ADVERTISEMENT

Catch rule

Dec 14, 2002
1,954
1,222
113
During the game a couple weeks ago the announcer mentioned the "entire foot" must be in bounds for the catch to be ruled complete. He mentioned that several times with certainty. I can't find anything online about the catch rule changing. I always thought it was any part of the foot or body for that matter.....

Is he the idiot or am I?

Anyone remember which guy it was?
 
More correctly, the portion of the foot that touches the playing surface must be entirely in bounds,... Don't know who the "guy" was...
 
Nothing new. If the entire foot is not "inbounds", then the rest of the foot must be "out of bounds",
unless the rest of the foot is in the air which makes it a nonfactor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
During the game a couple weeks ago the announcer mentioned the "entire foot" must be in bounds for the catch to be ruled complete. He mentioned that several times with certainty. I can't find anything online about the catch rule changing. I always thought it was any part of the foot or body for that matter.....

Is he the idiot or am I?

Anyone remember which guy it was?

Could be a matter of interpretation. If the whole foot hits the ground simultaneously and part is in bounds part out, he's right. But a "good" catch doesn't require the "whole foot" to touch the ground in bounds...just the first contact with possession of the ball. How many tip toe sideline catches have we seen to know that's not the case?

See Article 3a #2

https://rulebook.github.io/en/rules/2/sections/4/
 
Always been the rule. If the toe touches first in bounds then the heel touches out of bounds it is not a catch.
 
If all that touches is the toe, that's fine. If he comes down on the toe, then the entire foot comes down, partly on the line, I think that's out. The Nebraska catch at the end of the game was a toe nail and nothing more. But if he were turned the other way, and then the foot (heel) came all the way down and touched the line, I don't think it would have counted.
 
Always been the rule. If the toe touches first in bounds then the heel touches out of bounds it is not a catch.

I think this needs a bit more...certainly the famed toe-only drag is a good catch.

I think what the above means is “front of foot touches and then back of foot touches with toe still where it touched”.
 
During the game a couple weeks ago the announcer mentioned the "entire foot" must be in bounds for the catch to be ruled complete. He mentioned that several times with certainty. I can't find anything online about the catch rule changing. I always thought it was any part of the foot or body for that matter.....

Is he the idiot or am I?

Anyone remember which guy it was?

It could just be the tip of the toe.
 
Always been the rule. If the toe touches first in bounds then the heel touches out of bounds it is not a catch.
If going backwards. The whole foot needs to be in but if going forward toes can touch and be in play. I have not read the whole thread excuse me if someone else has posted this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: desihawk
You ever notice about 50% of the time they don't have cameras positioned along out of bounds lines? As cheap as good cameras on now they should have them down the lines and high def type stuff. Like the time Greg Brady was snapping photos of the cheer leaders and captured a shot that showed the guy caught the ball in bounds for his high school team.
 
During the game a couple weeks ago the announcer mentioned the "entire foot" must be in bounds for the catch to be ruled complete. He mentioned that several times with certainty. I can't find anything online about the catch rule changing. I always thought it was any part of the foot or body for that matter.....

Is he the idiot or am I?

Anyone remember which guy it was?
You're confusing this with the out-of-bounds rule in golf.

Seriously, no part of the foot touching the ground can be out of bounds....which is another way of saying what the guy said.
 
Always been the rule. If the toe touches first in bounds then the heel touches out of bounds it is not a catch.
I haven't seen the rulebook but it feels like TDs are called fairly frequently (in CFB) where the receiver on the run just catches the ball with the ball of his foot inbounds and the next steps (when the heel would land) are entirely out.

Edit: Just saw youflog1hawk's post and that seems to match what I've observed


 
You ever notice about 50% of the time they don't have cameras positioned along out of bounds lines? As cheap as good cameras on now they should have them down the lines and high def type stuff. Like the time Greg Brady was snapping photos of the cheer leaders and captured a shot that showed the guy caught the ball in bounds for his high school team.
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.
 
During the game a couple weeks ago the announcer mentioned the "entire foot" must be in bounds for the catch to be ruled complete. He mentioned that several times with certainty. I can't find anything online about the catch rule changing. I always thought it was any part of the foot or body for that matter.....

Is he the idiot or am I?

Anyone remember which guy it was?
None of it can be out of bounds and part has to be in bounds
 
I think this needs a bit more...certainly the famed toe-only drag is a good catch.

I think what the above means is “front of foot touches and then back of foot touches with toe still where it touched”.
Correct. If just the toe touches and the rest of the foot does not, then it is a catch.
 
ADVERTISEMENT