Catch Rule on Ceedee Endzone Catch

[Proof]

Policing fans? Nah, that's y'all's thing in trying to define how a "proper fan" is supposed to fan for their team including espousing slant and lies to do it. It's as he said in calling out whiny batches trying to manufacture any excuse for why the Cowboys are victims. When people present evidence of that not being the case then they get all mad. Why do they care? Again, we're just posting like they are. Unless they're upset they can't overcome what's posted. Not my problem. It's revealing more than anything else. Maybe they should carry on like the rest. Less stress.

yeah y'all act like hall monitors. all good though, if you like it i love it.

 

[john van brocklin]

STEP ASIDE I HAVE THE ANSWER

Yes you do!!!!

 

[G2]

I disagree that it's a bad rule. The toes are part of the foot, therefore if any part of the foot lands OB, it's out. Now, if the toes were to drag OB before the heel came down, I'd say that's a catch.

But both feet will end up out of bounds even if you toe-touch. It takes away how athletic a catch it really was. That's what is inconsistent about the rule. Like many other rules they overcompensate.

 

[Tommy]

Why is it a terrible rule that the whole foot needs to be in bounds. I do not see any logic in that being terrible!!

I don't understand this confusion either. Has there every been a time through any rule change that this play was considered a catch? This rule has been consistent for at least 50 years.

 

[MarcusRock]

yeah y'all act like hall monitors. all good though, if you like it i love it.

No, hall monitor is, "You posted this thread in the wrong forum!!!" I just give counter-opinions that others don't like. 'Tis life.

 

[nathanlt]

I don't understand this confusion either. Has there every been a time through any rule change that this play was considered a catch? This rule has been consistent for at least 50 years.

There would be a firestorm if precedent was overturned to benefit the Cowboys. Definitely not a catch, but CeeDee will make up for it in future games.

 

[Swanny]

College rule is so much better and allows for more spectacular catches.

 

[TwentyOne]

I’ve seen people continue to argue back and forth that this was a catch. The rule is stupid, but by definition it was not a catch. Posting the rule below:

“Scenario: A player is facing towards the LOS/QB and moving backwards to make the catch at the out of bounds line. They get their toes down, but their heel continues down and hits out of bounds. No, this is not a dragging the toes scenario.

Ruling: It's incomplete. It's not the same as "dragging" the toes. It would be ruled as finishing a step.”

Here is the same scenario, but in reverse. Heel hit in bounds. Toes hit out of bounds -

Rule book -

https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2021 - Rule Book Case Book.pdf

>A.R. 15.104 Heel/toe

>Third-and-10 on A30. A2 controls a pass and gets his left foot down in bounds at the 50. As his right foot comes down, the heel hits in bounds and in the normal motion of taking a step, his toes hit out of bounds. Officials rule complete. Ruling: Reviewable. A’s ball fourth-and-10 on A30. Incomplete. Adjust clock if wound before review. If any part of the foot hits out of bounds during the normal process of taking a step (no drag or delay), then the foot is out of bounds.

Again, terrible rule but still a no-catch by definition.

Can you explain why you think its a terrible or stupid rule.

Because i dont think so. To me its logical in this situation that the receiver has to be able to put his heel also in bounds.

The logic behind it to me is the question: if the receiver would make a football move in the open field how would he do this with the momentum he has? And when a receiver is running forward making a catch he could run further only on his toes/ball of feet. This is also the way how you run when you sprint. But when you go backwards then you have to come down on your heels before you are able to turn and sprint forward.

Again the primary question is about the (following) football move and the receivers momentum after the catch. Thats from where the difference in the rule comes from.

 

[G2]

Can you explain why you think its a terrible or stupid rule.

Because i dont think so. To me its logical in this situation that the receiver has to be able to put his heel also in bounds.

The logic behind it to me is the question: if the receiver would make a football move in the open field how would he do this with the momentum he has? And when a receiver is running forward making a catch he could run further only on his toes/ball of feet. This is also the way how you run when you sprint. But when you go backwards then you have to come down on your heels before you are able to turn and sprint forward.

Again the primary question is about the (following) football move and the receivers momentum after the catch. Thats from where the difference in the rule comes from.

If just touching your toes is a TD facing out of bounds, the opposite should also be a catch. They should give it to the WR for the level of difficulty.

 

[TwentyOne]

If just touching your toes is a TD facing out of bounds, the opposite should also be a catch. They should give it to the WR for the level of difficulty.

Did you read my reasons ?

Level of difficulty isnt a proper way to implement a rule. It is very subjective.

 

[Runwildboys]

If just touching your toes is a TD facing out of bounds, the opposite should also be a catch. They should give it to the WR for the level of difficulty.

But when facing OB, no part of their foot touches the line. Every receiver knows how big his own foot is, and they know where the line is. If the ball is thrown too far or too high to catch it and get the whole foot down, that's on the QB, not the rules.

 

[G2]

Did you read my reasons ?

Level of difficulty isnt a proper way to implement a rule. It is very subjective.

Proper? Lol. Just giving my opinion. Sorry if that's an issue.
It's currently a stupid rule. But, like many they overcompensate and muddy the waters.
Considering a player has ball control, two seperate parts of your body should be a catch.

 

[G2]

But when facing OB, no part of their foot touches the line. Every receiver knows how big his own foot is, and they know where the line is. If the ball is thrown too far or too high to catch it and get the whole foot down, that's on the QB, not the rules.

I've seen the foot touch out of bounds a bazillion times. Like, when a WR drags their toes.

 

[Runwildboys]

I've seen the foot touch out of bounds a bazillion times. Like, when a WR drags their toes.

Yes, after the toes drag all the way OB. I've seen a lot of guys running up the sideline and just the very edge of their foot goes out, and I've never heard anyone say that should be in.

 

[G2]

Yes, after the toes drag all the way OB. I've seen a lot of guys running up the sideline and just the very edge of their foot goes out, and I've never heard anyone say that should be in.

That's not the same thing. Ceedee wasn't running up the sideline. He was in the air and two body parts touched the endzone. It shouldn't matter which way he's facing. If it's the whole foot, then fine. That would be pretty clear. But because he was facing a different direction? I don't like it. Especially when other single body parts can constitute a TD.

 

[Runwildboys]

That's not the same thing. Ceedee wasn't running up the sideline. He was in the air and two body parts touched the endzone. It shouldn't matter which way he's facing. If it's the whole foot, then fine. That would be pretty clear. But because he was facing a different direction? I don't like it. Especially when other single body parts can constitute a TD.

It is the whole foot. If only part of the foot touches, that's fine, but if the whole thing comes down, the whole thing needs to be in bounds. If he was facing the other way, and the heel came down in but the toes landed out, it wouldn't count either.

 

[G2]

It is the whole foot. If only part of the foot touches, that's fine, but if the whole thing comes down, the whole thing needs to be in bounds. If he was facing the other way, and the heel came down in but the toes landed out, it wouldn't count either.

It's not the whole foot if you're facing out of bounds and you drag your toes. It's the whole foot if you're turned around. Or probably every other scenario, like the sideline you mentioned.

 

[Runwildboys]

It's not the whole foot if you're facing out of bounds and you drag your toes. It's the whole foot if you're turned around. Or probably every other scenario, like the sideline you mentioned.

A toe drag is the as if you slid OB on your head. Lol

 

[Blackrain]

Remember a game against NYG and Dallas was like 17 points down in the 4th quarter. Dallas got what seemed Ike the go ahead and possibly winning TD.

Dez made a fantastic catch at the back of the end zone. But his pinky finger hit slightly out of bounds while the rest of his hand and body landed in bounds.

Replay said out of bounds…which really was the right call….I do not remember the call on the field, I think a TD was called.
Man I wonder what it was like on here for that.

Geez I'll never forget that he was trying to break his fall with his right hand he should have just had it wrapped around the ball and let his behind hit first and it would have been a touchdown

 

[MarcusRock]

Geez I'll never forget that he was trying to break his fall with his right hand he should have just had it wrapped around the ball and let his behind hit first and it would have been a touchdown

Dez was literally inches away several times from multiplying his Cowboys lore threefold at least. The fingers OOB and letting the ball touch the ground in Green Bay.