Rams Vs Cardinals -Rules Question???

[RP]

I consider myself fairly knowledgable about NFL rules, but there was a play in the second half of last night's game that left me confused. Sorry I don't know know the names of the two players involved, but I'll try to explain it. FWIW the play was called and then re-examined by officials.

The Cardinals were on offense. Pass thrown to Cardinal receiver who appeared to have control of the ball before being jostled by Ram defenseman. The ball was knocked loose and went out of bounds. The final ruling was incomplete pass even though it appeared to me to be a completed pass and then a fumble which went out of bounds. What did I miss???

[reeve21]

I didn't see the play, but I think there is something in the rules that says you must control the ball all the way to the ground. If you lose control when you hit the ground that is ok, but you can't be juggling on your way down and then lose control. But I'm a Giants fan, so I obviously know nothing about football

[RP]

Ok, I just found this, but I'm still not clear on the rule regarding this:

What happened: Cardinals receiver A.J. Green pulled in a pass from quarterback Kyler Murray at the Cardinals' 26-yard line and was hit by Rams safety Nick Scott, at which point the ball fell to the ground [and went out of bounds].

How it was resolved: Referee Clay Martin's crew originally called a catch and a fumble. [Which is how I saw it] After a challenge from Rams coach Sean McVay, the call was reversed to an incomplete pass.

Analysis: It wouldn't be a playoff game without a catch rule dispute, right? For some reason, the NFL struggled to adjudicate the catch rule all season. To secure a catch, current NFL rules require a player to gain control of the ball in bounds and then make "any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent)." The rule goes on to say: "It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."

When you watch the replay, Green took a hop-step after the ball landed in his hands and then immediately lost control of the ball when he was hit. He did not fulfill the third element of a catch, and the NFL's replay office in New York was correct to reverse the call.

The decision was clear enough that it's fair to question why the replay official on site did not step in immediately to correct the call, as happened hundreds of times this season under the league's new video assist rule. Martin's crew spent an extended amount of time discussing the call, suggesting it was in communication with the replay official, but the original call stood until McVay was required to use a challenge.

McVay's challenge was not without risk. Had the call stood, he would have been out of challenges for the rest of the game. The play was eventually adjudicated correctly, which is the most important part, but it took more time than it needed to.

[Draft Guitar]

It came down to whether or not the receiver performed a "football move" following the reception and before losing control of the ball.

Did you notice the confidence in the Cardinals' coaches face as he threw the challenge flag? He knew exactly what he was doing, it was a smart move.

Football move = personal perception of what a football move is.

[RP]

Originally Posted by Draft Guitar

It came down to whether or not the receiver performed a "football move" following the reception and before losing control of the ball.

Did you notice the confidence in the Cardinals' coaches face as he threw the challenge flag? He knew exactly what he was doing, it was a smart move.

Football move = personal perception of what a football move is.

It was the Ram's coach who challenged the initial ruling, and the mistake in that initial ruling was borne out by a reversal of it. But " The rule goes on to say: "It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so." It looked to these 71 year-old eyes that he had possession long enough to make a "football move."

[Draft Guitar]

I'm sorry, you are correct, challenged by the Rams' coach.

When I watched the play live I said "incomplete." I think it was very close and maybe a case could be made that it was complete and a fumble, but ultimately the review team made the call. Was it correct? Not completely sure. Did it matter? Maybe not.

[godfreydaniel]

I leaned toward it being a completed pass and a fumble out of bounds, the original call.

[RP]

Originally Posted by godfreydaniel

I leaned toward it being a completed pass and a fumble out of bounds, the original call.

Yeh, me too. I'm not a hard-core football fan so I figured that I either missed something or was ignorant of a particular rule.

[raysachs]

The NFL has always had trouble defining what constitutes a catch. A Supreme Court Justice once said he couldn't define obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it. I think most football fans feel that way about a catch, but obviously you can't just define a catch as "I know it when I see it" because fans of different teams will see the same catch or non-catch very differently as it serves their interest.

Maybe the most famous catch call was in the playoffs Dallas vs Green Bay (in January 2015) when Dez Bryant made a spectacular attempt, was juggling the ball as he went to the ground, it popped up in the air when he hit the ground but he gained control of it while on the ground without the ball ever hitting the ground. I think almost everyone who saw that thought it was a catch by the "I know it when I see it" standard, but the way the NFL rule was written it wasn't. I'm about the strongest anti-Dallas fan on earth, but even I thought it was clearly a catch. But it was ruled a non-catch and Dallas almost surely lost the game on that call.

After that they attempted to clarify the rule and just made it more confusing. They now allow for some movement of the ball in the receivers arms/hands as long as he doesn't "lose control" of it - obviously a total judgement (I know it when I see it) call. It can pop loose when you hit the ground, if you've made a "football move" between when you catch it and it pops out upon hitting the ground, because then it would be a fumble and the ground can't cause a fumble. So if you've been deemed to make a football move (which usually constitutes 2 steps, maybe 3?) it's a catch even if you lose it upon hitting the ground. But if you catch it as you're falling or diving, even if you seem to clearly control it BEFORE you hit the ground, if it comes loose when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. Because finishing your dive or fall with the ball in your control, but losing it when you hit the ground isn't good enough.

One of my favorite examples of that was when Zach Ertz of the Eagles caught the winning TD pass in Super Bowl 52 - he caught it at about the 3 or 4 yard line, turned upfield, took a couple steps toward the end zone (with a defender draped over his legs, attempting to bring him down), then dove in, crossing the line and then the ball popped loose when he hit the ground. They ruled it was a valid catch and a touchdown because he caught it, controlled it as he made his move and dive toward the end zone, and it was moot the second it broke the plane of the end zone, at which point it became a touchdown. If he lost control of it AFTER that, it didn't matter. By the rule, it was clearly a catch, but the announcer Chris Collinsworth, a fine receiver in his day, said something to the effect of 'if that's a catch, I don't know what a catch is' on the broadcast. Many Patriot fans agreed with Collinsworth, not surprisingly... I thought it was definitely a catch, but I thought that Dez Bryant catch three years prior was definitely a catch too. So what do I know?

No matter how clear they think they've made the rule, there are always close calls that just come down to a judgement call, and great weight is given to the call on the field if it remains a close call after they review it. Don't get me started on pass interference!

-Ray

[robj144]

You need two feet down and then do a "football move" for it to be a catch. In other words, you have to start to run or do something demonstrating you have the ball.

[roberts]

I thought they actually got this call right. When Green makes the catch he taps one foot, then does a hop step with both feet. Almost simultaneous. He tries to straighten up and is hit bang-bang. If anything he's leaning backwards when contacted. Straightening up is not a football move. And Ray, I feel your pain on PI....

[hairpuller]

Refs are very human and they make plenty of mistakes, but when taking into the consideration the speed of the sport and how many things are going on at the same time, I'm amazed how many times they are right.

That "is it a catch" rule still comes down to a human's judgment. I thought it was a catch (and I'm a Rams fan), but it's subjective. On a play that close, you're gonna get a lot of votes on each side. So, as long as they attempt to follow the rule and apply it the same on each catch, I live with it.

[RP]

Originally Posted by hairpuller

...I thought it was a catch (and I'm a Rams fan), but it's subjective. On a play that close, you're gonna get a lot of votes on each side. So, as long as they attempt to follow the rule and apply it the same on each catch, I live with it.

I should have previously stated that I too was rooting for the Rams so my thinking that the initial ruling on the play was correct was not based on fan bias...

[FLRon]

When I saw it live I thought incomplete pass and after all the back and forth I still do.