Ironic that TSN analysts might be proven right?

I was watching the tsn analysts discussing the CFL regulations on what is and is not a catch after the ....cough cough... choke job on the end zone catch by Dominguez. I was under the assumption that once possession was achieved in the endzone it was a touchdown (if not what is the difference between catching and dropping or breaking the plane and being pushed back out. They were saying that the league needs to redefine what they consider a catch as there is not enough clarity. And what do we see this week.... Fantuz stretches out for the catch, brings it in to his side and after taking a step or two has it knocked out of his hands. My question remains what does it take to make it a catch ...does it have to be a five yard run after the catch or when does it become a catch and fumble... I love the CFL and would hate to see something stupid bite us in the ... at a key game with something on the line over something so stupid. Please look at this now not after the season.

You have to survive contact when you make a catch, and this year that also means surviving contact in the endzone.

The Fantuz throw was not a catch because he never survived impact.

That is not the point. There has to be more clarification, when was the point of contact. If you leave it the way you wrote it states that there cannot be a catch unless they survive any contact that comes. What if the contact is 25 yards down field???? My point was that it needs more clarification as to when a catch is a catch, I realize that they are hiding behind the ruling that you must survive contact...

Ive seen a couple of poor interpretations of the rule myself, the worst likely being the call that went against the Eskimos on Friday night.

It's something that I do hope they change in the off season.

The rule of what a catch is, or is not did not change much.
The interpretation of the rule has changed slightly.
The Fantuz play has never been, and never will be a catch.
That is a bad example because it was not even close.
The Dominguez "catch" was close.
Regarding it being a touchdown, if you have possession in the endzone, no matter how briefly, it is a TD.
The key word is "possession".
That is not established until a catch is made.
Therefore if it is ruled Dominguez did not catch the ball, then he never had possession either.
By definition, a "catch" is "possession".

Again though, I do not believe Dominguez caught the ball.

The changes to the rule, both in wording and interpreation are in regards to so-called bang bang plays.

CATCH / NO CATCH (ON BANG-BANG PLAYS)

RULE REFERENCES

Rule 1 Section 3 defines possession -

* “Possession means having the ball firmly held in hand or hands, arm or arms, leg or legs, or under the body.?

Rule 6 Section 4 Article 6 (e) states that a pass shall be incomplete, if -

* “While in midair a receiver of either team who has firm control of the ball, but loses possession of the ball when that player’s feet or other part of the body hits the ground, with or without contact by an opponent.?

On what is generally referred to as a “bang–bang? play, there are several elements involved in determining whether the pass is to be ruled complete or incomplete.

Typical “bang-bang? plays are:

(a) When a receiver is attempting to catch a pass and either gets contacted quickly by an opponent; or

(b) When a receiver is attempting to catch a pass and falls or is driven to the ground quickly;

* .

For a forward pass to be ruled complete on a bang–bang play, the following needs to occur.

  1. The player must catch the ball and have it firmly controlled. Control in the air does not equal possession.

2) Possession occurs after he survives contact with an opponent and / or the ground.

FOR 2007

The Catch / No Catch on a “bang–bang? play will be ruled as follows:

For a pass to be ruled complete, the receiver must catch the ball, and have it firmly controlled.

If the ball is quickly jarred loose by contact with an opponent and / or the ground, preventing the player from achieving possession, the pass will be declared incomplete.

The receiver must retain control after “bang-bang? contact to confirm possession.

If a player catches a pass near a sideline, and because of contact by an opponent he cannot get a foot down in bounds (called a Force Out), he must still retain control of the ball once he comes to the ground out of bounds, to confirm possession in order for the pass to be ruled complete.

Note: The old myth that the ground cannot cause a fumble is not completely true.

  1. If a ball carrier goes to the ground without contact, the ground can cause a fumble

  2. If a ball carrier goes to the ground after contact by an opponent, he should be ruled down by contact with no fumble.

  3. In the process of catching a pass before possession has been achieved, if the receiver goes to the ground, the ground can cause an incomplete pass.

Where's the irony?

While I remember seeing the replay of the non-catch or catch (depending on point of view) with Fantuz, did they show it from the end zone camera.

It appears as if most games only have one end zone camera these days. As often you only see it from one angle (imo). Has anybody else noticed this?