The Catch Rule

[phildadon86]

Are you Canadian?

Im Canadian and I take offense to this comment.

 

[AdamJT13]

The ground can't cause a fumble under any circumstance.

It certainly can. "The ground can't cause a fumble" is not in the rule book. It's a made-up phrase used by talking heads, and it doesn't accurately reflect the rule. What they really MEAN when they say that is that a player can't fumble after he's already down (even if only by a fraction of a second). But a player can fumble before he's actually down -- and that CAN include the ground causing a fumble.

 

[JoeKing]

What's ironic about this is the ground can cause a fumble

No, the ground can cause an incompletion for a receiver.

 

[KJJ]

It certainly can. "The ground can't cause a fumble" is not in the rule book. It's a made-up phrase used by talking heads, and it doesn't accurately reflect the rule. What they really MEAN when they say that is that a player can't fumble after he's already down (even if only by a fraction of a second). But a player can fumble before he's actually down -- and that CAN include the ground causing a fumble.

The way it's officiated the ground can't cause a fumble. What they mean by the ground can't cause a fumble is when the ball "contacts the ground" if it comes loose it's not a fumble. The ground itself can't cause a fumble. If a ball carrier is running and stumbles to the ground on their own or is pushed to the ground and loses the ball as it "contacts the ground" that's not a fumble because the ball contacting the ground caused it to come loose.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

The way it's officiated the ground can't cause a fumble. What they mean by the ground can't cause a fumble is when the ball "contacts the ground" if it comes loose it's not a fumble. The ground itself can't cause a fumble. If a ball carrier is running and stumbles to the ground on their own or is pushed to the ground and loses the ball as it "contacts the ground" that's not a fumble because the ball contacting the ground caused it to come loose.

you literally couldn't be more wrong, even your description, describes what any person who knows the rules, would call a live ball. how can a player, stumble on their own, have the ball hit the ground and come lose and it not be a live ball. on what basis are the refs blowing the play dead!? just think about that last part, if it happens inbounds, in the middle of the field, and there is no contact...why would the ref blow the play dead!?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It certainly can. "The ground can't cause a fumble" is not in the rule book. It's a made-up phrase used by talking heads, and it doesn't accurately reflect the rule. What they really MEAN when they say that is that a player can't fumble after he's already down (even if only by a fraction of a second). But a player can fumble before he's actually down -- and that CAN include the ground causing a fumble.

yes, the ground can't cause a fumble most certainly is a.) made up and b.) used to describe the vast majority of times that the player hits the ground, due to contact with another player, and then the ball comes out. very rare, but it can happen.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/23/rg3-blames-stupid-rule-for-his-fumble-it-just-sucks/

RG3 blames “stupid rule” for his fumble: “It just sucks”

 

[KJJ]

you literally couldn't be more wrong, even your description, describes what any person who knows the rules, would call a live ball. how can a player, stumble on their own, have the ball hit the ground and come lose and it not be a live ball. on what basis are the refs blowing the play dead!? just think about that last part, if it happens inbounds, in the middle of the field, and there is no contact...why would the ref blow the play dead!?

We hear it all the time that the ground can't cause a fumble and it's officiated that way. Let me clarify my comment it's a live ball if the ball carrier goes down on their own and loses the ball as it contacts the ground. If a defender pushes the ball carrier to the ground and they lose the ball as it contacts the ground they're down by contact. Dez's catch vs Green Bay would have been ruled down by contact had it been determined he had control of the ball as it came loose as it contacted the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

If a ball carrier is running and stumbles to the ground on their own or is pushed to the ground and loses the ball as it "contacts the ground" that's not a fumble because the ball contacting the ground caused it to come loose.

Good luck finding an example of this.

 

[KJJ]

Good luck finding an example of this.

I clarified it in another post there has to be contact with a defender for the ball to be down by contact if it comes loose when contacting the ground. If the ball carrier goes down on their own and loses the ball when it contacts the ground it's a live ball.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

We hear it all the time that the ground can't cause a fumble and it's officiated that way.

And it's wrong all the time

Let me clarify my comment it's a live ball if the ball carrier goes down on their own and loses the ball as it contacts the ground.

Correct, but not what you said earlier

If a defender pushes the ball carrier to the ground and they lose the ball as it contacts the ground they're down by contact. Dez's catch vs Green Bay would have been ruled down by contact had it been determined he had control of the ball as it came loose as it contacted the ground.

Still wrong on this one.

99% of the time in the above scenario, a knee, elbow, butt, hip, what ever will hit the ground first, before the ball is lose, which is what people mean by the ground can't cause a fumble. It can't in most of those situations, because the player is deemed down. However, and I do admit it's rare, if the ball contacts the ground, prior to a knee, elbow, butt, hip, or whatever, and comes lose, then it's a live ball as well because the ball touching the ground, does not end the play.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I clarified it in another post there has to be contact with a defender for the ball to be down by contact if it comes loose when contacting the ground. If the ball carrier goes down on their own and loses the ball when it contacts the ground it's a live ball.

you didn't clarify, you changed

"If a ball carrier is running and stumbles to the ground on their own or is pushed to the ground and loses the ball as it "contacts the ground" that's not a fumble because the ball contacting the ground caused it to come loose."

But this is where the flaw in your logic is. The ball hitting the ground is not the end of a play. The knee, shin, elbow, hip, butt as well as several other body parts cause a player to be down. There is literally nothing in the rule book to suggest, the ball hitting the ground causes a player to be downed.

 

[KJJ]

And it's wrong all the time

If it's wrong why do they consistently continue to officiate it that way?

Correct, but not what you said earlier

I misspoke earlier and corrected it.

Still wrong on this one.

99% of the time in the above scenario, a knee, elbow, butt, hip, what ever will hit the ground first, before the ball is lose, which is what people mean by the ground can't cause a fumble. It can't in most of those situations, because the player is deemed down. However, and I do admit it's rare, if the ball contacts the ground, prior to a knee, elbow, butt, hip, or whatever, and comes lose, then it's a live ball as well because the ball touching the ground, does not end the play.

You're the one who's still wrong and it's spelled "loose" not lose. It happens from time to time where the ball touches the ground and comes loose before any part of the ball carriers body touches the ground first. It's certainly not as rare a sight as you're trying to make it out to be. You see ball carriers dive for the endzone like Dez did on his no catch and the first thing that touches the ground is the ball in that situation. As for a live ball I already clarified that.

 

[KJJ]

you didn't clarify, you changed

"If a ball carrier is running and stumbles to the ground on their own or is pushed to the ground and loses the ball as it "contacts the ground" that's not a fumble because the ball contacting the ground caused it to come loose."

But this is where the flaw in your logic is. The ball hitting the ground is not the end of a play. The knee, shin, elbow, hip, butt as well as several other body parts cause a player to be down. There is literally nothing in the rule book to suggest, the ball hitting the ground causes a player to be downed.

I changed because I didn't realize I misspoke until it was brought up. I didn't intend to include non contact in the example so it was a clarification that's obviously a live ball and not down by contact. My logic isn't flawed the ball hitting the ground doesn't cause the player to be down if they went down on their own I already clarified that.

 

[lostar2009]

Here's the thing. EVERYBODY knows what a catch looks like. Players, coaches, referees, and fans. We know. This wasn't a problem 30 years ago, and now suddenly it's the biggest issue in the NFL. Leave it up to paste-eating dudes that got stuffed in trash cans growing up to complicate the uncomplicated.

This is all the rule should state: "The ball must be caught and controlled with one foot down, or any body part touching the field. The ground can't cause a fumble; therefore, it can't cause an incompletion either."

That should be it. Use referee judgment from there, and reviews should be much fewer and further in between.

Its the instant replay that is causing issues. It should be catch, 2 feet down, football move, no bobble and the ground can not cause a fumble.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

If it's wrong why do they consistently continue to officiate it that way?

Because they don't know that they are wrong more than likely, but they are wrong none the less.

You're the one who's still wrong and it's spelled "loose" not lose.

Yes, let's criticize spelling to deflect from how wrong you are

It happens from time to time where the ball touches the ground and comes loose before any part of the ball carriers body touches the ground first. It's certainly not as rare a sight as you're trying to make it out to be. You see ball carriers dive for the endzone like Dez did on his no catch and the first thing that touches the ground is the ball in that situation. As for a live ball I already clarified that.

Diving towards the end zone is totally separate in that once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over. However, you are still wrong if you believe a player who comes in contact with a defender is "down" once the ball touches the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

If a ball carrier is running and stumbles to the ground on their own or is pushed to the ground and loses the ball as it "contacts the ground" that's not a fumble.

I didn't intend to include non contact in the example.

When you compare a runner who is "stumbling on his own" to one who "is pushed," you've just included non contact in your example.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

When you compare a runner who is "stumbling on his own" to one who "is pushed," you've just included non contact in your example.

it's quite obvious he intended to say what he did and once I was able to provide an example, he back tracked

 

[KJJ]

it's quite obvious he intended to say what he did and once I was able to provide an example, he back tracked

If I intended to say what I did how come I didn't argue it with you? When I intend to say something and someone refutes it I'll argue with them. As soon as you responded back with my comment and I saw it I immediately realized I misspoke and corrected it. You're just continuing to latch onto it because you're someone who has a bone to pick and saw an opportunity to start an argument. People make inaccurate comments all the time on this board unintentionally and when they're unintentional and are brought to their attention they own up to it and admit they misspoke. Anyone who latches onto something like this post after post after it's already been cleared up and corrected is just making themselves look foolish. You don't know what a fumble is anymore than you know the difference between the words "loose" and "lose." If you want to play that game I'll play it with you.

 

[KJJ]

When you compare a runner who is "stumbling on his own" to one who "is pushed," you've just included non contact in your example.

I already told you I misspoke when I included non contact and corrected it but like the other guy you're continuing to latch onto it because you're still steaming over our debates on the catch rule. lol Only figures you would show up to pounce continuing harping on something that's already been addressed.