What is a catch?

by WV2Buffalo on Oct 17, 2011 4:14 PM EDT

Following the Cincinnati game, many of us were frustrated by the officials upholding the call that Stevie Johnson dropped the third down pass late in the game. Gailey correctly challenged the call, and the official said that Stevie did not catch the pass. I know this play has been discussed ad nauseum on this site, and I know that the implications (we hold the ball and go down to secure the win with a score) have been fantasized about as well. However, yesterday in the 49ers-Lions games, a similar play occurred on Brandon Pettigrew's touchdown catch early in the game (not to be confused with Burleson's touchdown later that spurred the criticism for inconsistency). Pettigrew made the catch over Patrick Willis and went to the ground with Willis' arm still in his grasp. On the ground, Willis pulled out his arm and dislodged the football. This play was ruled a catch and a touchdown (and potentially laid the groundwork for the Harbaugh-Schwartz blow up - Schwartz was on video mouthing "learn the rules" across the field toward Harbaugh when Harbaugh challenged the non-challengeable scoring play). My point: if Pettigrew made a catch, then shouldn't Stevie have gotten credit for the catch? Both of these plays received an extensive review, and both reviews had clear visuals on what happened (meaning the refs were able to make a determination instead of merely upholding the call on the field). I join with Mike Silver and other writers who clamour for a clearer rule on what is a catch - namely, if it would be a catch on the playground, then it should likely be a catch in the NFL. Final thought: if the NFL officials were consistently applying the rules, then the Bills would be 5-1 (yes, I took some liberties with the ending of the Cincy game). PS - I think the official correctly ruled the Manningham catch incomplete over McGee because the ball was moving as they hit - Mario never had complete control. A much easier call for the official to make and for the fan to accept.

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Q: What is a catch in the NFL?

A: Depends on the crew officiating.

Fitz = M(C)²
"Lets Go Buff! a! lo!"

by bflo on Oct 17, 2011 4:27 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 5 recs

Haha, recd

I’ll wait until you say something sig worthy

by BillsFanSanDiego619 on Oct 17, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m not very knowledgeable on these things but it seems the plays were pretty similar to me and should have resulted in the same call. The NFL certainly needs to clear it up because even experts aren’t sure what the interpretation of the rules are.

by paxon on Oct 17, 2011 5:48 PM EDT reply actions

Ugh.

Steratore makes me so sick every time I watch him officiate a game. That is literally the only time in my 20+ years of watching football that I’ve put serious consideration to the idea of an NFL referee taking money to make a call. So much just doesn’t add up on that play.

I want the Bills to go 14-2 and get the #1 seed in the playoffs, so there is absolutely, positively no way we ever have to revisit that travesty of a call again.

by APhoenixDestiny on Oct 17, 2011 6:43 PM EDT reply actions

There was one big difference

With Stevie, it was “initially” ruled an incompletion (the close ref was signaling complete, but the line judge overruled him). So there needed to be indisputable evidence to overrule an incompletion, and with the referee camera angles, it was hard to ABSOLUTELY determine the result.
With this catch, if it was initially ruled a completion, it needs indisputable evidence to overrule the catch. In this case, inconclusive angles work in favor of the person who made the catch.
So basically, it really depends on the crew officiating. The initial call they make will set the groundwork for the reviews, if needed.
(And to be honest, I feel like the refs in Detroit’s game were quite lax in what they called catches, from what I saw of the highlights)

"Give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time, and he’ll eventually release Maybin." - stetzwebs

by DanRoc on Oct 17, 2011 7:03 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

kind of hate the NFL on this level

The NFL has totally destroyed the game of football in many regards with their sub-sections and heady interpretations of absurd tangeants of the rule book. I refuse to even watch replay reviews during NFL telecasts (all 10-12 of them per game) as I have lost interest in the philosophical debates that ensue about what is a catch and what is a fumble and what is a tuck and what is a football move and what is indisputable evidence, etc. If I wanted to spend my free time with philosophy, I’d spend it reading Kierkegaard- not about the essence of a kid’s game played with an oblong ball.

"There's only one C.J. Spiller." -Buddy Nix

by Port Royal on Oct 18, 2011 2:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Easy solution

End replay now. Do they really get better calls due to replay? Come on, it was obvious the other day that Bradshaw didn’t get into the end zone, but supposedly the refs said he got a TD. These catches that they call drops because the guy fell over after running with the ball after 5 yards and dropping it are crazy, especially when the guy already had 2 feet in bounds and then fell. Moronic rules that wouldn’t even exist if there wasn’t replay.

by mxsd on Oct 19, 2011 1:57 PM EDT reply actions