The Byrd catch

[Mondio]

One of the drawbacks of replay i'm afraid. They're never going to define to a degree that it gets called without controversy in some circumstances.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

One of the drawbacks of replay i'm afraid. They're never going to define to a degree that it gets called without controversy in some circumstances.

If t hey would take out the stupid "going to the ground" crap and give players credit for any completed catch with both feet in bounds, replay would not work against the players.

 

[Mondio]

Sure it would and I for one am glad that "catches" that only last a fleeting second are not routinely called a catch. It's easy enough to be a WR in this league, they don't need more help. Unless of course if they're going to do that, than any ball that comes lose after is a fumble, ground causing and all. This ******** they can "catch" it for 1 frame and drop it the next and not suffer any consequence is silly.

 

[Poppa San]

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.

What if he stepped out of bounds then came back in for a few steps before catching it? Completed pass, correct?

 

[TouchdownPackers]

What if he stepped out of bounds then came back in for a few steps before catching it? Completed pass, correct?

Once he steps out of bounds the play is over.

 

[Poppa San]

Once he steps out of bounds the play is over.

I was saying before he caught the ball. Such as 10 yards downfield on a 30 yard pass.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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

There's no way to implement a rule like that. The league must set some parameters as to when a receiver has control of the ball and that has been an ongoing issue for years.

 

[sschind]

What if he stepped out of bounds then came back in for a few steps before catching it? Completed pass, correct?

I was saying before he caught the ball. Such as 10 yards downfield on a 30 yard pass.

There are rules for that as well. First of all if he steps out he has to make every attempt to return in bounds as quickly as possible. For example he can't step out 10 yards downfield, run out of bounds for another 10 then come back in and run another 10 and make the catch. If he does step out and come back in right away (not sure what constitutes right away, its another subjective call on the refs part) he can catch the ball as long as he has "established" himself as being back on the field. Even that has a degree of subjectivity as to what he has to do to "establish" himself.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

There are rules for that as well. First of all if he steps out he has to make every attempt to return in bounds as quickly as possible. For example he can't step out 10 yards downfield, run out of bounds for another 10 then come back in and run another 10 and make the catch. If he does step out and come back in right away (not sure what constitutes right away, its another subjective call on the refs part) he can catch the ball as long as he has "established" himself as being back on the field. Even that has a degree of subjectivity as to what he has to do to "establish" himself.

Players can't go out of bounds and be the first to touchd the ball. If some idiot wanted dto do that, he would need help from another player to touch the ball for him. We all know teams never want to see that happen.

 

[Raptorman]

What if he stepped out of bounds then came back in for a few steps before catching it? Completed pass, correct?

Nope. That's an illegal touch. If a player goes out of bounds he cannot be the first person to touch the ball. So if a WR goes out of bounds, comes back in and catches a pass it's a penalty.

 

[Poppa San]

There are rules for that as well.

Players can't go out of bounds and be the first to touchd the ball.

That's an illegal touch.

Yeah I know. I was responding to a post that wanted to liberalize the two feet down inbounds rule to only need one foot. I was wondering how far the rules changes were considered.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

Yeah I know. I was responding to a post that wanted to liberalize the two feet down inbounds rule to only need one foot. I was wondering how far the rules changes were considered.

I thiink if a player caught the ball and has it long enough to show clear possession (whether he is going to the ground or not), it should be a catch. If a WR clearly shows control of the ball with one foot down in bounds and the other not down until he goes out, I don't think it is fair to say "no catch" because he actually did catch it.

 

[sschind]

Yeah I know. I was responding to a post that wanted to liberalize the two feet down inbounds rule to only need one foot. I was wondering how far the rules changes were considered.

I know, I was just putting it out here for anyone wondering.

 

[sschind]

Nope. That's an illegal touch. If a player goes out of bounds he cannot be the first person to touch the ball. So if a WR goes out of bounds, comes back in and catches a pass it's a penalty.

I can recall a few instances where receivers have gone out of bounds and were the first to touch the ball and the flags were picked up. The explanation went something like there is no foul for the receiver being the first one to touch the ball because he reestablished himself in the field of play prior top the catch. For example, a receiver steps out with one foot on the 20 yard line but steps back in with the next step he continues for another 30 yards, in bounds and then is the first to touch the ball I think that is a legal catch. Or if he steps on the back line of the end zone and then steps 3 or 4 yards back into the endzone I think he can be the first to touch the ball.

 

[Raptorman]

I can recall a few instances where receivers have gone out of bounds and were the first to touch the ball and the flags were picked up. The explanation went something like there is no foul for the receiver being the first one to touch the ball because he reestablished himself in the field of play prior top the catch. For example, a receiver steps out with one foot on the 20 yard line but steps back in with the next step he continues for another 30 yards, in bounds and then is the first to touch the ball I think that is a legal catch. Or if he steps on the back line of the end zone and then steps 3 or 4 yards back into the endzone I think he can be the first to touch the ball.

From the NFL rule book.

It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal), thrown from behind the line of scrimmage:

1. is first touched intentionally or is caught by an originally ineligible offensive player; or
   Penalty: Loss of five yards.
   
   
2. first touches or is caught by an eligible receiver who has gone out of bounds, either of his own volition or by being legally forced out of bounds, and has re-established himself inbounds.
   Penalty: Loss of down.

 

[sschind]

From the NFL rule book.

Thanks for the clarification. I must be misremembering the whole "re-established himself inbounds." explanation.