The Byrd catch

[HardRightEdge]

It does not matter how Jesse James crossed the goal line. All people care about is the fact he put the ball on it.

Not the NFL. If a guy catches a ball and breaks the plane of the goal line without first clearly establishing himself as a runner, then he must maintain control to the ground for it to be a catch. James made a catch, but according to the rules he clearly did not.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

Had the infamous butt fumble and now Byrd’s butt catch. What next?

The obvious answer is there will be a butt catch, butt fumble, all by the tight end.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What the NFL wanted to do was clarify the definition of a catch. Unfortunately their efforts backfired as people continue to debate whether Dez Bryant and now Jesse James caught the ball.

That's what they say. What they thought is if they made it easier to make a call on the field in conformity with some rule, there would be more consistency. Consistency is not "clarity", which was the first mistake, and they ended up failing at both. First they thought "football move" would add some 10th. or 100ths. of a second of input, which did not help in making the calls. Then they changed it to "clearly a runner" to add more time input for referee evaluation. That may be fine for consistency, but now we have more catches that are not catches anymore.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

I don't see why people are complaining Byrd was out of bounds. There is clearly a sliver of black paint behind his right hip. Did he lose control after that?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...witter-reacts-to-damiere-byrds-butt-touchdown

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Raptorman]

Not the NFL. If a guy catches a ball and breaks the plane of the goal line without first clearly establishing himself as a runner, then he must maintain control to the ground for it to be a catch. James made a catch, but according to the rules he clearly did not.

For me, if you catch the ball outside the end zone, move the ball to the end zone and have control of the ball as it passes the plane of the end zone, it should be a TD. But that's me. The NFL has left he margin for error in what they call, "maintain control". Yet they don't define "maintain control". That is the part that is up for interpretation.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

That's what they say. What they thought is if they made it easier to make a call on the field in conformity with some rule, there would be more consistency. Consistency is not "clarity," which was the first mistake, and they ended up failing at both. First they thought "football move" would add some 10th. or 100ths. of a second of input, which did not help in making the calls. Then they changed it to "clearly a runner" to add more time input for referee evaluation. That may be fine for consistency, but now we have more catches that are not catches anymore.

The "Calvin Johnson Rule" was labeled a clarification of an existing rule, not an amendment to chnage what constitutes a catch. That is what drives everyone crazy. It should have been (and was expected to be) what we all want, giving players credit for good catches no matter what they do while holding the football (unless the player is out of bounds when he catches it).

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Not the NFL. If a guy catches a ball and breaks the plane of the goal line without first clearly establishing himself as a runner, then he must maintain control to the ground for it to be a catch. James made a catch, but according to the rules he clearly did not.

Even hte NFL does, in fact. The Competition Committee brought it to a vote in 2011 and the final decision was not unanimous. There are just too many guys on Park Avenue in New York who think otherwise.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The "Calvin Johnson Rule" was labeled a clarification of an existing rule, not an amendment to chnage what constitutes a catch.

But the rule changes have changed what constitutes a catch. They looked at the Johnson catch, they looked at the rules, and they reckoned it was the right call. Since then, every change and interpretation has been modeled after that play in one way or another.

We know a catch when we see it...in slow motion from 4 angles together with the real time replay after the fact . The refs on the field cannot do that. That's a big problem. The fix is not to make it easier to make the call on the field by elongating the process of what constitutes a catch which is exactly what was done. The fix is to make putting the call in the replay booth easier. Until they do that, nobody is going to be satisfied because what they call a catch today might be more consistent, but it excludes a lot of actual catches.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

I think controlling the football long enough to show clear possession should be enough tor ule it a catch. Period.

 

[sschind]

Thanks for that picture TDpackers. The clip I had watched over and over was from a different angle and it looked to me as if he landed with one cheek in and one cheek out. Would you happen to have a link to a video clip from that angle. In many cases I don't like stills because they don't show everything but, or should I say butt, from that shot it clearly looks like a TD to me.

Oh and for those saying the ref was 10 feet away that may be true but he would have had to be able to see through the Packer player to actually see where Byrd landed.

 

[thequick12]

correct call.

Absolutely not the correct call especially since it was ruled incomplete on the field. No way there was conclusive video to overturn that decision. The dude clearly landed on the line which means he landed out of bounds

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Thanks for that picture TDpackers. The clip I had watched over and over was from a different angle and it looked to me as if he landed with one cheek in and one cheek out. Would you happen to have a link to a video clip from that angle. In many cases I don't like stills because they don't show everything but, or should I say butt, from that shot it clearly looks like a TD to me.

Oh and for those saying the ref was 10 feet away that may be true but he would have had to be able to see through the Packer player to actually see where Byrd landed.

I don't like still shots either in ball control situations, but don't know how to see this and think he was out of bounds. There are probably YouTube clips of the play both in favor and against the catch ruling.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

Kind of off topic...

I just don't understand why a player (while diving forward with feet off the ground) can outstretch his arms into the endzone with full control, land on the ground in the endzone, lose partial control of the ball, and it count as an incompletion.

BUT...a quarterback can outstretch his arms over the goal line in a sneak situation, pull the ball back, potentially even fumble the ball while pulling back, but it still counts as a touchdown. I thought as long as full control was established prior to crossing the goal line, the absolute moment the ball crosses the goal line it is a touchdown.

And then what about the pylon plays? Player dives towards the endzone pylon with full control already established, touches pylon, loses control, but still touchdown?

And why can a receiver get both toe tips barely in bounds on a catch with cimplete control, stumble upright out of bounds, drop the ball, and it be considered a catch? Why is the catch part only an issue when the player is falling to the ground?

There is zero consistency.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Kind of off topic...

I just don't understand why a player (while diving forward with feet off the ground) can outstretch his arms into the endzone with full control, land on the ground in the endzone, lose partial control of the ball, and it count as an incompletion.

BUT...a quarterback can outstretch his arms over the goal line in a sneak situation, pull the ball back, potentially even fumble the ball while pulling back, but it still counts as a touchdown. I thought as long as full control was established prior to crossing the goal line, the absolute moment the ball crosses the goal line it is a touchdown.

And then what about the pylon plays? Player dives towards the endzone pylon with full control already established, touches pylon, loses control, but still touchdown?

And why can a receiver get both toe tips barely in bounds on a catch with cimplete control, stumble upright out of bounds, drop the ball, and it be considered a catch? Why is the catch part only an issue when the player is falling to the ground?

There is zero consistency.

1. If a player is diving forward with the ball after catching it, then loses control, before going to the ground, it is a fumble/touchback. Otherwise, it is the stupid "going to the ground" catch rule.
2. The runner is not in the act of catching a pass and only needs to get the nose of the football to the front of the goal line. If he loses control of the football before that happens, it is a fumble.
3. The TD counts immediately after the football touches the pylon because the runner already has full control of it. Fumbling out of bounds doesn't matter if the ball was controlled in bounds.
4. Was the ball in bounds when the receiver caught it? Did he fumble out of bounds after having complete control of the football? If you are thinking of a specific play, post a YouTube clip of it.

Iti sn ot just inconsistency in the rulings. It is also flaws in the rulebook.

 

[Mondio]

they can write the rules however they want, controversy will not go away. Ever. It will only create new problems within the rules. I'm fine with someone having to control it going to the ground. I'd be fine with them calling Jesse James' play a TD too. I think it was, but by the rules it wasn't. Oh well. Things happen in football. We know the rules, they know the rules. Make sure you secure the catch and this isn't an issue. I'm guessing if we moved him 6 inches off the goal line when the ball moves and actually pops out and it rolls out of the endzone, Some people wouldn't be so quick to call it a catch in that situation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Kind of off topic...

I just don't understand why a player (while diving forward with feet off the ground) can outstretch his arms into the endzone with full control, land on the ground in the endzone, lose partial control of the ball, and it count as an incompletion.

HRE perfectly explained the rule in post #23 of this thread.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

they can write the rules however they want, controversy will not go away. Ever. It will only create new problems within the rules. I'm fine with someone having to control it going to the ground. I'd be fine with them calling Jesse James' play a TD too. I think it was, but by the rules it wasn't. Oh well. Things happen in football. We know the rules, they know the rules. Make sure you secure the catch and this isn't an issue. I'm guessing if we moved him 6 inches off the goal line when the ball moves and actually pops out and it rolls out of the endzone, Some people wouldn't be so quick to call it a catch in that situation.

Rewriting the rules to state a player only needs to have two feet down in bounds whether he is going to the ground or not would reduce the controversy. To eliminate any controversy over what is a catch, the NFL would have to change it to one foot down.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rewriting the rules to state a player only needs to have two feet down in bounds whether he is going to the ground or not would reduce the controversy. To eliminate any controversy over what is a catch, the NFL would have to change it to one foot down.

There has to be a definition at which point a receiver is in control of the ball though.

 

[Mondio]

Rewriting the rules to state a player only needs to have two feet down in bounds whether he is going to the ground or not would reduce the controversy. To eliminate any controversy over what is a catch, the NFL would have to change it to one foot down.

oh boy, I just cringe at all of the passes that weren't catches, even by the eye test that now would be. How many more "fumbles" or no control incomplete passes will create controversy every week wit a 1 foot down rule. How many times a player has it in his hands one one step and bobbles it in the next set of frames and it gets knocked out ? Those will be catches? and fumbles? oy. Not a fan. and I still want to see that 2nd toe get tapped on the sideline. Such a beautiful catch compared to the college game.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

There has to be a definition at which point a receiver is in control of the ball though.

Obviously when it looks like he has control of the ball. Simple as that.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

oh boy, I just cringe at all of the passes that weren't catches, even by the eye test that now would be. How many more "fumbles" or no control incomplete passes will create controversy every week wit a 1 foot down rule. How many times a player has it in his hands one one step and bobbles it in the next set of frames and it gets knocked out ? Those will be catches? and fumbles? oy. Not a fan. and I still want to see that 2nd toe get tapped on the sideline. Such a beautiful catch compared to the college game.

How often do we hear a player clearly caught the ball, but it is not a catch because only one foot was on the ground in bounds? If a player caught the ball in bounds and maintain control of it, but stumbled out of bounds before he could put both feet down, I am in favor of awarding him the catch. I am not saying players should get credit for catches when one foot is out of bounds before they control the football.

 

[Mondio]

I think 2 feet vs one is a great separator of men and boys. College boys can get by with one, the professionals are pro's for a reason. They're better. We expect more. 2 feet, or no catch stays it's already easy enough to play WR in this league with the rules against the defense how they are.

 

[Half Empty]

Obviously when it looks like he has control of the ball. Simple as that.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the NFL - NOTHING is as simple as that in the NFL.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the NFL - NOTHING is as simple as that in the NFL.

Many things are simple in the NFL. If you are a QB, you can't wear a number higher than 19. If you join the Packers, you will get a yellow helmet with the letter G on each side. Unfortunately too many rules that are not simple involve "What is a catch?"

 

[Half Empty]

I'll have to go back and look at those throwback helmets.