At Buffalo Wild Wings they have trivia questions on the TV during football season, based on the current season. Some of the questions are actual recent trivia (who threw for 3 touchdowns last week?) while others are just polls (which of these teams has the best chance of making the playoff, etc).
So last week they had a question about whether the NFL should change its definition of a catch. It was overwhelmingly voted that the present rules were wrong, something like 80%
What happened? Did some critical call involving a catch change a game significantly? I overheard some discussion and it seemed like a catch was ruled a fumble when the player fell and hit the ground. But I thought the ground cannot cause a fumble.
Dennis
Mods, the title should read “catches” not “tackles”.
Over the past few years, there have been several controversial plays regarding the definition of a catch (particularly in the end zone). The NFL has tried, repeatedly, to refine the rules, but the issue continues to be that the fine-tuning of the rule has led to plays which look, to the fan, like an incontrovertible catch, but by the rules, aren’t catches.
This article outlines some of the plays in question:
On average, it happens in every game. What a normal person would call a catch is not necessarily a “NFL catch.” Sometimes the offense wishes it was a catch, but sometimes they prefer it being called a non-catch instead of a catch and a fumble.
I clicked on the video expecting a controversial play, but what I saw was the exact poster-child example of what is never a catch in the NFL, you have to maintain control upon impact with the ground.
The simplest solution to this “problem” is to entirely eliminate Replay as an officiating tool. In the old days, the Zebras were like the blowing snow, hometown crowd or blistering sun: one of those things that the players had to play through. Without slo-mo and 19 angles, some of these “controversial” decisions might turn out better for the fans. And the bad calls, well, those should just be part of the game.
I think replay is good, but limiting it to just challenges would keep things moving and give a team an opportunity to address a bad call that could really alter the game.
So what happened to “The ground cannot cause a fumble” that I remember from back in my NFL watching days?
Is this Steelers ruling just because it was a) in the end zone, b) in the final 2 minutes, or c) the rule has been changed or d) the old rule is just for runs, not pass catches?
Until the catch is completed and the receiver becomes a runner, it can’t be fumbled. All that can happen is an incomplete pass, which can be caused by the ground.
According to the current NFL rule, the receiver did not have “have possession” of the ball. But by any real-world definition, he did. And that is the problem. He caught the pass and had enough control over the ball that he was able to pull it in toward his body, then turn and extend his arms in order to break the plane of the goal line. He “had possession” of the football by any measure *except *the one defined in the NFL’s rulebook.
No, not really. It looked like he did, but the fact that he lost control of it shows otherwise. The actual problem is not the rule itself, or even the way it is applied, but that it appears to viewer to be unfair, inaccurate or arbitrary. They are, after all, providing entertainment and wager-meat, so the game should be accessible and at least apparently fair.
My question is, if the rule ought to be changed, how should it be changed? Some/many fans do not like how it is, but I have yet to hear of a viable replacement rule.
The contradiction is between the notion that the ball becomes dead the instant it breaks the plane of the goal, and the stipulation that control needs to be maintained until contact with the ground. The NFL simply decided that the latter overrides the former.
The one that pissed me off the most was the Calvin Johnson one (0:23 in the linked video above), who caught it in the end zone, landed on his butt, did a full 180 roll, only then losing the ball when his hand holding it hit the ground, and replay said it wasn’t a catch. I then wondered (in an old thread here in point of fact) just how many rolls would suffice to ensure possession (my reductio ad absurdum scenario was him rolling 2 dozen times, losing the ball when it hit the ground, and still no catch). I didn’t, and still don’t, grasp why his butt making contact with the surface wasn’t the final Rubicon in that sequence.
This shite is one reason (all the concussions being the other) that I hardly pay attention to the NFL anymore.
There’s no contradiction there - in both cases, the play is dead when a runner with possession of the ball breaks the plane with the ball. The question is how possession is established.
On a running play, the runner is considered to have possession of the ball as soon as the handoff is made. When there’s a pass that is caught be a runner who then turns upfield and runs, the receiver is considered to have possession when he has control of the ball and has landed two feet in bounds. On a passing play in which the receiver goes to the ground during the act of making a catch, possession is established when the receiver controls the ball, lands two feet (or one knee, butt, etc.) in bounds, and maintains control of the ball such that the ball doesn’t touch the ground throughout the act of falling. If he doesn’t maintain control through the fall, then he’s never considered to have possessed the ball. When a forward pass in nobody’s possession breaks the plane of the plane of the end zone, nothing happens.
It’s a poorly worded rule that results in bad football, but it isn’t inconsistent.
Running back has the ball. He runs untouched for ten yards. Cuts left to avoid a tackler, is still untouched, but loses his footing and falls hard. Ball is knocked loose and rolls away from him. Tackler grabs the loose ball and runs with it.
That would 100% be a fumble caused by the ground. If the back isn’t touched by an opponent he isn’t down when he hits the ground so it’s a live ball. Just one example of the ground causing a fumble.
Heck, a simpler example would be a QB getting the snap, dropping back, tripping over his own feet, falling on the ground and getting the ball knocked loose. Fumble caused by the ground.
Not NFL, but in the Foster Farms Bowl, really?, Purdue, two minutes ago just scored against Arizona with a catch that the player ran for two or three steps and fell on the goal line with said goal line knocking the ball out of the players hands as he planted the ball on the ground. I thought the tip of the ball touched the ground at the one inch line, but the rest of the ball was already over the line. But if you make NFL like college ball, what’s the point?