Catch Rule on Ceedee Endzone Catch

[Fritsch_the_cat]

There's already a 20+ page thread about this, no minds were changed.

 

[Runwildboys]

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.

On a toe drag, there's only green between the feet and the OB line, so the body is independent of the line. If the heel is down on the line, it's OB, because the toes and heel are part of the foot. Maybe they should make it so that they can't drag the toes OB, they have to lift them up before touching the line. That would get rid of any question.

 

[Captain-Crash]

yep, the refs cost us the game, with that one call we could have won.

 

[Reality]

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

True

 

[buybuydandavis]

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.

Did that look like a "normal part of taking a step to you"? Looked more like a toe tap to me. There was no "step" being taken.

AR 15.103 is closer to the actual events than 104. 103 is toe/heel, and *not* taking a step. 104 is heel/toe, and taking a step.

Since players toe tap all the time, unless there is *another* section that specifically deals with toe taps, Scenario 103 should apply. TD.

The problem with most people quoting rules is that they *leave out* the part of the rules that shows why they're wrong.

Same thing happened with the Dez UnCatch. Everyone who wants to say it *wasn't* a catch leaves out the rules about what constitutes a *completed* catch. If the pass was already completed prior to contacting the ground it doesn't matter if your center of mass had been lowering for the previous hour.

A.R. 15.103 Foot drag, pass complete 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, he drags his toes inbounds and then the foot hits out of bounds. Officials rule incomplete. Ruling: Reviewable. A’s ball first-and-10 on 50. Completed pass.

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.

 

[buybuydandavis]

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.

In that case the pinky hit out of bounds *before* his rear hit inbounds. It was the right call.

 

[buybuydandavis]

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.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense, but that's because they're applying the wrong scenario.
It should be 103.
TD.

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

Ummm, yeah. That’s how the rule works. Good to see you’re finally catching on.

 

[MarcusRock]

Same thing happened with the Dez UnCatch. Everyone who wants to say it *wasn't* a catch leaves out the rules about what constitutes a *completed* catch. If the pass was already completed prior to contacting the ground it doesn't matter if your center of mass had been lowering for the previous hour.

In those days you were deemed upright or going to the ground first. If upright, then you could perform the basic 3 parts of a catch. If deemed going to the ground, you had to fulfill the requirement to possess the ball all the way through and after contacting the ground. It's the latter that catch theorists want to leave out because it overwhelmingly confirms it wasn't a catch because we all saw the ball come out of Dez' possession. NOW, you can perform the 3-part upright rules on the way down to the ground (e.g., by taking 3 steps). THEN, you could not. If you were deemed going to the ground you had to satisfy THOSE catch requirements, period. Non-catch folks know BOTH these sets of rules. All those things people want to say Dez did to try to legislate for an "upright" catch meant squat when deemed going to the ground, and Dez was. Pereira broke it down here and mentions Dez.

 

[john van brocklin]

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.

Agreed
And hopefully this thread does not go another 20 pages, llooll

 

[dcstar]

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.

That is called common sense which is in very short supply these days.

Go Cowboys!

 

[Sydla]

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

Not by rule. You may not like the rule but the refs called it correctly.

 

[AsthmaField]

If any part of the foot comes down out of bounds then no catch.

His heel was out.

 

[Hawkeye19]

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

Yep. Exactly what I saw as well. If the heel went down before the second foot touched down— I can see no catch.

But right toe down, left toe down, left heel out should be a catch. They will probably change the rule in the offseason because 42 million people saw it lol

 

[blueblood70]

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.

the confusion is from the rule is different for in field sideline plays, thats a catch on a sideline in the field of play.

 

[CowboyRoy]

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.

yah, but if I remember correctly his toe hits first and then the toe comes off the ground and then the heel hits out of bounds. So for me, that is a toe drag moment. Once the toe hits and comes off the turf, its a catch. If the toe hits and then the heel completes the foot touch that is different.

 

[Sydla]

yah, but if I remember correctly his toe hits first and then the toe comes off the ground and then the heel hits out of bounds. So for me, that is a toe drag moment. Once the toe hits and comes off the turf, its a catch. If the toe hits and then the heel completes the foot touch that is different.

It never comes off the turf. His left toe hits and then the foot continues down to where the heel hits out of bounds.

The more you watch the replay, it's definitely not a TD. His right toe hits and his foot continues in what is a step (granted falling backwards step). By rule, that's out of bounds.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It never comes off the turf. His left toe hits and then the foot continues down to where the heel hits out of bounds.

The more you watch the replay, it's definitely not a TD. His right toe hits and his foot continues in what is a step (granted falling backwards step). By rule, that's out of bounds.

Ok, so if his toe doesnt come off, then yah, its not a catch.

 

[TequilaCowboy]

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.

Or just make it like the college rules....at least one foot, one knee, one butt, in bounds. LOL.... with control of the football... That is the simplest way. No IFS, ANDS, OR BUTTS......

 

[GORICO]

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.

total agreement terrible rule.....but ...but...its the rule as it stands today...NFL has screwed the pooch on NFL "catch"....when you take easy obvious things and complicate them its hard to come back....just the way

humans are....we all say and try to do or get better but in reality ...we dont.....lets just own up to it and face it....we are not near as good as we think we are....we need help....its good when people help one another