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?

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by 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

This.

I'm in favor, generally, of easier reffing decisions. One foot is easier.

Although it is less dramatic so I don't think they will change it.

I also do NOT like that the ball can touch the ground as long as you maintain control. Well how much control? No touching the ground is an easier, bright line rule. Sure, there is still the issue did you complete a football move before you fell to the ground as the ball touched the field. But this would not come up as often. I don't see any chance of this happening either.

I thought the overturn was correct. I thought it clear enough the shin touched in bounds before knee OOB.

[ReynardMuldrake]

In my opinion, it was too close to overturn. It was a very close call and really could have been called either way. In real time I thought he was out.

[Frazod]

That was one of those plays where I wouldn't have had a problem with either outcome. It was that close. But like I said in the game thread, I'm glad it was ruled a touchdown, simply because it was such a spectacular catch.

Wouldn't feel that way if it had gone against us, though.

[scho63]

Good discussion

[TEX]

Last I checked, his shin and calf are all part of the leg and so is the knee. Part of the leg landed out of bounds, so it was out. I mean week one, all of Smiley's feet were in bounds except the very tips of his toes, and it didn't count.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

In my opinion, it was too close to overturn. It was a very close call and really could have been called either way. In real time I thought he was out.

Well, real time doesn't matter for replay.

It was close. And given their general conservationism regarding overturning calls, I can understand the argument.

If you showed the clip without context, I would say TD.

If you said live call was OOB, should replay overturn, yea, I would say it is a borderline decision to overturn. But given you have to decide, personally, I would overturn.

No, I don't care about outcome of this game that much.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by TEX

Last I checked, his shin and calf are all part of the leg and so is the knee. Part of the leg landed out of bounds. I mean week one, all of Smiley's feet were in bounds except the very tips of his toes, and it didn't count.

So if the toes come down, say in bounds, and then the heel OOB, it is still considered the entire foot as one object. You don't separate toes from heel.

You do separate shin from knee. Because rule.

I mean, you separate knee from hip. You have to make rules and stick with them.
But maybe shin and knee should all be leg, you could have done that.

[RedRaider56]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Which I think is crazy. If you catch the ball in bounds at the 10 and hop on one foot to the 1 before being pushed OOB it’s not a catch?

i'm assuming that hopping for 9 yards would be considered a football move, therefore a catch.