Catch Rule on Ceedee Endzone Catch

[817Gill]

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.

 

[Pantone282C]

I interpreted it as his right foot being inbounds, and the sliding out while his left toe hit the ground.

 

[lukemartin79]

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.

Don't worry the NFL will change the rule again after the season then we will all be arguing and confused about what is and what is not a catch again next year, lol- its so insane. Never got over watching Dez make a great catch years ago and them trying to tell me that wasn't a catch, lol.

 

[Nexx]

it would make its so much easier if they would just simplify the rule. if any part of each foot touches in bounds and before either any of either foot touches out of bounds, its a catch.

 

[Runwildboys]

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.

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.

 

[RodeoJake]

After that TD by the Jags today, I'm more confused about what's a catch. I thought it was 2 feet inbounds, not one foot twice.

 

[erod]

After that TD by the Jags today, I'm more confused about what's a catch. I thought it was 2 feet inbounds, not one foot twice.

Side of the foot or ankle is like a knee by rule.

 

[817Gill]

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.

I feel like if any part of your foot touches at anytime it should be counted as a foot down. If it’s simultaneous then it’s OB, but if a part hits in before the rest of the foot I think it should be fine.

For example, if your shin hits in-bounds before the rest your leg does, even if it’s one motion it’s still called a catch. Not sure what makes a part of a leg hold more weight than part of a foot but I feel like it’s inconsistent.

 

[lukemartin79]

it would make its so much easier if they would just simplify the rule. if any part of each foot touches in bounds and before either any of either foot touches out of bounds, its a catch.

You make too much sense, are too clear, and use too much logic for the NFL, lol

 

[aikemirv]

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.

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!!

 

[aikemirv]

it would make its so much easier if they would just simplify the rule. if any part of each foot touches in bounds and before either any of either foot touches out of bounds, its a catch.

How is the rule not simple by the whole foot having to be in bounds-it is the essence of inbounds in any sport with a line and feet being the determining factor of in or out!

 

[aikemirv]

I feel like if any part of your foot touches at anytime it should be counted as a foot down. If it’s simultaneous then it’s OB, but if a part hits in before the rest of the foot I think it should be fine.

For example, if your shin hits in-bounds before the rest your leg does, even if it’s one motion it’s still called a catch. Not sure what makes a part of a leg hold more weight than part of a foot but I feel like it’s inconsistent.

well, then I will just ask a simple question. If a runner is running down the sideline and part of his foot hits the line is he in or out?

 

[nathanlt]

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.

First off, Dez caught it... (I have many people on ignore due their contention that he didn't)

And all I have to say is, that many other incomplete passes would have to be overturned if CeeDee's event had been labeled a catch. If Ceedee had somehow moonwalked that toe out of bounds, it would have been good. Ankle rotation would have made a difference.

CeeDee is an amazing receiver, his one arm catches were impressive on Thanksgiving! That being said, it is at least understandable why so much precedent demonstrates that CD didn't catch that one.

Unlike the Dez catch, in which so much precedent was overturned to take the catch away. The NFL's reputation and credibility is frozen in time at that moment, forever. Dean Blandino should be outed at Fox, he has never officiated a game, and had no credentials of any kind to be telling the NFL what a catch should look like. Certainly not overruling from his perch in NY what the officials on the field determined WAS A CATCH.

 

[nightrain]

What if a receiver catches a pass and sails OOBs with only his testicles grazing the turf on his way out? Is that a catch? Do both testies need to graze the turf? How would they tell?

 

[817Gill]

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!!

If I can drag my toes moving forward and it counts I should be able to touch my toes in moving backwards. Not sure why facing towards the LOS should make a difference.

 

[Runwildboys]

well, then I will just ask a simple question. If a runner is running down the sideline and part of his foot hits the line is he in or out?

Excellent point.

 

[Runwildboys]

What if a receiver catches a pass and sails OOBs with only his testicles grazing the turf on his way out? Is that a catch? Do both testies need to graze the turf? How would they tell?

The rule has always been, if the ball touches in, it's in.

 

[Runwildboys]

If I can drag my toes moving forward and it counts I should be able to touch my toes in moving backwards. Not sure why facing towards the LOS should make a difference.

If he'd dragged his toes out backward without the heel touching, that'd be a TD.

 

[aikemirv]

If I can drag my toes moving forward and it counts I should be able to touch my toes in moving backwards. Not sure why facing towards the LOS should make a difference.

I would bet the interpretation is the same. So if a WR drags his toes backwards over the endline and then after his toes drag across the line the rest of the foot comes down, I would bet the ruling is that he is in. That is not what happened though!

 

[aikemirv]

After that TD by the Jags today, I'm more confused about what's a catch. I thought it was 2 feet inbounds, not one foot twice.

I think that was the shin that made him in.