I still don't know what to catch is for a touchdown....
- Thread starter IBleedMaroonDawg
- Start date
That receiver never had control of the ball
That was a pretty easy call. He never had possession until he was out of bounds.
Silly me, I thought that once you crossed the ball across the goal line with both hands on the ball. It was the touchdown at that moment... I didn't realize you needed to carry the ball all the way back to the bus.
He never really controlled the ball until he stepped out of bounds. Just having two hands on it isn’t controlling it.
You didn’t see him bobbling the ball for nine yards? He didn’t control the ball until he was out of bounds. He was still bobbling it when his foot left the field of play. That was an easy replay overturn for no catch.
He literally never had the ball the entire way through the endzone. Just bobbled it around. That’s never been a catch ever.
The running back stretching to get across the line has established control of the ball. He only needs the ball to break the plane. The WR must establish control. The bar is higher because he does not have it established.
How could you possibly see that play as anything other than an incomplete pass?
Maybe I should rephrase that. I am used to only dealing with what's on television. I don't care what other posters say. I have no issues with anyone on this page.
My issue is the changes from year to year in what constitutes a touchdown, what constitutes a catch, and what it is not. I know why I'm just old because I remember the day when an official said it was a TD, not what somebody watching the television said.
The next thing you know, we will be waiting for the machine to tell us whether it's a strike or not...
Bobbling the ball as you’re going out of bounds has never been a catch. You’re picking a strange hill to die on. That was clearly not a catch, and you seem to be the only one who doesn’t think that.
I wasn't alive in 1920 either.
I was referring to the very beginning of the play, when he had both hands on the ball and crossed the goal line. Most guys are concerned with whether he babbles this ball or not; it's clear he did. That is at the end of the play. That's not what I was talking about. I was under the impression that when you cross the line with the ball in your hands, it's a touchdown.
You’re under the wrong impression. You’re thinking of a running play. On a pass play, you actually have to catch the ball to score a touchdown. So under your thinking, just throw a jump ball to a receiver in the end zone and if he touches it with two hands, it’s a touchdown, regardless of if he catches it or not.
It won't be the first time, nor will it be the last.
I still remember when the referees called the touchdown... Oh well.
I find it interesting that some plays are reviewable, while others are not.
So your definition of a catch is if you have both hands on the ball. Then theoretically I could volleyball set a ball out of bounds and say it was a catch and fumble after all I had both hands on the ball.
I'll try. You're in the old timers on this page. One of these days, I might catch up to you guys.
You don’t. But you do have to actually catch the ball. Not juggle it for 10 yards before finally catching it out of bounds.
Having both hands on a ball is not control. You must establish control and be in bounds in order to score a TD. The person who blocks a kick with two hands touches it with two hands but has not established control. Don’t compare it to a run. The runner has already established control. The bar is lower for him to score.
I understand the difference. I just thought he had scored. They have significantly complicated this game over the years.
That would not be a catch 50 years ago either.
That’s not what happened. He crossed the line. THEN, the ball hit him in the hands. He failed to secure it before stepping out of bounds. Not a touchdown, ever.
