What is a catch? Inbounds or out of bounds?

[scho63]

Everytime I think I know the rule for what is a catch, I'm thrown a curveball.

I am NOT a referee or rule nazi that has the NFL rule book in my pocket so give me some slack.

So this is what threw me for a loop on Garrett Wilson's awesome catch last night:
Wilson came down with the ball, his left leg was in after replay confirmed but then he went out of the end zone and his left hand was clearly out BEFORE he got his right foot down.

I was always under the impression he needed both feet in the end zone BEFORE he touched out of bounds or else it didn't count.

Did they change the rule or am I missing something?

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Remember when Toney caught that swing pass against Jax and hopped on one foot to the EZ? Had he gotten pushed OOB that would have not been a catch when it clearly was. Just food for thought - it’s not always possible to get 2 feet down but the same foot multiple times should count

If a guy hops on 1 foot intentionally and gets pushed out of bounds, that’s like fumbling into the endzone because you dropped the ball at the 1 to celebrate.

I wouldn’t change a rule to protect a guy from his own stupidity.

[Balto]

Originally Posted by scho63

Sounds like I need an anatomy lessons.

One Shin = Two feet = TD

One foot twice ≠ shin ≠ TD

Two feet tap = TD

One foot in and toe touches line ≠ one shin

Shin > one foot

Shin = two feet

So how do deez nuts factor in?

Chris Jones Penis = One Shin = Two Feet

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by Balto

Chris Jones Penis = One Shin = Two Feet

I believe his penis actually has a knee, so it already counts as two feet

[digger]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Remember when Toney caught that swing pass against Jax and hopped on one foot to the EZ? Had he gotten pushed OOB that would have not been a catch when it clearly was. Just food for thought - it’s not always possible to get 2 feet down but the same foot multiple times should count

He catches the pass
He gets two feet down
----------------------- At this point it's a catch...

He stars hopping on one foot
He keeps hopping on one foot into the end zone
At the point the ball crosses the end zone it's a TD...

[RedinTexas]

One of my favorite aspects of this is the difference between a toe and a heel. If a player catches the ball and drags one toe from each foot in bounds before they cross out of bounds, that is a catch in bounds. However, if a player catches the ball with one entire foot down in bounds and the second foot touches in bounds with the heel, but the rest of the foot then comes down with just the toe out of bounds, then it is not a catch as it is out of bounds. It doesn't matter that the heel came down first, only that the toe touched out of bounds.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

If a guy hops on 1 foot intentionally and gets pushed out of bounds, that’s like fumbling into the endzone because you dropped the ball at the 1 to celebrate.

I wouldn’t change a rule to protect a guy from his own stupidity.

Right - kinda what I'm alluding to when I say that these rules aren't exactly governed by natural law here.

They're just...rules.

No different than an ineligible man downfield penalty. Or requirements that you have a certain number of players on the LOS. The game can be played WITHOUT those rules, but they're there so we abide by them.

[CoMoChief]

Kinda wish they'd just adopt the 1foot rule like in NCAA.

Less replay reviews for refs to get involved with.

Better catches and scoring, potentially.

It's gotten to the point where they've made rules so subjective they don't know how to call the game thus too much going thru the NY/officials headset, and wtf knows what goes on during those convos.

There's a reason why the refs continue to get worse and worse.

#****jefftripplet

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

One of my favorite aspects of this is the difference between a toe and a heel. If a player catches the ball and drags one toe from each foot in bounds before they cross out of bounds, that is a catch in bounds. However, if a player catches the ball with one entire foot down in bounds and the second foot touches in bounds with the heel, but the rest of the foot then comes down with just the toe out of bounds, then it is not a catch as it is out of bounds. It doesn't matter that the heel came down first, only that the toe touched out of bounds.

This is absolutely the strangest one.

Why does a toe tap where the heel comes down as part of the step OOB mean no catch whereas a toe drag doesn't?

That one seems especially arbitrary. Why should popping a toe down and lifting it be good when popping that same toe down and dropping the heel down isn't?

Best argument I have is that the toe and lift thing demonstrates a level of body control; it's a concerted movement. Whereas getting the toe and rolling onto the hell is more of a concession to momentum and thus doesn't end the first movement but is rather a continuation of it?

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I thought the knee was actually down OOB before the shin made contact.

I thought the rule was actually pretty straightforward here. And how they implemented it was fine. I just thought their conclusion was wrong. Or at least, I didn't see anything that constituted 'clear visual evidence' sufficient to overturn.

But hey, was glad to see 'em do it. **** the Jets and **** Rodgers, but chaos in the AFC can only be a good thing for us.

Guess it's all up for interpretation. Any part of the leg below the knee that touches in bounds counts as a completion. Except for the feet. You have to get 2 of those. Lmao

[kcgreene]

I liked the ruling because I started Garrett Wilson in Fantasy, so obviously the refs were correct.

If I was playing him, I'd have opposed the ruling and the refs would have been cheating bastards.

It's the simple things sometimes...

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by kcgreene

I liked the ruling because I started Garrett Wilson in Fantasy, so obviously the refs were correct.

If I was playing him, I'd have opposed the ruling and the refs would have been cheating bastards.

It's the simple things sometimes...

I like it because it was good for the Chiefs.

Would not support if it was bad for the Chiefs.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I hope not. That's gonna be one of those rule changes that create more headaches than it solves.

I mean, what if a 'toe drag' ends up a 'toe skip' and you double tap the same foot twice. Is that 'two steps' because the toe bounced off the ground before it re-connected? Now do we have to start seeing how high the foot lifted to determine if it 'broke contact with the grass' before it came down again, thus constituting the same foot twice?

That's gonna be a shitshow. Please don't get into all that.

As you've noted - at a point this is all theatre either way. Why should it be 2 rather than 1 as in college? No reason - it's arbitrary. So it's not like we're leaning on any fundamental laws of nature here.

If the rule says get two feet down rather than 1 foot down twice, well that's the damn rule. Execute that.

Good point. Yeah, **** reviewing that then.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

If a guy hops on 1 foot intentionally and gets pushed out of bounds, that’s like fumbling into the endzone because you dropped the ball at the 1 to celebrate.

I wouldn’t change a rule to protect a guy from his own stupidity.

Have you never lost your balance and only able to stay on one foot?

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Have you never lost your balance and only able to stay on one foot?

Sure, but I’m not playing football with boundary lines.

I might hop on one foot for a bit until I gain my balance, but that doesn’t mean I should be awarded a catch in a football game because I don’t want to put my second foot down and fall to the ground.