What is a catch? Inbounds or out of bounds?

[ThaVirus]

I liked the Garrett Wilson call as a catch. I’m OK with being awarded a TD for a sizable portion of the shin hitting in bounds before the rest lands out of bounds.

I also have no problems with the Pickens non-TD for tapping the same foot twice. If you can tap the same foot in bounds twice, you can certainly tap both feet in bounds once. He didn’t so he didn’t deserve a TD.. though I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if that rule is reviewed this offseason. I wouldn’t be upset if it were changed either, even though I don’t think it happens frequently enough to matter in the long run.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I liked the Garrett Wilson call as a catch. I’m OK with being awarded a TD for a sizable portion of the shin hitting in bounds before the rest lands out of bounds.

I also have no problems with the Pickens non-TD for tapping the same foot twice. If you can tap the same foot in bounds twice, you can certainly tap both feet in bounds once. He didn’t so he didn’t deserve a TD.. though I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if that rule is reviewed this offseason. I wouldn’t be upset if it were changed either, even though I don’t think it happens frequently enough to matter in the long run.

I hope not. That's gonna be one of those rule changes that create more headaches than it solves.

I mean, what if a 'toe drag' ends up a 'toe skip' and you double tap the same foot twice. Is that 'two steps' because the toe bounced off the ground before it re-connected? Now do we have to start seeing how high the foot lifted to determine if it 'broke contact with the grass' before it came down again, thus constituting the same foot twice?

That's gonna be a shitshow. Please don't get into all that.

As you've noted - at a point this is all theatre either way. Why should it be 2 rather than 1 as in college? No reason - it's arbitrary. So it's not like we're leaning on any fundamental laws of nature here.

If the rule says get two feet down rather than 1 foot down twice, well that's the damn rule. Execute that.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I hope not. That's gonna be one of those rule changes that create more headaches than it solves.

I mean, what if a 'toe drag' ends up a 'toe skip' and you double tap the same foot twice. Is that 'two steps' because the toe bounced off the ground before it re-connected? Now do we have to start seeing how high the foot lifted to determine if it 'broke contact with the grass' before it came down again, thus constituting the same foot twice?

That's gonna be a shitshow. Please don't get into all that.

As you've noted - at a point this is all theatre either way. Why should it be 2 rather than 1 as in college? No reason - it's arbitrary. So it's not like we're leaning on any fundamental laws of nature here.

If the rule says get two feet down rather than 1 foot down twice, well that's the damn rule. Execute that.

Remember when Toney caught that swing pass against Jax and hopped on one foot to the EZ? Had he gotten pushed OOB that would have not been a catch when it clearly was. Just food for thought - it’s not always possible to get 2 feet down but the same foot multiple times should count

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Remember when Toney caught that swing pass against Jax and hopped on one foot to the EZ? Had he gotten pushed OOB that would have not been a catch when it clearly was. Just food for thought - it’s not always possible to get 2 feet down but the same foot multiple times should count

If a guy hops on 1 foot intentionally and gets pushed out of bounds, that’s like fumbling into the endzone because you dropped the ball at the 1 to celebrate.

I wouldn’t change a rule to protect a guy from his own stupidity.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

If a guy hops on 1 foot intentionally and gets pushed out of bounds, that’s like fumbling into the endzone because you dropped the ball at the 1 to celebrate.

I wouldn’t change a rule to protect a guy from his own stupidity.

Right - kinda what I'm alluding to when I say that these rules aren't exactly governed by natural law here.

They're just...rules.

No different than an ineligible man downfield penalty. Or requirements that you have a certain number of players on the LOS. The game can be played WITHOUT those rules, but they're there so we abide by them.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

If a guy hops on 1 foot intentionally and gets pushed out of bounds, that’s like fumbling into the endzone because you dropped the ball at the 1 to celebrate.

I wouldn’t change a rule to protect a guy from his own stupidity.

Have you never lost your balance and only able to stay on one foot?

[digger]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Remember when Toney caught that swing pass against Jax and hopped on one foot to the EZ? Had he gotten pushed OOB that would have not been a catch when it clearly was. Just food for thought - it’s not always possible to get 2 feet down but the same foot multiple times should count

He catches the pass
He gets two feet down
----------------------- At this point it's a catch...

He stars hopping on one foot
He keeps hopping on one foot into the end zone
At the point the ball crosses the end zone it's a TD...

[digger]

He has two feet down before getting in the end zone...

[Mecca]

It was incredibly close I honestly think they gave him the TD because it's a highlight reel play.

[RedinTexas]

One of my favorite aspects of this is the difference between a toe and a heel. If a player catches the ball and drags one toe from each foot in bounds before they cross out of bounds, that is a catch in bounds. However, if a player catches the ball with one entire foot down in bounds and the second foot touches in bounds with the heel, but the rest of the foot then comes down with just the toe out of bounds, then it is not a catch as it is out of bounds. It doesn't matter that the heel came down first, only that the toe touched out of bounds.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

One of my favorite aspects of this is the difference between a toe and a heel. If a player catches the ball and drags one toe from each foot in bounds before they cross out of bounds, that is a catch in bounds. However, if a player catches the ball with one entire foot down in bounds and the second foot touches in bounds with the heel, but the rest of the foot then comes down with just the toe out of bounds, then it is not a catch as it is out of bounds. It doesn't matter that the heel came down first, only that the toe touched out of bounds.

This is absolutely the strangest one.

Why does a toe tap where the heel comes down as part of the step OOB mean no catch whereas a toe drag doesn't?

That one seems especially arbitrary. Why should popping a toe down and lifting it be good when popping that same toe down and dropping the heel down isn't?

Best argument I have is that the toe and lift thing demonstrates a level of body control; it's a concerted movement. Whereas getting the toe and rolling onto the hell is more of a concession to momentum and thus doesn't end the first movement but is rather a continuation of it?

[CoMoChief]

Kinda wish they'd just adopt the 1foot rule like in NCAA.

Less replay reviews for refs to get involved with.

Better catches and scoring, potentially.

It's gotten to the point where they've made rules so subjective they don't know how to call the game thus too much going thru the NY/officials headset, and wtf knows what goes on during those convos.

There's a reason why the refs continue to get worse and worse.

#****jefftripplet

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Kinda wish they'd just adopt the 1foot rule like in NCAA.

Less replay reviews for refs to get involved with.

Better catches and scoring, potentially.

It's gotten to the point where they've made rules so subjective they don't know how to call the game thus too much going thru the NY/officials headset, and wtf knows what goes on during those convos.

There's a reason why the refs continue to get worse and worse.

#****jefftripplet

This.

I'm in favor, generally, of easier reffing decisions. One foot is easier.

Although it is less dramatic so I don't think they will change it.

I also do NOT like that the ball can touch the ground as long as you maintain control. Well how much control? No touching the ground is an easier, bright line rule. Sure, there is still the issue did you complete a football move before you fell to the ground as the ball touched the field. But this would not come up as often. I don't see any chance of this happening either.

I thought the overturn was correct. I thought it clear enough the shin touched in bounds before knee OOB.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Kinda wish they'd just adopt the 1foot rule like in NCAA.

Less replay reviews for refs to get involved with.

Better catches and scoring, potentially.

It's gotten to the point where they've made rules so subjective they don't know how to call the game thus too much going thru the NY/officials headset, and wtf knows what goes on during those convos.

There's a reason why the refs continue to get worse and worse.

#****jefftripplet

Please God, no. I mean, I get it from the perspective of wanting more scoring. But every rule/change they've implemented to make the game easier, to make it safer, to increase scoring, has led to more and more mediocre play. More mediocre QBs. More mediocre coaches. More mediocre OLs and DLs.

Please go back to making the game harder. Maybe, probably, we'll see the quality of the game go back up.

[kcgreene]

I liked the ruling because I started Garrett Wilson in Fantasy, so obviously the refs were correct.

If I was playing him, I'd have opposed the ruling and the refs would have been cheating bastards.

It's the simple things sometimes...