OTTAWA @ CALGARY

[Jpan85]

22 minutes ago, Mike said:

If you look at it, he caught the ball with one foot on the ground. Pivots, plants the other foot, gets blown up and loses the ball. If that's a catch on the sidelines and the same thing happens, but the ball goes out of bounds, that's ruled an incomplete pass every single time.

He didn't take a step, he didn't make a football move. Should've been ruled incomplete.

 

They don't use steps or football moves as criteria as a catch as long as he has possession of the ball for moment of time he has caught it.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Jpan85 said:

They don't use steps or football moves as criteria as a catch as long as he has possession of the ball for moment of time he has caught it.

What is possession, though?

Seriously. I'm not trying to be purposely difficult, I just don't look at that play and think initially that it was a catch.

So what rules apply when it's that close? Because to me, possession would be that he secured the ball and unless he tucked it (which he didn't) then I don't think he secured it. There has to be a rule beyond "it touched both hands at once with a foot on the ground" that determines this stuff, I just have no idea what it is.

[Jpan85]

That is the rule straight from the head of officials. By the definition he gave and the examples he showed it was how they view it and call it. So at least they are consistent there.

[TBURGESS]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Part 1: you're missing the second part of the equation, where you have to survive contact. If all you need to do is have one foot on the ground and possession of the ball for a millisecond for it to be ruled a catch, then there are a lot more catches in the CFL than what gets called.

Part 2: it's a different rule when there's contact, but I can't find the play to comment and I don't remember it.

Part 1: He didn't drop the ball because he went to the ground, which is where the survive contact comes into play. He caught the ball then lost it on the hit. The only question is did he have the ball long enough to be called a catch or not. I think he did. Obviously you don't.

Part 2: I'm talking about the play where the Stamps recovered the ball and took it to the end zone after Harris got hit while throwing. Originally called a fumble, overturned by the C'mon Center. Ball is clearly thrown backwards IMO.

[Jpan85]

Just now, TBURGESS said:

Part 1: He didn't drop the ball because he went to the ground, which is where the survive contact comes into play. He caught the ball then lost it on the hit. The only question is did he have the ball long enough to be called a catch or not. I think he did. Obviously you don't.

Part 2: I'm talking about the play where the Stamps recovered the ball and took it to the end zone after Harris got hit while throwing. Originally called a fumble, overturned by the C'mon Center. Ball is clearly thrown backwards IMO.

 

[Mike]

And that makes sense.

The catch rule does not, however. IMO.

[Nickthesizz]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

And that makes sense.

The catch rule does not, however. IMO.

It's better than "football move" wtf is a football move.

 

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Gotmilt said:

It's better than "football move" wtf is a football move.

[Mr. Perfect]

13 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

 

That's a pretty ridiculous standard. A joke.

[TBURGESS]

Interesting. Thanks Jpan.

Still doesn't make sense to me. If the QB throws the ball forward, it's a live ball that can be intercepted. If he throws it backwards, the refs pretend it was thrown forward?

[bearpants]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Because he doesn't tuck it.

that's the way I saw it... to me it didn't look like he ever had complete possession... so a football move or step or whatever is irrelevant...

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Player makes a catch by the sidelines. Only gets 1 foot down. Called a catch, every time. Same should hold true on the field. Player makes a catch. Gets one foot down. It's a catch. If he then gets blown up and fumbles, it's a fumble.

 

but in that same circumstance if he's getting hit out of bounds and drops the ball it would be considered an incomplete pass... not a fumble with the team getting possession where the ball went out... at least that's my interpretation...

[BomberBall]

3 hours ago, Gotmilt said:

if you're talking about the Lavoie one, he caught it, looked up, took a step and was creamed. If that was a bomber everyone here would have been calling for a fumble.

I wasn't basing my statement on any type of bias against Calgary or how I would perceive it if it were involving the Bombers.  I simply said, I'm not sure that was a catch and fumble.

He caught it and took a step, but I'm not sure he ever secured the ball.

[Nickthesizz]

1 minute ago, BomberBall said:

I wasn't basing my statement on any type of bias against Calgary or how I would perceive it if it were involving the Bombers.  I simply said, I'm not sure that was a catch and fumble.

He caught it and took a step, but I'm not sure he ever secured the ball.

you don't have to secure it, I think changing directions or taking a step with the ball in your hands should be enough.

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, Gotmilt said:

you don't have to secure it, I think changing directions or taking a step with the ball in your hands should be enough.

I'm over this argument, but you definitely have to secure it otherwise, you could just say "hey it hit my hand, that's good enough"

How do you catch a ball without "securing" it.

[BomberBall]

3 minutes ago, Gotmilt said:

you don't have to secure it, I think changing directions or taking a step with the ball in your hands should be enough.

I'll preface this by saying I haven't looked at the CFL rule book on this, but that can't be accurate.  You need to posses the ball before it's considered a catch.

[Nickthesizz]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm over this argument, but you definitely have to secure it otherwise, you could just say "hey it hit my hand, that's good enough"

How do you catch a ball without "securing" it.

if you catch it, you shouldn't have to put it under your arm then run 5 yards downfield before possession can occur, if the ball stops moving in your hands that should be possession imo. 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Gotmilt

[Nickthesizz]

1 minute ago, BomberBall said:

I'll preface this by saying I haven't looked at the CFL rule book on this, but that can't be accurate.  You need to posses the ball before it's considered a catch.

what is your definition of possess? A dictionary may help.

[Atomic]

19 minutes ago, Gotmilt said:

what is your definition of possess? A dictionary may help.

[nate007]

Haven't seen anyone mention this, but Durant continues to confirm that he should've been picked ahead of Addy Richards.

[Taynted_Fayth]

51 minutes ago, Atomic said:

in a way that kind of does sum it up,  the receiver caught it sideways - turned back the the ball,  made the catch then proceeded to turn forward downfield. so like linda blair there,  once his head (and body) go from the catch to forward progress it should be deemed as a secured ball

[Taynted_Fayth]

37 minutes ago, nate007 said:

Haven't seen anyone mention this, but Durant continues to confirm that he should've been picked ahead of Addy Richards.

based on the 2 bodies of work,  he's right.  Hell he makes a case for being picked ahead of Demski too

[Jpan85]

 

[bearpants]

1 hour ago, nate007 said:

Haven't seen anyone mention this, but Durant continues to confirm that he should've been picked ahead of Addy Richards.

Shhhh... we don't talk about that around here anymore...

[Atomic]

24 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

 

I know I'm on the same side as Johnson on this one but MAN that guy just rubs me the wrong way.  He is doing a terrible job.

[Mike]

"works for us"

Except it doesn't, because the majority of your serious fans think that what "works for you" is ****ing ruining the game slowly.