Explain why Puca's catch in 4th was not a catch?

[Jacksnow]

1. 2 feet in bounds-yes
2. Had control- yes
3. The ground was involved in catch- nope.

Is the reason the defender had a hand on Puca's arm and therefore did not have control?

[Truth]

Because his hand came off the ball on his way out of bounds for a split second. One angle showed it clearly

[LARAMFAN52]

Did you not see the ball come completely out of his hand while going to the ground?

It came out of his hand after he crossed the sideline then he got it again after he hit the ground

It was incomplete legit

[GoldenRam]

1. 2 feet in bounds-yes
2. Had control- yes
3. The ground was involved in catch- nope.

Is the reason the defender had a hand on Puca's arm and therefore did not have control?

4. Referee agreeing on 1-3 - NO

Step 4 is the ONLY step necessary to determine whether a catch is a catch. as ANYONE knows there is NO clear definition and interpretation of what constitutes an actual NFL reception

[NN1Badboy]

Beautiful play on his part but the ball came loose while he was going to the ground. By rule that isn't a catch.

[malibu]

I understand the refs pov but I disagree with the rule. Why because puka had control through the catch. The ground didn't cause the fumble by the ball moving. We saw the ball move slightly going out of bounds but the entire catch was a full catch. If this rule was in effect tons of catches could be considered non catches. The issue is because he was going out of bounds a ms the ball slightly moved. To me his feet were down and the catch itself was never in question Puka had it clearly completely through the catch that should have been a judgement call it should have remained a catch.

The rules committee should review this rule - this rule is meant for a ball moving due to the receiver never having control.

[Truth]

I understand the refs pov but I disagree with the rule. Why because puka had control through the catch. The ground didn't cause the fumble by the ball moving. We saw the ball move slightly going out of bounds but the entire catch was a full catch. If this rule was in effect tons of catches could be considered non catches. The issue is because he was going out of bounds a ms the ball slightly moved. To me his feet were down and the catch itself was never in question Puka had it clearly completely through the catch that should have been a judgement call it should have remained a catch.

The rules committee should review this rule - this rule is meant for a ball moving due to the receiver never having control.

He literally didn’t have any hand on the football at one point going out of bounds. You can’t give guys catches for getting balls back in their grasp after they are out of bounds.

If you watch how he initially caught it, it was with just his one hand, but it didn’t stick in the hand it came off his hand before he got it back.

It’s tacky tack and only replay can see it that instaneously but it’s no different than juggling a ball and then getting it once you are out of bounds.


I suppose they could change the rule where as long as you get two feet in and the ball doesn’t land on the ground out of bounds it’s a catch

[sanbagger]

Initially it was a catch but then he left his feet going out of bounds and he lost control of the ball while in the air. He rolled mid air and the ball landed on him and he secured it to his body but he did not reestablish inbounds with control of the ball....incomplete pass no doubt about it.

If this play was in the middle of the field it is a catch as the ball was secure and does not touch the ground.....however he was out of bounds on the actual play.

Still an incredible play and another unbelievable effort by Puka who continues to amaze me every week...what a 5th round pick