I am not bitching about the refs. I thought they were equally bad for each team, but I do have a question about rules.

How many feet does a receiver have to have down before it is a catch?

The play I'm referencing is one in the first half where the Steeler receiver "caught" the ball with his back to Bigby over the middle. It seemed that the receiver had at least two feet down (I think three, maybe even four). He was stumbling backward when Bigby laid the wood to him. The ball came loose and Collins picked it up. I did not see a replay and nobody (announcers or coaches) seemed to feel it was at least close to a fumble.

Between this play this week and Jennings supposed drop in the endzone last week, I am foggy on what a catch really is in the NFL now-a-days.

This falls under the must maintain control through going to the ground, just like they called against Jennings last week.

---

I think that was a good call. Close, but just because he has 2 feet down before the ball pops out doesn't mean he had complete possession in his hands.

---

I give up.

Yeah, it was an incomplete catch. It's a fucked up rule though.

---

If it wasn't for that call on Jennings last week, I would not have understood this one. When a receiver is in the act of going down, he has to maintain control until after he hits the ground.

The NFL has these rules because they want to minimize "cheap" turnovers. Sometimes the rules just get weird, though. I always liked what Mike Holmgren said about the Tom Brady "tuck rule" play: If a hundred guys in a bar think it's a fumble, then it's a fumble.

---