Good article. It is precisely because of situations like this that referees should be judged on their efficiency. Calls on plays that can win or loose a game NEED to be correct. But this article brings up an important point: the rules NEED to be clarified. There is no reason why the rulebook can't be changed to relieve the ambiguity of the situation and give the refs an easy way to make the call. Things should be left up to opinion as little as possible and there should never be this much doubt about a call, especially when a game is on the line.

Hey I know this is a few years old but I couldn't help it. You're right about the interpretation of the rules often costing games, of course, but here it did not. I don't know if it was clearly explained when the ruling was made, but if a call is ruled incomplete on the field, it cannot be overturned and ruled a catch unless it happens in the end zone. This rule is being reviewed this year by the competition committee to allow for a fumble recovered following a play ruled dead on the field to be rewarded to the opposing team.

keep in mind the www.nfl.com/fans/rules is NOT the official rulebook. It is just a summary or digest of the real rule book.

I stumbled across your article looking for information about this rule. The rulebook you cite is not the official rule book of the NFL. If you read the header of that site, it actually says this cannot be substituted for the official rulebook. If you actually read the real rulebook, it has some sketchy language about how you have to make an athletic move or something, and the interpretation of that rule is debated a lot. But I just really wanted to point out that you incorrectly cite that site as an "official rulebook".

Jerome

The official rule book is probably not made public in order to protect the referees from being an accessory to a win/loss. You can probably buy the official rule book but expect changes every year due to poor interpretations of plays. One of the biggest areas of dispute would be in the ability to maintain possession. The subject of catch vs noncatch can be summed up in one phrase...."interpretation of the rule" The ability to display possession of the ball differs for every NFL official. What hopefully takes place is a collaboration of minds using (common sense) to judge a play. What unfortunately happens is either the head ref (white hat) uses his own judgement to make the (wrong)call or all the participating officials dont have the stones to call it like they see it. Subsequently they make their best effort to substantiate a bad call to avoid any philosophical differences. Look at the Troy Polamalu (non) interception against the Indy Colts Jan 15, 2006 Playoffs. Troy clearly catches the ball in mid-air, lands on top of the ball with his right arm under it and rolls over once. Then he attempts to get up to run and his own knee knocks the ball out of his hand. He alertly jumps back on the ball. The ruling on the field was "interception". The play was challenged and overturned. The ref stated something to the effect of not having full possession of the ball because of the second knee not coming off the ground. Of course when the ruling overturned the play, the announcers were reluctant to publicly challenge the ref's call. If you would have seen this play in slow motion with the best angle, you would not thnk anything of it. What usually happens in an interception call are 3 things: 1.catching the ball without letting it touch the ground, 2. establishing yourself in-bounds and 3. displaying possession throughout the play. When Troy catches the ball, he showed all. The only aspect you could argue is displaying possession throughout the play. If Troy decided to stay on the ground and not try to get up, one could argue that he would not have knocked the ball out of his own hands. In the play, you can see him "tucking" the ball away as he is rolling over. The fact that he decided to get up cost him. Needless to say, I was livid not only because the ref made the wrong call but because they took a spectacular interception away from a guy who was having an outstanding game. He had to sit there and watch the play on the jumbo-tron and after viewing the fact that he had clearly displayed possession, had to go back on the field. I will put it in this context: The Pittsburg offense was on the field and the Indy defense was on the field. I know this does not mean anything but everybody saw the play and got prepared. I have heard the phrase "football move" in describing some form of effort after a catch has been made. What this rule implies is that if a player catches the ball but does not move, he could be hit by another player and lose the ball. This is considered an incomplete pass. My question would be: What if someone catches a ball and he is 10+ yards away from the nearest player and decides not to move, he could be standing there for 3 or 4 seconds before someone shows up. You are going to tell that because he does not make a "football move" this is an imcomplete pass? Bull! This where common sense would take over and the refs make the "right" call.