Catch Rule on Ceedee Endzone Catch

[conner01]

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.

Not likely
This rule is different that a definition of a catch scenario
Iota really about a step
If your entire foot comes down then the entire foot has to be in
In the case of a toe drag the heel never touches so it can’t be out of bounds. That’s not a step
The rule is not a new rule and there never was any question once it was reviewed and you could see the heel landed out of bounds

 

[817Gill]

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!

I believe moving backwards requires a heel as well as toes. That’s why I think it’s stupid if you only need toes moving forward. If that’s not the case then I do not feel that way.

 

[Silverz1972]

The toe hit first before the heal. It should have been a td.

 

[Reality]

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.

My guess is they made the rule like that because without it then a lot of catches would become problematic to rule on when the toes and heel hit around the same time because coaches, players and fans would argue the toes touched a fraction of a second before the heel every time for players on their team.

The way receiver coaches should prepare players for it is to teach them to focus as hard as possible on falling forward out of bounds rather than backwards. I know that can be difficult in some situations, but if practiced enough, I am sure it would become more second nature to players.

 

[aikemirv]

I believe moving backwards requires a heel as well as toes. That’s why I think it’s stupid if you only need toes moving forward. If that’s not the case then I do not feel that way.

I am not saying I am positive but I do believe the interpretation would be in as longs as his toes drag across the end line before the heels come down. It is just a very rare thing as it would be really hard to do. It is hard to have the momentum to slide backwards unless you would be running backwards.

 

[jazzcat22]

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.

 

[Reality]

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.

 

[DandyDon52]

it was a catch, but it was just out of bounds !

 

[shabazz]

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.

Thanks for the clarification…..it’s just not logical, though.

 

[MarcusRock]

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

Lol. Thus ensuring your echo chamber and refusing to learn anything. The equivalent of plugging your ears and screaming "la, la, la, I cant hear you." Great life philosophy.

 

[Established1971]

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 dont even think the rule is stupid. This was not a toe tap, it was a foot coming down and it didnt come down in bounds. This is cut and dry, simple to understand. It wasnt a touchdown.

 

[Established1971]

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.

but he didnt drag his toe and then take a step afterwards, he was placing down his foot and it begin with the front of his foot and ended with the back of his foot. It isnt a tap. When you tap your feet you then lift it again and place your foot down as a different move afterwards

 

[Runwildboys]

My guess is they made the rule like that because without it then a lot of catches would become problematic to rule on when the toes and heel hit around the same time because coaches, players and fans would argue the toes touched a fraction of a second before the heel every time for players on their team.

The way receiver coaches should prepare players for it is to teach them to focus as hard as possible on falling forward out of bounds rather than backwards. I know that can be difficult in some situations, but if practiced enough, I am sure it would become more second nature to players.

I think it would be easier to lift your foot up once your toes touch, if you aren't sure about where the line is.

 

[Reality]

I think it would be easier to lift your foot up once your toes touch, if you aren't sure about where the line is.

Most of the time these calls come into question is when the player is falling or leaning backwards though, not just toe-tapping their feet.

 

[Runwildboys]

Most of the time these calls come into question is when the player is falling or leaning backwards though, not just toe-tapping their feet.

Right, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible to twist and fall forward, IMO. It would also be difficult to lift your feet up, but less so, I think.

 

[Reality]

Right, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible to twist and fall forward, IMO. It would also be difficult to lift your feet up, but less so, I think.

That's why I say the receivers coaches should change how they teach it with a focus on better positioning until it becomes second nature.

In college for example, players are taught body positioning to get one foot down and they have to learn to get two feet down in the NFL.

It is easy to say, "well just put two feet down instead of one" but the body positioning, angles, etc. have to change not just the "add a second foot" part.

Of course sometimes it is not possible to do, and I am not saying that Lamb could have done a quick twist motion to get righted.

That was my point though. If the focus had been on him positioning his body better, he might (no guarantee of course as it is not possible every time) have been able to change his body angle slightly before the catch so when he made the catch he could have just put a toe down instead of falling backwards and the heel naturally landing.

To be clear, I am not blaming Lamb for this nor am I saying he played it wrong. I am just suggesting that given that the rule is if the toe-heel touch is in one motion both must be in bounds it might be better to attempt to reduce the chances of that toe-heel becoming a factor ahead of time when possible.

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

the rule is already that simple. It just says if any part hits out of bounds it’s incomplete. Lol, that’s literally what you’re asking for just the inverse.

 

[Nexx]

the rule is already that simple. It just says if any part hits out of bounds it’s incomplete. Lol, that’s literally what you’re asking for just the inverse.

so when your dragging your toes and toes drag from inbounds to out of bounds its ok but if your toe hits the ground first but then the heel comes down its incomplete... please explain that to me.

 

[buybuydandavis]

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

Well that's weird. Suppose it depends on just what "side of the foot is", but getting a side of one foot down would seem to be easier than getting both feet in sometimes. Just picturing a guy diving outside but with his shoulders turned back toward the QB instead of out of bounds or toward the ground.
Perfect for that GB sideline pass play.

But still, seems like just another dumb rule to make an except to the "both feet inbounds" rule.

 

[Runwildboys]

That's why I say the receivers coaches should change how they teach it with a focus on better positioning until it becomes second nature.

In college for example, players are taught body positioning to get one foot down and they have to learn to get two feet down in the NFL.

It is easy to say, "well just put two feet down instead of one" but the body positioning, angles, etc. have to change not just the "add a second foot" part.

Of course sometimes it is not possible to do, and I am not saying that Lamb could have done a quick twist motion to get righted.

That was my point though. If the focus had been on him positioning his body better, he might (no guarantee of course as it is not possible every time) have been able to change his body angle slightly before the catch so when he made the catch he could have just put a toe down instead of falling backwards and the heel naturally landing.

To be clear, I am not blaming Lamb for this nor am I saying he played it wrong. I am just suggesting that given that the rule is if the toe-heel touch is in one motion both must be in bounds it might be better to attempt to reduce the chances of that toe-heel becoming a factor ahead of time when possible.

I guess the easiest would be to stay a little father from the line.