What are the rules?

[links18]

Watching the Pack-Viking game last night. In the 3rd quarter, Shiancoe for the Vikes caught a pass, got both feet down, took a hit, went to the ground and once he went to the ground the ball came out. It was ruled incomplete on the field, the Vikes challenged and the call was upheld. However, Jaws, Shirico and Kornheiser all thought it was going to be ruled a catch because the ground can't cause a fumble. Reminded me of the Moss play last Thursday, where he was clearly not down, but the refs made the wrong call.

Point is, does anyone know the rules anymore? If the ground can't cause a fumble, why does the receiver have to possess the ball all the way to the ground if he gets both feet down? If he gets both feet down (Shiancoe did) and goes to the ground and the ball pops out is it incomplete, a fumble or a catch and down by contact?

 

[Hostile]

You have to maintain control of the ball and either get both feet down, or one knee or elbow. The ground cannot cause the fumble.

 

[joseephuss]

The ground did not cause a fumble, it caused an incompletion. The receiver has to maintain control of the ball the whole time when pushed out of bounds and going to the ground.

 

[links18]

The ground did not cause a fumble, it caused an incompletion. The receiver has to maintain control of the ball the whole time when pushed out of bounds and going to the ground.

Was there was a change in the rules that as long as you get both feet down with possession then it is a catch at that point, no longer need to "make a football move with it"?

 

[burmafrd]

Its supposed to be all about how you are holding the ball. It must not be moving in your hands- juggling, etc. You have to CONTROL the ball.

 

[Hostile]

Was there was a change in the rules that as long as you get both feet down with possession then it is a catch at that point, no longer need to "make a football move with it"?

No, you still have to maintain control of the ball. It cannot be moving like you are scrambling to hang onto it.

 

[aikemirv]

Its supposed to be all about how you are holding the ball. It must not be moving in your hands- juggling, etc. You have to CONTROL the ball.

Stupid officials and stupid NFL. A WR does not have to maintain control when he hits the ground if he has control on his feet.

That is just the most idiotic bunch of junk I have seen. That guy had possesion,control and two feet down and then got hit hard and maintained control until his elbow hit the ground and disloged the ball.


That was plain and simple a completed catch and a misinterpretation of the WR has to maintain possesion of the ball when hitting the ground. How many stupid steps does he have to take you bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[aikemirv]

No, you still have to maintain control of the ball. It cannot be moving like you are scrambling to hang onto it.

How long????????????????????????????

 

[links18]

Stupid officials and stupid NFL. A WR does not have to maintain control when he hits the ground if he has control on his feet.

That is just the most idiotic bunch of junk I have seen. That guy had possesion,control and two feet down and then got hit hard and maintained control until his elbow hit the ground and disloged the ball.


That was plain and simple a completed catch and a misinterpretation of the WR has to maintain possesion of the ball when hitting the ground. How many stupid steps does he have to take you bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

Well, I think you are right: nobody knows the rules anymore, not even the refs. Then again I have met cops, lawyers and judges who do not understand certain parts of the law very well either.

 

[AdamJT13]

Stupid officials and stupid NFL. A WR does not have to maintain control when he hits the ground if he has control on his feet.

I didn't see the play, but if he was still in the process of establishing possession, he has to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. It doesn't matter if both feet touched the ground first.

 

[aikemirv]

I didn't see the play, but if he was still in the process of establishing possession, he has to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. It doesn't matter if both feet touched the ground first.

He had complete control from the second the ball hit his hands. There was no bobling or readjusting the ball in his hands.

They need to go back to the simple two feet and control. What was so wrong with that??

 

[links18]

I didn't see the play, but if he was still in the process of establishing possession, he has to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. It doesn't matter if both feet touched the ground first.

Pretty sure he had tight possession of the ball, both feet down, then took a hit and the ball didn't budge until his elbow hit the ground.

 

[dback]

Watching the Pack-Viking game last night. In the 3rd quarter, Shiancoe for the Vikes caught a pass, got both feet down, took a hit, went to the ground and once he went to the ground the ball came out. It was ruled incomplete on the field, the Vikes challenged and the call was upheld. However, Jaws, Shirico and Kornheiser all thought it was going to be ruled a catch because the ground can't cause a fumble. Reminded me of the Moss play last Thursday, where he was clearly not down, but the refs made the wrong call.

Point is, does anyone know the rules anymore? If the ground can't cause a fumble, why does the receiver have to possess the ball all the way to the ground if he gets both feet down? If he gets both feet down (Shiancoe did) and goes to the ground and the ball pops out is it incomplete, a fumble or a catch and down by contact?

You know, I was watching NFL TA the other day and they had the Official Review segment and they addressed this issue. I believe there was a rule change concerning possession.

I may just be crazy but I think I recall the Head Ref Guy saying that, in the field of play (not in the end zone), if the ball was caught and two feet are on the ground then it is a catch. I think he said that the refs had trouble determining whether an "athletic move" was made after the catch and so they say that two feet down and possession results in a catch. Similarly, if a catch is made in the end zone, meaning possession (no bobbling), then play immediately stops resulting in a touchdown. He said that this eliminates many judgment calls (related to "athletic movements" after a catch) that the refs have to make.

I may be incorrect in my interpretation of the rules, but I know 100% that there was a rule change concerning what defines a catch. I thought that Shiancoe did have possession and he should have been down by contact. I know on NFLTA Official Review they showed examples just like that.

Did anybody else see that segment?

 

[AdamJT13]

He had complete control from the second the ball hit his hands. There was no bobling or readjusting the ball in his hands.

They need to go back to the simple two feet and control. What was so wrong with that??

Pretty sure he had tight possession of the ball, both feet down, then took a hit and the ball didn't budge until his elbow hit the ground.

It doesn't matter if both feet touched the ground. Did he catch the ball, run with it few steps, then get hit and fall to the ground? Or did he get hit just as he made the catch? If he goes to the ground while in the process of making the catch, he has to maintain possession after hitting the ground.

The rule is actually designed to protect the OFFENSE, believe it or not, because it prevents cheap turnovers. Imagine if Romo's long TD pass to Owens on Sunday had been thrown a little farther and Owens needed to dive for it -- if he dove forward, grabbed it securely in his hands while in the air, then both feet hit the ground before his body hit the ground and the ball popped out, it would be a fumble (because he was never touched by the defender) and Cleveland could have recovered the ball.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The Rule is ticky tacky. That should have been a catch.