Control + 2 feet down = a catch.
What the hell was ever wrong with this simple and easy-to-apply definition?
Dean Blandino said:The rule-book definition of time is to have the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. That means you have the ability to ward off or avoid contact by a defender and advance the football.
It's reasonable to say that looks like a catch (so) it should be a catch. But again, it's when you get back to the consistency of the rule ... we're going to ultimately have plays where it looks like a catch but it isn't by rule.
Shut up. Just shut your stupid **** face, Blandino. I don't want to hear you **** up the definition of catch for a sixth ******* time.
Dean Blandummy happened...
Twenty-five hours, eight days a week.
Thirteen months outta year, is when you speak.
I'm tired of listening to the garbage you talk.
Why don't you find a short pier, and take a long walk.
You talk too much, then you never shut up!
I said you talk too much Homeboy, you never SHUT UP!
http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/hqdefault_zpsi4gboleh.jpg
Blandino emphasized that officials will continue to focus on a three-box checklist to validate a catch: control plus two feet down plus "a time element." But what that time element truly constitutes remains hazy.
"It's reasonable to say that looks like a catch (so) it should be a catch," Blandino said. "But again, it's when you get back to the consistency of the rule ... we're going to ultimately have plays where it looks like a catch but it isn't by rule."Continue reading...
adbutcher! Good to see you, brotha!