PDA

View Full Version : What is a catch anymore?



Iron Shiek
11-06-2011, 11:35 PM
I don't see any difference between that upheld catch by Dickson and the stupid Calvin Johnson play. The ball hits the ground...

D Rock
11-06-2011, 11:38 PM
The NFL sucks. I'm switching to hockey.

frenchie
11-06-2011, 11:39 PM
We are getting homed at home....

SteelBucks
11-07-2011, 01:04 AM
What's a penalty anymore?

Steel Life
11-07-2011, 01:55 AM
I think the only answer that one could guess is - no one...not even the Refs. That ball hit the turf 3 times & was constantly moving...incredible!

papillon
11-07-2011, 06:29 AM
The NFL sucks. I'm switching to hockey.

D Rock, I made that switch a long many years ago. Between the new rules and the arbitrary application of them and the interminable number of commercials if the Steelers aren't playing I can't watch football, unless, it's the playoffs and, even then, if I have something else to do, I go and do it.

It is getting more and more difficult to watch an NFL football game these days. Last night's arbitrary application of PI and defensive holding, helmet to helmet and what is a catch and what isn't a catch is far too random for me.

Pappy

D Rock
11-07-2011, 08:57 AM
I hear ya Pappy. That is the first time I've ever been turned off by the arbitrary rulings to the point of boredom while watching what should have been an exciting and close football game.

Ghost
11-07-2011, 10:30 AM
Do you guys sit there and wonder - what the hell is the replay ref watching? How can we watch the replays, have Chris Collinsworth point out the ball hitting the ground multiple times and comment how it shoud be overturned, and then the ref comes out with - 'play stands as called - catch'?

I love watching College football but it has gotten increasingly difficult to watch the NFL outside of the black and gold. It appears as if the refs are just making stuff up. And not even game to game - call to call they can't stay consistent.

hawaiiansteel
11-07-2011, 08:09 PM
Steelers-Ravens thoughts II

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2011
posted by Dale Lolley

I apparently no longer know what constitutes a catch in the NFL.

Ward caught the ball, got hit in the head by Lewis, yet went to the ground with the ball in his possession. Once he landed, the ball was knocked loose by a defender's behind.

Ward was already flat on his back when the ball finally came loose, or at least that's the way I saw it from the replays I viewed.

http://nflfromthesidelines.blogspot.com ... ts-ii.html (http://nflfromthesidelines.blogspot.com/2011/11/steelers-ravens-thoughts-ii.html)

DukieBoy
11-07-2011, 08:22 PM
That Dickson "catch" was no catch at all. The refs must not have watched the replay angles after Tomlin challenged. Even a blind squirrel would have found that acorn.

Steel Life
11-08-2011, 01:14 AM
Despite that we all agree it was a BS call...there will be some here who will criticize Tomlinson for challenging it. I hope to get some explanation from the NFL or at least Mike Pierra on Fox Sports as to why one was a catch & the other wasn't.

Dee Dub
11-08-2011, 06:51 PM
I know this is going to sound crazy, and I for one can't stand it, but the rule now is that the ball can actually hit the ground as long as the receiver has control of it. In fact during the game Collinsworth and Michaels alluded to this several times. it makes no sense. How can it be catch if the ball touches the ground at any point? :HeadBanger

DukieBoy
11-08-2011, 08:28 PM
I know this is going to sound crazy, and I for one can't stand it, but the rule now is that the ball can actually hit the ground as long as the receiver has control of it. In fact during the game Collinsworth and Michaels alluded to this several times. it makes no sense. How can it be catch if the ball touches the ground at any point? :HeadBanger

But if the receiver catches the ball, takes a helmet-to-helmet shot, goes down onto his back cradling the ball which never touched the ground and then some other opponent late-hits his defenseless body and knocks the ball out, then it is "no catch". :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger

NJ-STEELER
11-08-2011, 09:26 PM
I know this is going to sound crazy, and I for one can't stand it, but the rule now is that the ball can actually hit the ground as long as the receiver has control of it. In fact during the game Collinsworth and Michaels alluded to this several times. it makes no sense. How can it be catch if the ball touches the ground at any point? :HeadBanger

im gonna guess they didnt have enuff evidence to overturn dickson's catch.

like u said, it could hit the ground as long as the player controls the ball. it did look like he lost control of it at 1 point though. ifthey ruled that a non catch at the time, it wouldnt have been reversed for the same reason.

RE: hines catch.. i didnt think that was a catch from the start. was actually a lil surprised they marked the ball where he got hit. though we got away with obne for a second.
basically if your going to the ground, you have to get up with the ball. if it comes loose at any point...its not a catch

we've seen a worse example of this a few years ago when tone caught at pass at the 3 ran and tried to stretch the ball into the end zone. the ball came out of his hands at the goal line and when they went to replay, they ruled it No catch

Northern_Blitz
11-08-2011, 10:07 PM
I don't get how the rule is hard to understand.

If you're getting hit while catching the ball, you need to maintain posession when you go to the ground.

If you get posession and then get hit, the play ends when you hit the ground (so if you drop it afterwards it's OK). At that point, a WR is just like a RB.

Hines got hit while catching the ball. He didn't not have posession before he went to ground, so he had to maintain posession and he didn't. This rule is a million times better than the "football move" rule that it replaced. I never heard a clear discription of what a "football move" was in several years of that rules existance.

This is a good rule IMO. It means that the D has the opportunity to dislodge the ball with a good hit (or at least they would if you were still allowed to hit receivers). I used to hate when a WR would get two hands on a ball in the EZ, get two feet down, then get lit up and drop the ball but still put up 6 points. That play is no longer a TD (or catch) and I think the game is better for it. One of the very few rule changes that benifits the D.