The fumble into end zone = touchback rule

[TouchdownPackers]

Twiddle, it is called "the non-catch" because Dez Bryant did NOT catch the ball. Maybe he was trying to score, I never felt he could get close enough.

 

[rmontro]

Or why don't they have sensors, like a laser or an invisible fence with a chip in the ends of the ball, by now?

Because the chip might get sucked out while the Patriots are deflating the ball.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Calvin Johnson simply dropped it. Most people want to make a big deal about K.J. Wright (not Kam Chancellor) batting the ball out of the end zone and officials failing to throw their flags, but the reality is Johnson would have scored if he did not drop it and Detroit should have won right there. But because he dropped it, everyone knows the rule that players can't swat balls out of the end zone.

Ahh yes here it is

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

Had to dig it up just to see what did happen on that play. To be fair, Wright was really the only player with a chance to recover it, hence why the officials probably ruled it as SEA ball. But it kinda looked bad on his part that he just took one hand and gave it a knock out of bounds. I think had he at least put two hands on it but lost it going out of bounds it woulda looked better like it was a clear attempt to recover it, but since he didn't that's why it got all scrutinized.

 

[gbgary]

I think he meant John Fox

oh. lol...my bad.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Big mistake by Fox but, should it even be a rule?

If you fumble the ball at the forty yard-line, and it rolls out of bounds, the ball stays with the team that possessed it last.

It seems to me something similar should occur in the end zone. Maybe move the ball back to the twenty, or some other point on the field, but the ball stays with whomever possessed it last.

Just my two cents.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I think he meant John Fox because he chose to challenge the play.

There are far more rules that are head scratchers than this one. This rule is pretty straight forward. Don't fumble the ball prior to entering the end zone. The pylon is an extension of the end zone and goal line so therefor, much like on a TD, if the ball touches it, it is like touching or crossing the goal line. Again, pretty straight forward.

Bingo, keep this rule but get rid of that whole "control the ball through the process of going to the ground rule," it's caused enough trouble with catch interpretations and needs to be eradicated. From now on it should be control the ball 2 steps and it's a catch.

 

[AmishMafia]

Bingo, keep this rule but get rid of that whole "control the ball through the process of going to the ground rule," it's caused enough trouble with catch interpretations and needs to be eradicated. From now on it should be control the ball 2 steps and it's a catch.

It' a grey area and always will be. If you move the line of what constitutes a catch that would have cleared up 20 questionable calls, you will muddy the water on 30 other catches.

For example, by your definition, what constitutes a step? Merely a foot touching the ground? How about a hop with 1 foot touching 2x? A player with both feet touching the ground catches the ball and turns to run gets smacked and ball goes flying. No catch because he had not taken a step. Stretching out of bounds with your toes touching inbounds to catch it would not constitute a catch either. No 2 steps taken.

 

[adambr2]

You will also have many more fumbles in the field of play when a player 'catches the ball' for a split second with his feet on the ground and the ball gets jarred out on the hit. Thus the need for a 'football move'.

 

[swhitset]

You will also have many more fumbles in the field of play when a player 'catches the ball' for a split second with his feet on the ground and the ball gets jarred out on the hit. Thus the need for a 'football move'.

That one I see no issue with.... so call it a fumble. To me a catch is a catch. At some point the official has to make a judgement call did he control the ball or didn't he. Who cares if he makes a football move.... takes 0 steps or 22. Does he have the ball controlled ? that's all I would care about if it were up to me. Yes it would be a judgement call by the official .... but even with the current rule ... it is still a judgement call. Why overcomplicate it?

 

[OldSchool101]

Twiddle, it is called "the non-catch" because Dez Bryant did NOT catch the ball. Maybe he was trying to score, I never felt he could get close enough.

First your arguing that the entire play has nothing to do with the Challenge in the Bears game. Now you’re arguing that this Challenge being similarly overturned was reversed correctly and effectually is a good rule. I actually agree. I argued at that time that it doesn’t matter where in the field of play you are, even when falling out of bounds you must maintain control. We’ve seen it a thousand times, especially when putting 2 feet in bounds and then falling out ontonthr chalk.
Your rebuttal was exactly the point I was trying to make all along so mission accomplished (just took a little longer than expected)

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

You will also have many more fumbles in the field of play when a player 'catches the ball' for a split second with his feet on the ground and the ball gets jarred out on the hit. Thus the need for a 'football move'.

Well, players may also be more wary then about securing the ball on a catch and preventing it. But as swhitset just pointed out, the rule must be simplified and there'll be less of these ridiculous no-catch calls out there.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Bingo, keep this rule but get rid of that whole "control the ball through the process of going to the ground rule," it's caused enough trouble with catch interpretations and needs to be eradicated. From now on it should be control the ball 2 steps and it's a catch.

I was optimistic the NFL would get rid of that "go to the ground" part of it. Why is the so-called "Calvin Johnson Rule" just a clarification of the stupidity that cost the Lions a win in 2010?

 

[TouchdownPackers]

First your arguing that the entire play has nothing to do with the Challenge in the Bears game. Now you’re arguing that this Challenge being similarly overturned was reversed correctly and effectually is a good rule. I actually agree. I argued at that time that it doesn’t matter where in the field of play you are, even when falling out of bounds you must maintain control. We’ve seen it a thousand times, especially when putting 2 feet in bounds and then falling out onto another chalk.
Your rebuttal was exactly the point I was trying to make all along so mission accomplished (just took a little longer than expected)

From what people are saying here, it seems the issue is a fumble at the goal line, not the failure to catch the ball in bounds at the 1-yard line. Am I reading t hat incorrectly?

I did not watch the game. I live in Buccaneers territory.

 

[Raptorman]

We are so old my wife and I still use Morse code to talk between rooms.

Wow! Technology, We use smoke signals. It's ***** on the smoke alarm.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

It' a grey area and always will be. If you move the line of what constitutes a catch that would have cleared up 20 questionable calls, you will muddy the water on 30 other catches.

For example, by your definition, what constitutes a step? Merely a foot touching the ground? How about a hop with 1 foot touching 2x? A player with both feet touching the ground catches the ball and turns to run gets smacked and ball goes flying. No catch because he had not taken a step. Stretching out of bounds with your toes touching inbounds to catch it would not constitute a catch either. No 2 steps taken.

Fair enough, I guess in my opinion the toetap thing currently going on would stay in place, it's just this whole "keep it in control through hitting the ground" thing is beyond ridiculous and I think this part of the rule has to get done away with.

 

[BrokenArrow]

It has been the rule since the beginning. Why would you ever change it? The rule is as it should be.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I like the rule.
How about one of the most famous where Don Beebe (Now the defendor because of a fumble) runs down Leon Lett in SB and knocks the ball out of Big Cat's hand for a touchback.

Dang. Almost forgot how fast Beebe was.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

It has been the rule since the beginning. Why would you ever change it? The rule is as it should be.

The Calvin Johnson Rule?

 

[BrokenArrow]

The Calvin Johnson Rule?

Touchback.

 

[adambr2]

Fair enough, I guess in my opinion the toetap thing currently going on would stay in place, it's just this whole "keep it in control through hitting the ground" thing is beyond ridiculous and I think this part of the rule has to get done away with.

I know it seems arbitrary and silly but they have to draw the line somewhere on catches and they draw them there for good reason.

The game operates at such a fast pace that it's not really practical to call split second possession itself 'control,' or you'll have a fumble every time a good hit on a would-be catch jars the ball out.

Eliminating 'control to the ground' creates a whole new problem. Diving catches where the receiver controls for a split second and then the ball comes jarring out when he hits the ground -- it's become a given to us that these are incomplete passes. These would become fumbles.

I'm not saying you guys are 'wrong', these are just opinions after all. I'm just not sure you fully realize how big the can of worms is that you're opening up. It would be a huge change in the game.

 

[Half Empty]

How about just leaving it up to the refs? If it looks like a catch, it's a catch. Kill all the lawyers.

 

[adambr2]

How about just leaving it up to the refs? If it looks like a catch, it's a catch. Kill all the lawyers.

I'm terrified to live in a world in which the game is on the line for the Packers and Jeff Triplette is in charge of deciding if a catch looks like a catch.

 

[Half Empty]

Well, there are exceptions to every rule.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Bingo, keep this rule but get rid of that whole "control the ball through the process of going to the ground rule," it's caused enough trouble with catch interpretations and needs to be eradicated. From now on it should be control the ball 2 steps and it's a catch.

That would certainly simplify things. Here are the current criteria for a catch:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

Your suggestion eliminates that third criteria and the play would be something we would recognize as a catch.

It seems to me going back some years this is the way the play was interpreted. The problem was those bang bang plays where the guy "catches" the ball and gets immediately clocked with the ball flying free. Did he have it or didn't he? That was problematic, but the current rule creates more problems that it solves. With today's replay systems these kinds of bang bang rulings are done all the time, such as a determination as to whether the ground or assisted on a diving catch. Or whether a player's knee was down before a fumble came loose, another bang bang interpretation of possession, measured in 100ths. of a second, without a ton of debate.

There are still plenty of problems with the current rule as the officials struggle to find a consistent way of eye balling plays. Some of these issues nobody seems to notice. I recall a play against Minnesota this year where Thielen caught a short out right at the sidelines, two feet down, then the DB immediately knocked it out of his hands right as he stepped out of bounds. Nobody raised a peep about it on the telecast or in these pages or anywhere else. That play does not satisfy the third criteria. Now, if you take the same play with Thielen happening to trip and fall immediately the DB knocked it free, I would expect it to be ruled incomplete since he did not have it going to the ground. That doesn't make any sense.

For years under this rule or its variations, losing control going to the ground out of bounds or behind the end zone was ignored, perhaps because the receiver has no opportunity to fulfill the third criteria above. Now we see "going to the ground" applied to those attempted catches.

Technically, a receiver who catches a ball and immediately steps out of bounds can never satisfy the third criteria! He never established himself as a runner because he's out of bounds!

At the very least, these guys need to clean up the rules with a set of special criteria for sidelines and back of the end zone.

Frankly, I believe part of the rationale behind the current rule is to limit fumbles and thereby favor the offense and scoring.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

I'm terrified to live in a world in which the game is on the line for the Packers and Jeff Triplette is in charge of deciding if a catch looks like a catch.

Jeff Triplette is one of the worst referees. He has been for years. I will never forgive him for the time a Jaguars RB was clearly down by contract and even after watching indisputable video evidence, Triplette upheld the fumble.