Help Me Understand Something, Please

[stanhin]

I don't pretend to know the specifics of the rule, but currently in the NFL, after a receiver touches the ball, he has to take a couple of steps and make a football move before it is considered a fumble (as opposed to an incomplete pass) if the ball is knocked loose. Just now, in the Chicago / SF game, the receiver was contacted by a defender as soon as he touched the pass (before he had a chance to take any steps or make a football move) and the tackler took him instantly to the ground, where he hit on his butt, which popped the ball loose up in the air (and a defender then caught it before it ever hit the ground). Without any controversy or comments from the analysts, the receiver was ruled down with a completed catch. Is that right? Thanks in advance for any help you can give me. EDIT--I'm not recording the game, so maybe I just saw it wrong, but they played the replay a couple of times and that is what it looked like to me.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

the receiver was contacted by a defender as soon as he touched the pass (before he had a chance to take any steps or make a football move) and the tackler took him instantly to the ground, where he hit on his butt, which popped the ball loose up in the air (and a defender then caught it before it ever hit the ground). Without any controversy or comments from the analysts, the receiver was ruled down with a completed catch. Is that right?

It's a judgment call but if they decided he had possession then yes it's correct. I suspect the reasoning was that if he was tackled immediately, then he didn't have a chance to make a "football move" and they probably ruled that he had possession at that time.

The tricky part about this one is that if you assume that the pass should be incomplete because the ball came out when he hit the ground, then the play should still be live, and the pass should be an interception because the guy caught the ball without it having touched the ground. It kind of seems like that SHOULD have been the ruling, but I feel like the rules are a little inconsistent. Used to irritate me to no end when Mussberger would spout "the ground can't cause a fumble" when the OU receiver picked off a pass in the end zone, but the ball came out when he hit the ground. (Which of course are two separate rules that he never seemed to understand.)

Maybe their distinction is that since the player himself was down, that ended the play regardless.

 

[Statalyzer]

From the description it sounds like it should have been an interception, but I haven't seen it.

 

[Pomspoms]

I understand why the officials would call the receiver down but it just seems like to me that the Baseball rule should apply. When an outfielder catches the ball and it seems secure in the glove but when he hits the ground the ball comes out and it's ruled not a catch. It feels like it should have been an interception. However if the receiver had absolute control as he was hitting the ground as opposed to bobbling it then maybe he should be called down. But I just feel like the Baseball rule should apply even though it's contrary to the rules of football. Seems like you have to have control all the way through til there is no body movement.

 

[stanhin]

Okay, I have NFL Sunday ticket so I was just able to watch a replay. If anybody else has access, the play occurs at about the 11:07 mark of the third quarter. The QB hits the receiver with the pass right in the stomach and the defender instantaneously wraps him in a bear hug from behind and throws him immediately to the ground, the impact with which pops the ball up in the air (without the ball ever touching the ground) where it is caught by a defender. So, I remembered it pretty well. I'm thinking that because the ball hit the receiver so solidly in the stomach, it was considered a catch at that moment without the receiver having to make a football move or take any steps, as would normally be required.