happens a even a split second later matters?

 

[CajunSaint]

He secured the ball, two feet down, and made a football move by extending the ball (see Moore, Lance - Super Bowl 44), so it's a catch.

Like this?

Did Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant catch it? - NFL Videos

 

[CajunSaint]

Is it still true that the instant you break the plane with control, nothing that happens a even a split second later matters?

No, see video below.

Calvin Johnson, not a TD - NFL Videos

 

[LoE]

No, see video below.

Calvin Johnson, not a TD - NFL Videos

You nailed it.

Makes me sick to see that again. Disgusting.

 

[St. Geezy]

I personally feel like the whole "must catch it through the ground"/must make a football move thing is what's screwed up the catch rule.

To me, if you make it to where ball in hands + two feet on the ground = catch no matter what, it'll eliminate the gray area on these "is it a catch," "is it not a catch," "is it a catch and fumble" rulings.

 

[DaveXA]

Like this?

Did Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant catch it? - NFL Videos

No, see video below.

Calvin Johnson, not a TD - NFL Videos

Honestly, both of those should be catches. I think once a player gains control, it shouldn't matter what happens when they hit the ground. If they gain control and the ball pops out, then it's a fumble, not an incomplete pass. At least that's how I'd do it. That would simplify things quite a bit. The Bryant catch was very close, but the Johnson catch was clearly one.

 

[CajunSaint]

I personally feel like the whole "must catch it through the ground"/must make a football move thing is what's screwed up the catch rule.

To me, if you make it to where ball in hands + two feet on the ground = catch no matter what, it'll eliminate the gray area on these "is it a catch," "is it not a catch," "is it a catch and fumble" rulings.

Honestly, both of those should be catches. I think once a player gains control, it shouldn't matter what happens when they hit the ground. If they gain control and the ball pops out, then it's a fumble, not an incomplete pass. At least that's how I'd do it. That would simplify things quite a bit. The Bryant catch was very close, but the Johnson catch was clearly one.

I dont disagree with either of you. I guess my whole point here is to show just how stupidly objective everything has become.

I feel like all 3 videos show a catch, but yet only one was ruled a catch.

 

[LoE]

Honestly, both of those should be catches. I think once a player gains control, it shouldn't matter what happens when they hit the ground. If they gain control and the ball pops out, then it's a fumble, not an incomplete pass. At least that's how I'd do it. That would simplify things quite a bit. The Bryant catch was very close, but the Johnson catch was clearly one.

That's the way it used to work.

What happened to the NFL, man? I'm 50 years old, and in my lifetime, I've watched it change from common sense to "Tom Brady Tuck Rule".