The Incomplete Catch Rule.

[wdd1979]

Ok everybody I know rules are rules. But I feel, and I believe most NFL fans must feel, that the rules on what determine a complete or incomplete catch are getting a little out of control. Am I the only one that feels like Finley's catch should be ruled a touchdown?

I'm sure that everybody watching, even in Carolina, seen that replay and said he caught it. How much further can we go with this rule. Complete the process ? Next season a receiver may have to walk back to the sideline with the ball before it will be considered a catch. I want to start a viral petition online to get the league's attention and fix this rule causing injustice to receivers in the NFL.

Is there anyone else out there who feels the same way and can support such an action ?

 

[Bogart]

What really bothers me is the new rule about the defensless player.

Actually lets take away the tuck rule and all these new ******** rules and go back to 1980's style offenses. Games were way more fast paced without flags everywhere.

 

[wdd1979]

exactly ! and football players played football !

 

[Lunchboxer]

Exactly.

If Vince Lombardi was alive I dont think he would be coaching considering all the friggen flags for nothing.

NFL has turned into The No Fun League...

 

[gbpack12_2_89]

That was a catch no Ifs ands or buts about it when you have 2 feet 1 knee and 1 elbow down I'm sorry its a damn catch!!

 

[DevilDon]

I can always weigh my feelings on a rule by how I would feel if an opposing team did the same, you know, like if an opposing player had punched someone like CWood did.
That should have been a catch by any definition of the word. When the words of a rule can be determined to take a catch away that wording of the rule needs to be examined. Still, he should have used his other hand to cradle the ball darnit.

 

[GBPack90]

The Patriots ended up getting a touchdown after the ball was stripped as Gradkowski went to the ground and it was still ruled a touchdown, so after seeing that after the Packers game it didn't make any sense

 

[Kitten]

The problem I have with some of the new rules is they are somewhat inconsistent. It leaves room for a gray area and it causes confusion and discrepancy. There were a couple of calls that went against the Saints in the 1st half that I thought were questionable as did the commentators and the Saints coach. I forget the specifics of the plays but the Saints coach was as furious as I've ever seen him.

The rules not only call into question the nature/ fairness of the rules themselves but the job performance of the ones throwing the flags. It comes down to officiating, a problem that seems to of carried over from last year. I like how every scoring play is subject to a booth review. That is going to save a lot of coaches from throwing their red flags. I don't like the defenseless player rule. Too much of a gray area and inconsistency in officiating. Rules that determine what is a complete pass (catch) and what is an incomplete pass need to be explicitly clear. I think the player should maintain control and possession of the football until he hits the ground. If the ball comes loose before he hits the ground, then I don't think that should be a complete pass. But that's just me. I don't make the rules and many football players should thank God I don't.

To conclude, I really feel the name of the game with any rule is consistency and that leads us down the path of officiating. Good luck with that and welcome to the NFL.

 

[Chicocheese]

I agree with GPack. He had a total of 3 steps, a knee and an elbow down. He caught the damn ball. I would say the same thing if it were the Panthers that had the call go against them. It is total BS. Now, correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a rule that the ground cannot cause a fumble? Isn't that when Finley lost the ball? When he hit the ground, after taking 3 steps in the endzone with the ball in his hands!?

 

[Crazy Packers Fan]

The NFL is constantly changing its standards on what is a catch and what isn't. Remember the "Bert Emanuel rule" that was put into the league after the infamous play that cost Tampa Bay a spot in the Super Bowl in the 1999 playoffs. For several years after that, it seemed as if every play that was close to being a catch was ruled in favor of the receiver and ruled a catch.

Last year everything changed on the Week 1 Calvin Johnson no-catch. By the officials ruling that a no-catch, other officials around the league have now begun ruling against the receiver in every close situation. The Finley play was so similar that I knew it would be ruled a no-catch. You're going to see a lot of similar situations for a while.

Eventually some bizarre play will happen and the NFL will change its standards again.

 

[Bogart]

The problem I have with some of the new rules is they are somewhat inconsistent. It leaves room for a gray area and it causes confusion and discrepancy. There were a couple of calls that went against the Saints in the 1st half that I thought were questionable as did the commentators and the Saints coach. I forget the specifics of the plays but the Saints coach was as furious as I've ever seen him.

The rules not only call into question the nature/ fairness of the rules themselves but the job performance of the ones throwing the flags. It comes down to officiating, a problem that seems to of carried over from last year. I like how every scoring play is subject to a booth review. That is going to save a lot of coaches from throwing their red flags. I don't like the defenseless player rule. Too much of a gray area and inconsistency in officiating. Rules that determine what is a complete pass (catch) and what is an incomplete pass need to be explicitly clear. I think the player should maintain control and possession of the football until he hits the ground. If the ball comes loose before he hits the ground, then I don't think that should be a complete pass. But that's just me. I don't make the rules and many football players should thank God I don't.

To conclude, I really feel the name of the game with any rule is consistency and that leads us down the path of officiating. Good luck with that and welcome to the NFL.

I agree 100%

My biggest problem is all the "Safety rules" that have made defenses easier, rather than the brutal fearful defenses that the NFL glorified years ago.

I was watching the Saints and Bears yesterday. First quarter. They put Cutler on the ground 3 times while he was throwing the ball, and even had him shook up driving his sorry *** in the ground, and as usual. Flags everywhere, "Roughing the passer" "Defenseless player". I remember when Steve Young would get his brains knocked out doing those crazy runs and nope, no flags everywhere, and he took some of the worst beatings I ever seen. People say Vick gets every flag and every penalty when someone gets him on the ground, but I can't say Chicago don't get a ton of calls when someone is knocking their cry baby quitter on the ground.

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

Looked like the ball came out as soon as he hit the ground and the rule is you have to maintain control all the way thru. I am pissed about the two roughing the passer calls. One on us and one on Atlanta. You have to let these guys play football, you can't ask the linemen to go full speed and then just put on the brakes. Did you see the helmet to helmet Jenkins put on Ryan that was a no call?

 

[GreenBayGal]

I agree with Kitten in that "consistancy" is the key. But how that will happen is beyond me. The area is so gray as far as degree of a hit or if they held the ball an additional mili-second. Easiest solution is to play flag football. And that would go over like a fart in church.

 

[wdd1979]

Those who say he should have cradled the ball, I agree, you are correct. Those who say he didn't maintain the ball all the way through "the process", you are also correct. However I think the point that I am getting at is that no, the ground can't cause the fumble. What about that rule? Everyone agrees that it was a catch, even though by rule it wasn't a catch. Those who say the problem is consistency, also correct. What I think we are all saying is that it was a catch, and the rule of the process over ruling the rule about the ground causing a fumble is a bit absurd.

I think I may start a facebook page petitioning against the rule of the "process" and see what kind of traction we can get.

 

[Daniel]

No way it was a catch. He Calvin Johnsoned it at the end of the catch except even worse than Calvin Johnson as instead of just setting the ball down he lost control and it popped out. You have to maintain possession through the entire catch and as such the points of contact with the ground are irrelevant since he never actually had control of the ball.

 

[wdd1979]

No way it was a catch. He Calvin Johnsoned it at the end of the catch except even worse than Calvin Johnson as instead of just setting the ball down he lost control and it popped out. You have to maintain possession through the entire catch and as such the points of contact with the ground are irrelevant since he never actually had control of the ball.

Yes I understand that he did not finish "the process". But why does the "process" over-rule the ground can't cause a fumble rule. Obviously they knew it wasn't fair to call an incomplete catch when it was caused by the ground, so why now ?

 

[Guacamole]

The Patriots ended up getting a touchdown after the ball was stripped as Gradkowski went to the ground and it was still ruled a touchdown, so after seeing that after the Packers game it didn't make any sense

got a link/video showing the td, so we can compare the two "catches"? If that samething happened to a Panther receiver, everyone of you would have said it was not a catch.

 

[longtimefan]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-non-td-in-video-explaining-rules-to-players/

“If a player is going to the ground in the process of making a catch, he must maintain control throughout the entire process of contacting the ground,” the narrator of the video says. “If the player does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, the pass is incomplete.”

Video with Jeff Fisher explaining stuff

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8216a10b/2011-NFL-rule-changes-and-points-of-emphasis

7 min mark starts catches...There is a catch by Desean Jackson about 830 mark ruled incomplete that is almost exactly what happened to Finley

 

[PackersRS]

I understand the rule.

However, where's the difference between Finley's non-TD and this???
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d82258ff2/Hernandez-hangs-on-for-six

Finley even hangs in longer than Hernandez. So why was it a TD for Hernandez and not for Finley?

 

[longtimefan]

Yes I understand that he did not finish "the process". But why does the "process" over-rule the ground can't cause a fumble rule. Obviously they knew it wasn't fair to call an incomplete catch when it was caused by the ground, so why now ?

I agree it is almost contridictory

 

[longtimefan]

I understand the rule.

However, where's the difference between Finley's non-TD and this???
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d82258ff2/Hernandez-hangs-on-for-six

Finley even hangs in longer than Hernandez. So why was it a TD for Hernandez and not for Finley?

Diff refs??

But looking at that Pats td, to me looks like he held onto it longer?

 

[Guacamole]

I understand the rule.

However, where's the difference between Finley's non-TD and this???
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d82258ff2/Hernandez-hangs-on-for-six

Finley even hangs in longer than Hernandez. So why was it a TD for Hernandez and not for Finley?

that was plain as day as it was not a catch....how could that play stand up as a TD?

 

[longtimefan]

Anyone have video of Finleys?

 

[longtimefan]

that was plain as day as it was not a catch....how could that play stand up as a TD?

I think it is because a defender was on him as he landed on the ground..

Technically got tackled in the endzone and the ball didnt pop out until a sec after hitting the ground

If there wa sno defender on him at all, then I think it would been an incomplete

 

[PackersRS]

I think it is because a defender was on him as he landed on the ground..

Technically got tackled in the endzone and the ball didnt pop out until a sec after hitting the ground

If there wa sno defender on him at all, then I think it would been an incomplete

That's a great point, but I honestly think the refs missed and missed badly on that one.