ESPN: NFL's 2016 catch rule

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,041
NFL's 2016 catch rule: Clip and save it right here
12:20 PM CT
Kevin Seifert

Bookmark this page. Save this image. Throw it in your dropbox. Print and laminate. I guarantee you'll need to reference it, whatever your preservation method, at some point during the NFL's 2016 season.

The text embedded at the bottom is this year's version of the catch rule, as it appears on Page 31 in the recently-published Official Playing Rules of the National Football League. We've known for months the essence of what it would say, but seeing it in black and white signals a level of formality that compels commemoration.

As you might recall, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell last fall convened a blue-ribbon panel to discuss the much-debated and often-confused rule. But even before the committee made a formal recommendation, league officials already had decided that no major overhaul was necessary. Instead, they revised the rule's wording (for the second consecutive year) and launched a public campaign to better explain the intent and limitations of the rule.

NFL coaches, convened for the league's owners meetings in March, joined in the angst. In a particularly entertaining rant, Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh termed the rule "nefarious" and added: "[For] coaches and players, it's just as crazy as it is for the fans."

That's the backdrop for what NFL executive vice president Troy Vincent is referring to as a "three-step process" for determining a catch in 2016. You can see the wording in the text, but basically it goes like this:

1. Ball is secure.

2. Player is in bounds.

3. Receiver maintains control long enough to become a runner.

If the player goes to the ground before establishing as a runner -- i.e., in cases of Calvin Johnson in 2010 or Dez Bryant in the 2014 playoffs -- here is what the rule now says: "[He] must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

If I had to guess, confusion this year will remain centered on whether the receiver has established himself as a runner. It's the successor to "making a football move," a term expunged from the rule book, and its 2016 explanation is more detailed than it was in 2015. To become a runner in 2016, a receiver must have possession after his second foot hits the ground, and at that point he must be "capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps."

Even that detailed description requires a level of subjective judgment from officials, and plenty of gray area remains. In no way is this a simpler or more organic rule, even for those who have an open mind about the limitations of most alternatives. But those of you who hang on to this post will be able to judge with the same criteria handed to Ed Hochuli, Clete Blakeman, Jeff Triplette and the rest of the NFL's 124 referees and other officials. Enjoy.

 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,457
If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."
Even with this, Dez's catch should have counted because his arm was completely under the ball when it popped up and he regained control.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,479
The NFL is full of a bunch of overly litigous fucking idiots.

And whats counts as a "runner"? Is stretching the ball out for the end zone considered being a runner or do you actually have to take steps with your feet?

Both of which Dez did mind you.

Or is the NFL just too chickenshit to admit they're wrong so they will dance around it forever like a bunch of little sniveling bitches?

Probably that.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,041
He also turned up field and reached the ball out.
Yeah, his catch doesn't even make it to that part of the rule. He establishes himself with the 3 steps and the reach.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,298
Beyond infuriating. I am more understanding of the sissy QB roughing rules in place today.

None of this bs existed in the 90s. It was just two feet down with possession. That's it. Much more factual than his whole 'was he a runner' thing. Look at Golden Richards TD catch in SB 12.

This rule clarification still doesn't explain how the f last year's Golden Tate vs Bears play was OVERRULED from Int into a TD.
 
Last edited:

P_T

Baddest MoFo Around
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,067
Ok... I'm going to love seeing them sort out this situation: the receiver catches the ball, gets two feet down, is immediately contacted by 2 (or more) defenders, at which point one of them holds the receiver up while the other strips the ball.

What does that get called? Down by contact, incomplete pass, or a fumble?

Fun times ahead.

If they're going to go down this road... what they need to do is add to the rule: if a receiver is contacted by a defender before he becomes a runner, and a second defender makes contact with the receiver, the play shall be considered over at that point and the receiver deemed "down by contact".
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,298
The dumbest part is the different definition of what constitutes a catch if player is falling to the ground. They are standing behind the Calvin Johnson ruling despite him having clear single-handed control of the ball (doing a windmill with the ball, in fact) with 4 feet on the ground, butt and knee on ground before ball comes out.
 
Last edited:

Chocolate Lab

Mere Commoner
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
20,078
So tired of hearing about this. There were like four minutes left in that game for Rodgers to shred our terrible defense.

So even if it was a catch, we most likely lose anyway.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,637
So tired of hearing about this. There were like four minutes left in that game for Rodgers to shred our terrible defense.

So even if it was a catch, we most likely lose anyway.
Maybe, or maybe something happens like a turnover. That defense was good at creating those. Or maybe Rodgers scores too quickly and Romo has another shot on offense.

Either way you can't tell me that your team is likely to lose when it has a lead and under 4 minutes remaining. That's a stupid assumption.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
122,440
So tired of hearing about this. There were like four minutes left in that game for Rodgers to shred our terrible defense.

So even if it was a catch, we most likely lose anyway.
Nuh uh!

It was like the end of the game. Just like the infamous Crayton drop at midfield which actually happened in the 3rd Q.
 

Chocolate Lab

Mere Commoner
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
20,078
Maybe, or maybe something happens like a turnover. That defense was good at creating those. Or maybe Rodgers scores too quickly and Romo has another shot on offense.
I actually think that was a more likely scenario: Rodgers drives them down and scores with 1:30 or so left, then Romo does his two-minute magic and wins it at the last second.

But our defense didn't stop him at all in those four minutes when they got the ball back trying to run the clock out, so I don't see them doing it when Rodgers was in full attack mode.

Either way you can't tell me that your team is likely to lose when it has a lead and under 4 minutes remaining. That's a stupid assumption.
Usually, but I watched that defense.

Real point is, from the narrative you'd think there were 30 seconds left and that was the game. But we all know four minutes is an eternity.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,637
I actually think that was a more likely scenario: Rodgers drives them down and scores with 1:30 or so left, then Romo does his two-minute magic and wins it at the last second.

But our defense didn't stop him at all in those four minutes when they got the ball back trying to run the clock out, so I don't see them doing it when Rodgers was in full attack mode.

Usually, but I watched that defense.

Real point is, from the narrative you'd think there were 30 seconds left and that was the game. But we all know four minutes is an eternity.
Well the other part is Dez wasn't in the end zone. We may have still milked the clock down. Anyway you look at it we would have been in good position to win the game. Nothing was guaranteed though.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,479
Our defense very nearly get our offense the ball back in that game. They had the Packers in about 3rd and 9 or so, Crawford tipped Rodgers' pass which ended up going end over end and somehow found it's way to Cobb who had to dive to barely catch it only about a yard or so past the 1st down. They were still in FG range but the defense very nearly got it back.

Best case scenario we would've been up by only 3 I think, and that would've necessitated converting the 2 point conversion, so it's likely that Rodgers would've found a way to get them at least the FG and possibly the TD but who knows what would've happened?

The point is they overturned a call that was not definitive and so now we have no clue what would've happened.

I just went back and re-watched that play actually and we had Mincey-Hayden-Crawford-Spencer on the DL rushing Rodgers, no clue how we got as far as we did with that DL but I think we can put a better pass-rushing DL out there Week 1 even without Gregory and Lawrence.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom