A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.
What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.
If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.
It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.
Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.
Exactly. The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well. It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
The ground causes fumbles all the time.
Alright, alright, alright!
Tom O. "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
Shifting gears, but remaining in the realm of bad rules....
I think the NFL should do away with the fumble out of the end zone as a touchback. It seems silly. Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble makes more sense.
Shifting gears, but remaining in the realm of bad rules....
I think the NFL should do away with the fumble out of the end zone as a touchback. It seems silly. Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble makes more sense.
I also think when a receiver fields a kickoff or punt and steps out of the back of the endzone, it should be a safety. Because that's what it would be on any other ball in play.
A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.
What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.
If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.
It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.
Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.
Exactly. The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well. It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
Well, what I mean is, before, you only needed possession then if you went to the ground and the ground knocks the ball loose, it was still a complete pass. With the current rule, the ground knocking the ball loose causes the pass to be incomplete, thus negating possession of the ball.
A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.
What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.
If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.
It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.
Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.
Exactly. The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well. It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
Well, what I mean is, before, you only needed possession then if you went to the ground and the ground knocks the ball loose, it was still a complete pass. With the current rule, the ground knocking the ball loose causes the pass to be incomplete, thus negating possession of the ball.
Better than before, when the ball couldn’t touch the ground at all.
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,647
Shifting gears, but remaining in the realm of bad rules....
I think the NFL should do away with the fumble out of the end zone as a touchback. It seems silly. Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble makes more sense.
Agree. If the other team doesn't recover it should go back to wherever it was last correctly possessed. Think this ruling is beyond silly.
A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.
What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.
If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
Thing is he never completed the "process" of the catch via the rule book.
It's a dumb rule but the rule none the less.
Remember Calvin Johnson like 7 years ago did something like this and that is when it all started.
Exactly. The current rule negates the old "ground can't cause a fumble" part of a catch that we all grew up with and knew so well. It's dumb, and it goes against everything that was ingrained in us for so long, but it's the rule.
Nope. Gotta be a catch before it’s a fumble. Ground still can’t cause a fumble.
Well, what I mean is, before, you only needed possession then if you went to the ground and the ground knocks the ball loose, it was still a complete pass. With the current rule, the ground knocking the ball loose causes the pass to be incomplete, thus negating possession of the ball.
Better than before, when the ball couldn’t touch the ground at all.
It’s worse than before. Possession used to be called before the player even went to the ground. That’s my point. As long as you had possession of the ball BEFORE going to the ground, it was a catch. Now you have to hold possession through the ground. It’s stupid.
You’ve always had to complete the catch when going to the ground. Allowing the ball to touch the ground, if remaining in control of the ball, is more lenient than it used to be.
This whole nonsense started when they brought in the “football move” terminology.
I don’t know how else to explain, but the point I’m trying to make is the Jesse James play used to be a catch. Never, when I was a kid, would that have been ruled an incomplete pass because the ball moved when he hit the ground AFTER he had already possession. It’s a stupid rule.
I don’t know how else to explain, but the point I’m trying to make is the Jesse James play used to be a catch. Never, when I was a kid, would that have been ruled an incomplete pass because the ball moved when he hit the ground AFTER he had already possession. It’s a stupid rule.
It's a stupid rule. That's a TD in your back yard, that's a TD in high school, that's a TD in college, that's a mother f'ing TD every day of the week.
It hasn’t been a catch as long as I’ve watched football, and certainly not under current rules. You’ve always had to keep hold of the ball when going to the ground.
Watching it full speed it’s hard to make out any kind of football move. People keep pointing to slow mo replays as the problem, but the so called football move is imperceivable at full speed.
I’ve watched a few other catches used as evidence that James’ was a catch and I haven’t seen one that’s less of a catch than his.
I don’t know how else to explain, but the point I’m trying to make is the Jesse James play used to be a catch. Never, when I was a kid, would that have been ruled an incomplete pass because the ball moved when he hit the ground AFTER he had already possession. It’s a stupid rule.
It's a stupid rule. That's a TD in your back yard, that's a TD in high school, that's a TD in college, that's a mother f'ing TD every day of the week.
The "finish the process of a catch" rule is the dumbest rule in football. As soon as a runner "breaks the plain," it's a td and the play is over. So why does the same not apply to a receiver that clearly catches the ball? The ball was clearly caught, with posession, and the ball broke the plain. The play should be over as soon as that occurs.
I have no dog in the fight between Pitt and NE . I don't care who wins or loses. That rule has to be changed. It's decided so many games. Unfortunately, until it affects the outcome of a super bowl, it won't change. As the NFL is a reactionary league.
What Pittsburgh fans should be upset about isn't the "non catch," but the way your 14 year veteran quarterback looked like a scared puppy dog afterwards. I have no problem with him trying to catch the defense off guard on a spike play. But he should have known better than to throw a fucking slant route with 4 defenders right there!! When he saw nothing was open, THROW THE BALL THROUGH THE DAMN UPRIGHTS!! He knows better than to try and be the hero. That's the reason New England has owned Pittsburgh over the past decade and a half..
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
And I also agree with an above poster. Fumbling in the end zone and going out of bounds should not make you lose posession.
Again, anywhere else on the field, you can fumble and if the ball goes out of bounds, the offense keeps the ball at the spot of the fumble. The fact that you can't gain yardage by fumbling forward is all the rule you need. The ball slipped out of Carrs hand and went out of bounds in the end zone. Why should the raiders lose posession? Had the ball slipped out after he broke the plain, the play is over and there's no fumble!! But since he lost the ball on the 2 inch line, they lose possession? Makes zero sense. If nobody recovers, the raiders should have kept the ball at the spot of the fumble.
Rant over
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
You’ve always had to complete the catch when going to the ground. Allowing the ball to touch the ground, if remaining in control of the ball, is more lenient than it used to be.
This whole nonsense started when they brought in the “football move” terminology.
That is not true. The term "completing the process of a catch" has only been a rule for about 8 or 9 years. The first year it was a rule was the Calvin Johnson non td against the bears.
The phrase a football move used to be the standard before "the process..." Nobody could define what a football move was. That's why the process came to be.
Post edited by Degeneratefk on
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.
What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.
If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
If a receiver "takes a few steps" it is a catch, James did not take any steps, turned and immediately went to the ground, big difference.
It hasn’t been a catch as long as I’ve watched football, and certainly not under current rules. You’ve always had to keep hold of the ball when going to the ground.
Watching it full speed it’s hard to make out any kind of football move. People keep pointing to slow mo replays as the problem, but the so called football move is imperceivable at full speed.
I’ve watched a few other catches used as evidence that James’ was a catch and I haven’t seen one that’s less of a catch than his.
So Dewie, this is a catch? No football move, loses control as going to the ground. Ruled a catch by the NFL on replay.
A receiver catches the ball... takes a few steps... makes a football move... crosses the goal line... goes to the ground... and the ball 'moves'. Ruling? Incomplete.
What about the receiver taking a slant... running 30 yards... gets tackled... goes to the ground... and doesn't 'survive the ground' (the ball moves a bit as they hit the turf)? Ultimately... it's the same thing.
If anything... they should have reviewed the play to see if it was a fumble. It was obviously a catch.
If a receiver "takes a few steps" it is a catch, James did not take any steps, turned and immediately went to the ground, big difference.
He caught it without a bobble, took a small step, twisted forward, landed on a knee, wasn't touched, lunged forward extending his arms to cross the plane, crossed the plane, and then the ball touched the ground while secure in his hands as he finished the catch, football move and score.
Crossing the plane means nothing if you have not become a runner.
“ball touched the ground while secure in his hands”???
really?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
It hasn’t been a catch as long as I’ve watched football, and certainly not under current rules. You’ve always had to keep hold of the ball when going to the ground.
Watching it full speed it’s hard to make out any kind of football move. People keep pointing to slow mo replays as the problem, but the so called football move is imperceivable at full speed.
I’ve watched a few other catches used as evidence that James’ was a catch and I haven’t seen one that’s less of a catch than his.
So Dewie, this is a catch? No football move, loses control as going to the ground. Ruled a catch by the NFL on replay.
Some Texans fans will point to the fact that the ball moved when it hit the ground. This does not negate a catch. Cooks clearly still controlled the ball with his hands, despite the ball shifting a little. If he had lost his grasp on the ball, this would have been incomplete. Because he maintains the ball in his possession, a little movement of the ball doesn’t negate the completion.
A note in Rule 8.1.3 states this clearly:
If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
The officials on the field, and the replay team at the NFL offices in New York, all got this right. They just had to work a little harder than usual to do it.
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
It hasn’t been a catch as long as I’ve watched football, and certainly not under current rules. You’ve always had to keep hold of the ball when going to the ground.
Watching it full speed it’s hard to make out any kind of football move. People keep pointing to slow mo replays as the problem, but the so called football move is imperceivable at full speed.
I’ve watched a few other catches used as evidence that James’ was a catch and I haven’t seen one that’s less of a catch than his.
So Dewie, this is a catch? No football move, loses control as going to the ground. Ruled a catch by the NFL on replay.
Some Texans fans will point to the fact that the ball moved when it hit the ground. This does not negate a catch. Cooks clearly still controlled the ball with his hands, despite the ball shifting a little. If he had lost his grasp on the ball, this would have been incomplete. Because he maintains the ball in his possession, a little movement of the ball doesn’t negate the completion.
A note in Rule 8.1.3 states this clearly:
If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
The officials on the field, and the replay team at the NFL offices in New York, all got this right. They just had to work a little harder than usual to do it.
Or, basically, the exact same thing Jesse James did.
...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
LOL Pats fans. Did you watch the Cooks catch? I'm sure you did. I'm sure you ignored the part where he lost the ball while falling to the ground. And the ball hit the ground, while not in his possession. One could argue from your "evidence" above that you can't even tell that the ball is on the ground or on his fingers. James had control of the ball prior to that picture. With two feet down. Just like Cooks. But I'm guessing you will see what benefits your team and not the overall overall picture.
I've already stated that by the law, the league got it right. I'm arguing is it is a stupid rule that needs to be cleared up.
...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
The officials on the field, and the replay team at the NFL offices in New York, all got this right. They just had to work a little harder than usual to do it.
Cooksies was a slight movement that did not cause him to lose control of the ball
James’s did lose control of the ball
Just stating facts
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
The officials on the field, and the replay team at the NFL offices in New York, all got this right. They just had to work a little harder than usual to do it.
Cooksies was a slight movement that did not cause him to lose control of the ball
James’s did lose control of the ball
Just stating facts
LOL
...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
Comments
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
I think the NFL should do away with the fumble out of the end zone as a touchback. It seems silly. Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble makes more sense.
Better than before, when the ball couldn’t touch the ground at all.
This whole nonsense started when they brought in the “football move” terminology.
Watching it full speed it’s hard to make out any kind of football move. People keep pointing to slow mo replays as the problem, but the so called football move is imperceivable at full speed.
I’ve watched a few other catches used as evidence that James’ was a catch and I haven’t seen one that’s less of a catch than his.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I have no dog in the fight between Pitt and NE . I don't care who wins or loses. That rule has to be changed. It's decided so many games. Unfortunately, until it affects the outcome of a super bowl, it won't change. As the NFL is a reactionary league.
What Pittsburgh fans should be upset about isn't the "non catch," but the way your 14 year veteran quarterback looked like a scared puppy dog afterwards. I have no problem with him trying to catch the defense off guard on a spike play. But he should have known better than to throw a fucking slant route with 4 defenders right there!! When he saw nothing was open, THROW THE BALL THROUGH THE DAMN UPRIGHTS!! He knows better than to try and be the hero. That's the reason New England has owned Pittsburgh over the past decade and a half..
we will find a way, we will find our place
Again, anywhere else on the field, you can fumble and if the ball goes out of bounds, the offense keeps the ball at the spot of the fumble. The fact that you can't gain yardage by fumbling forward is all the rule you need. The ball slipped out of Carrs hand and went out of bounds in the end zone. Why should the raiders lose posession? Had the ball slipped out after he broke the plain, the play is over and there's no fumble!! But since he lost the ball on the 2 inch line, they lose possession? Makes zero sense. If nobody recovers, the raiders should have kept the ball at the spot of the fumble.
Rant over
we will find a way, we will find our place
The phrase a football move used to be the standard before "the process..." Nobody could define what a football move was. That's why the process came to be.
we will find a way, we will find our place
If a receiver "takes a few steps" it is a catch, James did not take any steps, turned and immediately went to the ground, big difference.
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/16364372/brandin-cooks-touchdown-catch-rule
“ball touched the ground while secure in his hands”???
really?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Some Texans fans will point to the fact that the ball moved when it hit the ground. This does not negate a catch. Cooks clearly still controlled the ball with his hands, despite the ball shifting a little. If he had lost his grasp on the ball, this would have been incomplete. Because he maintains the ball in his possession, a little movement of the ball doesn’t negate the completion.
A note in Rule 8.1.3 states this clearly:
The officials on the field, and the replay team at the NFL offices in New York, all got this right. They just had to work a little harder than usual to do it.
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I've already stated that by the law, the league got it right. I'm arguing is it is a stupid rule that needs to be cleared up.
Yah. Really.
What did you link in your very next post defending the Cooks catch?
Lol
A note in Rule 8.1.3 states this clearly:
The officials on the field, and the replay team at the NFL offices in New York, all got this right. They just had to work a little harder than usual to do it.
Cooksies was a slight movement that did not cause him to lose control of the ball
James’s did lose control of the ball
Just stating facts
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13