You don’t need to keep it off the ground, If you first have control of the ball,it can touch the ground as long as it doesn’t come loose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah one of the changes a few years ago was that the ball could touch the ground as long as you had firm control of it and don’t use the ground to secure control or lose control. Prior to that, any touching of the ground in the process of catching could be incomplete.
Yes. James’ problem wasn’t simply that the ball hit the ground - it was that he quite clearly was bobbling the ball as it hit the ground.
I think there can be no doubt whatsoever that the ruling of an incompletion was correct according to the current rules. Whether those rules are optimal is a separate question.
Apparently, one of the NFL’s objectives is that the standards for a valid reception should be the same both in and outside the endzone. So any proposed rule must not include mention of such things as crossing the goal line.
Right, but let’s say that he catches the ball at the 2 and just stands there. Ten seconds later a defender hits him and James falls to the ground, the ball hits the ground and comes out. It’s a complete pass, right?
If the defender hits him 1/2 second later and the same thing happens, it is an incomplete pass. Agreed?
Probably but not necessarily. It depends on if it looks like he fully possessed/controlled the ball in that half second. Again, it’s a purely subjective judgment on the part of the officials.
AIUI, the standard is is not “fully possessed/controlled the ball”. Rather, the official would judge whether the fall to the ground (that resulted in the ball coming loose) was part of the act of catching the ball, or not. If yes, it’s incomplete.
In my lifetime that would have been considered a catch. Every time they “clarify” the rules they get more esoteric to the point that you get the Bert Emmanuel rule, the Calvin Johnson rule, and the Dez Bryant rule, which is a hybrid of the first two.
The bottom line is that what everybody watching the game perceives to be a catch is overturned with game-altering results, and people are getting tired of it.
But what do I know? I’m just a Steelers homer, right? Apparently, so are a significant percentage of NFL fans.
Surviving the ground is only part of the process if the receiver cannot prevent himself from falling to the ground. If you catch the ball and can run with it without falling then than catch is complete. If you dive for a ball, or the act of extending for the ball means your going to fall to the ground, then you have to survive the fall. If you can’t catch the ball without hitting the ground, then you have to maintain control all the way.
By standing up under control, the pass is complete and the receiver has become a runner.
The ground contact component has been there since 1982, that’s 35 years, seems like long enough for everyone to get used to it.
I’ll give you that he had control long enough that there could be an alternate rule in which the play is reasonably considered a catch, meaning you wouldn’t have everyone screaming and crying about a non-catch being allowed.
But I think it’s pretty challenging to allow this one without allowing a bunch that shouldn’t be a catch. Or alternatively, creating a very subjective rule that gets applied differently by different officials.
So, what rule do you think would be better?
Hey, there should just be a rule that if any player touches the ball with a hand or part of a hand, it is a live ball. Watch the fumble count go through the ceiling.
So runner breaks free, running towards end zone, trips,( or is knocked down by defender) as he is falling the first thing to make contact with field is the ball, and it pops loose before any part of runner touched ground,
What is the ruling, if not a fumble?
Fumble.
It’s also a fumble if his non-ball hand hits first and then the ball hits and is knocked loose, because feet and hands are the only body parts that can touch the ground without being considered down.
Yes, I agree. My question was to the poster who stated " in CFB, the ground absolutely cannot cause a fumble"
This actually may be right, in college football when you’re down your down. In the NFL you need to be down by contact so the ground can cause a fumble.
I’ll download the NCAA rulebook and see.
Too late to edit.
ETA: Ground can cause a fumble in college football. Rule 4-1-3b
Anyone watching Philadelphia-Atlanta? Why was that a catch, but James’ not?
Which catch? The first one looked to me like a non-catch. The second one just didn’t look like there was enough evidence to overturn.
The last one near the 2 yard line. Receiver goes to the ground, ball moves…just like James.