Was it a Catch?

[Dphins4me]

 Alright, I want to know what everyone else thinks.   Was S. Holmes drop catch a reception or not?

For me it was a catch & down just outside the goal.  He got both feet down & to me the lunge was a football move.  How the refs called it incomplete is beyond me.

So what does everyone else think?

[Phishfan]

They made the call because of the rule that states something about keeping control of the ball after going to the ground. It is the same rule that caused Miami to lose a reception by Chambers several years ago. I thought it was a completion myself.

[Dphins4me]

They made the call because of the rule that states something about keeping control of the ball after going to the ground. It is the same rule that caused Miami to lose a reception by Chambers several years ago. I thought it was a completion myself.

  Can you answer me this?   When does it become a catch?  If Holmes runs 5 Yds & dives & does the exact same thing, is it a catch?

[Dave Gray]

I think it was not a catch, per the rules.

Had his knees hit the ground, it would've been, because he would've been down at that point.  However, the ball hit the ground first and came out.  Weird situation, because of how he was falling.

[Dphins4me]

I think it was not a catch, per the rules.

Had his knees hit the ground, it would've been, because he would've been down at that point.  However, the ball hit the ground first and came out.  Weird situation, because of how he was falling.

  Understand, but again.  What happens if he runs 5 Yds & does the same thing?  Is it because he was in contact with the defender & then again what happens if he is fighting with the defender for those same 5 Yds.

This catch rule in the NFL is one F-ed up rule.

[Dave Gray]

I think that if he ran 5 yards, it would've been a fumble.

There's no "2 feet and a football move" anymore.  I think that he was kinda falling as he caught it is what led to the call.

[jtex316]

Why is Santonio Holmes always involved in a controversial call?

[Phishfan]

  I think that he was kinda falling as he caught it is what led to the call.

Exactly why they made the call. If a player is running then it obviously is a catch. A diving or falling player has to maintain possession of the ball after making contact with the ground.

[Spider-Dan]

There's no "2 feet and a football move" anymore.

Where did you read this?  I've not heard anything of the sort.

As I saw it, it was a catch:

a) he had possession and made a "football move" (extending the ball forward after he caught it)
b) the ground cannot cause a fumble

[StL FinFan]

The ball was coming out as he was trying to stretch across the goal line.  Yes, the ground cannot cause a fumble, but if you catch the ball you have to maintain possession to the ground for it to be a completion.  Therefore, the correct call was made: incomplete pass.

[fyo]

The ball was coming out as he was trying to stretch across the goal line.  Yes, the ground cannot cause a fumble, but if you catch the ball you have to maintain possession to the ground for it to be a completion.  Therefore, the correct call was made: incomplete pass.

I disagree that the second part applies. He ran several steps with the ball before throwing himself into the end zone (and it's a TD the moment it breaks the goal line, so it could never be a fumble, even if the ground could cause one in the first place).

"Coming to the ground with possession" comes into play when the player has not "established" himself. I think it was VERY clear that Holmes did.

Look at it another way, had he DROPPED the ball instead of reaching for the end zone, would it have been incomplete or a fumble? I say fumble.

[Dave Gray]

I disagree that the second part applies. He ran several steps with the ball before throwing himself into the end zone

I think the real question is "Was he falling as he made the catch?"  I thought yes, therefore, he had to maintain possession to the ground.

[Thundergod]

Where did you read this?  I've not heard anything of the sort.

As I saw it, it was a catch:

a) he had possession and made a "football move" (extending the ball forward after he caught it)
b) the ground cannot cause a fumble

I disagree that the second part applies. He ran several steps with the ball before throwing himself into the end zone (and it's a TD the moment it breaks the goal line, so it could never be a fumble, even if the ground could cause one in the first place).

"Coming to the ground with possession" comes into play when the player has not "established" himself. I think it was VERY clear that Holmes did.

Look at it another way, had he DROPPED the ball instead of reaching for the end zone, would it have been incomplete or a fumble? I say fumble.

Agreed.

That was a messed up call.

[Dave Gray]

Where did you read this?  I've not heard anything of the sort.

Re: the no more "two feet and a football move = catch" rule

I didn't read it.  I think I just heard it on TV broadcasts.  I believe the "football move" verbage was changed, but I can't be sure.  I'll look for a link.

Edit -- Link here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?s=d68559449fbdd3cd8c78c45fea34b948&showtopic=341397&mode=linearplus

It's just a forum with a guy talking about it.  They've removed the football move part and added the part about control through the ground.

[Brian Fein]

What's worse, imagine this scenario.

A receiver all alone on the sideline makes a acrobatic catch while falling out of bounds.  He hauls it in, gets two feet down in bounds, and falls and lands on his back out of bounds.  When he hits the ground, the ball moves a bit and then he grabs it and retains possession.  The ball is on his chest the entire time and never touches the ground.

Ruling?

Incomplete.

Even though he made the catch in bounds, he will be considered one giant bobble if it is evident that the ball moves after the WR hits the ground.  Even though the ball never touched the ground, the player was technically out of bounds when he made the catch.

What does this have to do with Holmes?

The rules state that if a player is making a catch while falling down, the player must maintain indisputable control and possession of the ball throughout the act of falling and afterwards.  In this case, the real ruling was that the two feet on the ground were not enough, as the player was falling as he made the catch and thus, did not maintain control after he went to the ground.

It seems to me that the subject of "when is a catch a catch" has been a subject of much debate in the NFL rules committee over the past several seasons, and will continue to be such until they get a good rule in place.  I think the Santonio Holmes incident from this weekend's game was a travesty and a glaring example of why the current rule-set doesn't work.