Touchdown Reception: Something the NFL needs to clarify...

Maybe I missed the memo that there was a rule change, but the NFL is making these touchdown receptions called incomplete harder and harder to understand day after day. Anybody watching the Steelers/Bengals game today can verify with me...

I've always been under the assumption that all you need to score a touchdown is to have the ball cross the goal line, while in possession. It's no different catching the ball than it is running with the ball. Two particular moments I remember today...

The first was the Chad Johnson catch in the first quarter. He was running parallel with the back line of the end zone. he caught the ball in the air, one foot down, and then he had a knee and arm down almost at the same time. Only problem was that his arm was on the white line. It's called incomplete after review.

The next catch in question was even worst...

Same game, Hines Ward catches ball in the middle of the end zone, absolutely nobody touches him. He has possession of the ball, he hits the ground square on his back and after hitting the ground the ball pops out.


IMHO...both catches today should be touchdowns. Remember back when Wesley Walls played for the Panthers, he caught the TD pass on a crossing route in the end zone against the Rams. He caught the ball in the air, and got nailed when he hit the ground. The ball popped out, but it was still called a TD because he had obvious possession in the air. And in the case of Hines Ward today, the last time I looked, it was stated that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

IMHO, it no different for a receiver to have possession of a football in mid air, than it is for a running back to stick the ball out across the goal line or run to the corner to make contact with a pylon. So why do receivers, in today's NFL, have to acheive total possession, where as say ten years ago all they had to do is be across the goal line with two hands on the ball?

BTW, the definition of a "catch" in today's NFL is stupid...catch, two feet down, and then the ability to move in any direction while having possession.

 

The back of the endzone is treated like a sideline catch. That the difference. Catching the ball in the field of play, and then its any part of the ball going over the line.

Same with the catching in the endzone rule. You have to complete the catch, just like anywhere else on the field. If it would be ruled incomplete at the 1, it will and should be ruled the same in the endzone.



The rules are pretty consistent about that.

 

Yeah, the rules are perfectly clear. On a reception, no matter where it is, you need to have possession through the point at which you make contact with the ground (usually with your feet). I'm certainly a fan of the rule as well, because it's the only way you're able to break up a completion in the end zone.

 

i dont understand the chad johnson one they called it a no catch cause his hand was out of bounds but his knees was in i thought aslong as one knee was in that was the same as having both feet down

 

I think something hit out of bounds before he got a knee or second body part down. I can't really remember it, but on a later replay of it I did see it as out of bounds. On the other, had he landed on his stomach and popped the ball out, they might have given him the ground can't cause a fumble, but without getting any feet down, he landed on his back and the ball immediately came out so he never had possession AND contact with the ground?

 

Correct. He got one foot and then the hand out of bounds.

 

This is what happened.

 

one knee equals two feet





BOOM













tough actin' tanactin

 

Wrong. Hand hit first, OB...thus no good.

 

You're a dumbass. He got one foot down and then the hand. OB either way.