Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The fumble into end zone = touchback rule
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 748084"><p>That would certainly simplify things. Here are the current criteria for a catch:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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).</li> </ol><p><a href="https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/" target="_blank">https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/</a></p><p></p><p>Your suggestion eliminates that third criteria and the play would be something we would recognize as a catch.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Frankly, I believe part of the rationale behind the current rule is to limit fumbles and thereby favor the offense and scoring.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 748084"] That would certainly simplify things. Here are the current criteria for a catch: [LIST=1] [*]secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and [*]touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and [*]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). [/LIST] [URL]https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/[/URL] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Firethorn1001
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 7:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Today at 6:52 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: milani
Today at 5:43 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: milani
Today at 5:37 PM
Movies and Entertainment
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Magooch
Today at 4:05 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The fumble into end zone = touchback rule
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
