See my other response: “

“Survive the ground” is not in the rule book, but it is used in determining catches, apparently. “Football move” is in the rule book, just in different terms (e.g. tucking the ball away, turning upfield, taking additional steps).

Just because they removed the terminology of “a move common to football” does not mean that the idea of a “football move” does not still exist. Much like they interpret the rule based on the phrase “survive the ground” even though that isn’t in the rulebook, you will still hear commentator’s, referees, and analysts…

Literally all of your arguments are false equivalents.

This is wrong. I haven’t paid attention to the numerous times this has been said, but it needs to be stated now. They’ve taken the wording of “move common to the game of football” or whatever it was, out of the rule, but it still has some bearing on what is determined a catch or not. Announcers, retired referee…

Well, well, well...I’ll bring this bad boy out of the grays.

But I’m saying the rule is written in a way that he doesn’t have to complete the process of going to the ground! If that were the case, then they should have written the rule in such a way! The rule doesn’t say anything about maintaining possession through the process of going to the ground.

Alright, I’m going to respond to this by just saying that, while “You’re engaging in a semantics” doesn’t make the most sense, semantics are kind of the point of a rule. Particularly one that the NFL has twisted and convoluted in such a way as the catch rule. It’s fine to say that it’s been interpreted similarly in…

By my interpretation, yes that is a catch as soon as his knee hits the ground, and he is controlling it. No matter where it happens on the field, I think that’s a catch. If he reaches out to get to a first-down marker and the ball pops out like it does here, then it’s a catch and a fumble. How is that not correct? If…

Okay, but I don’t see where the rule uses the “survive the ground” language. That’s just the language used by the people reviewing it, it seemed to me.

Let me say this: I think, by definition of the rule, it’s wrong. I also this, by any logical person viewing this, it’s wrong.

I don’t disagree, but it’s worked for them before, so I can’t blame them for trying. It’s basically saying that you like your chances of your guy one-on-one against a defender who, potentially, gets a bit of a late start. The difference this time is that the play wasn’t initially there, giving defenders a chance to…

Stop saying the goal line doesn’t change anything. It absolutely DOES. If he made the catch at the ten, turned upfield, and dove towards the endzone, then as soon as the ball crosses the plane (before the hands and arms have a chance to hit the ground), the play is over and it is a touchdown. Because he has possession…

Meh. This is trying to catch the defense unaware. I have no problem with only the QB and the receiver knowing what’s happening. But he doesn’t have to force it. Throwing it out of the endzone produces the same effect as clocking it—namely, it stops the clock and makes it fourth down. I am fine with the “Hey, let’s see…

No problem with the attempt. Big problem with the throw. Just toss it out of the endzone, Ben...

But...but he does. The rule requires that a player must “must maintain control of the ball until after his contact with the ground.” The initial contact is his knee. Then, just to be sure, there’s secondary contact with his hip. If they want to make the rule so fucking convoluted, then they better do it right. The way…

The rule for a defender going to the ground is:

Again, a first down marker and the goal line are two different things. He catches the ball, controls the ball through the “initial contact with the ground” as the rule requires (half of his body is on the ground)—this is when it should be possession—, and then he reaches over the goal line. Once he breaks the plane of…

Well, yeah. But that’s because a first down marker and a goal line affect the play differently. Reaching the ball over the goal line effectively ends the play. That’s what should have happened here.

No. But only because I’m an Eagles fan and hate the Cowboys and, in particular, Dez.