Maybe King, in classic tongue and cheek style, went a little too far by suggesting pulling out the stopwatch to determine what a catch is, but the principle is clearly correct. In its simplest form a catch is holding the ball with two feet, or the equivalent (a knee), in bounds and on the ground. The time sort of depends on the nature of the play but in most sports holding a ball for about a second is considred possession, so that is a good rule of thumb.

If you make the catch in the air you also need to maintain possession at least until you hit the ground so as to avoid the possibility of an anomolous and unfair result. If a receiver catches the ball in the air, comes down, knee touches the ground, but loses possession when his arms hit, that cannot be a catch even though the receiver had possession with a knee on the ground since then the jarring loose of the ball would have to be a fumble assuming the receiver has not been hit. That is an unfair result to the offense and would be a disincentive for receivers to try to make spectacular catches.

But this is an exception to the general rule that a catch is possesstion with two feet on the ground. Because it is an exception it should be narrowly drawn. it should not apply to the out of bounds situation where a catch is nullified by a receiver hitting the ground out of bounds and having the ball come loose, since that cannot be a fumble once a player is out of bounds. Once a play is out of bounds it's over and nothing that happens there should count.

In sum, a catch is possession while on the ground inbounds. The only exception is that when a catch is made in the air and the receiver comes down inbounds he has to maintain possession through hititng the ground, if not it is an incomplete pass, not a catch and a fumble. I think most football fans could follow that easily. Whether this is the rule now I have no idea but anything that deviates from these principles is when fans are left scratching their heads.

I also vote for eliminating the force out rule. If you don't come down inbounds you don't deserve the catch.

I concur in the comments ridiculing the measurement of first downs. Has anyone noticed that on almost every play they seem to give the offense at least an extra foot in spotting the ball, sometimes an extra yard? The error there almost never goes in the defense's favor.

Why is it that whenever a controversy breaks out about football, somebody has to write in discussing why football should be more like soccer or football is inferior to soccer or some other inanity like that? Enough with the soccer already!

also to all those who turned the game off prior to the conclusion, what the hell were you thinking?

A catch is possession of the ball with two feet on the ground. If you make the catch while in the air, you have to come down with it and maintain possession. The same rules apply everywhere on the field. Why does it need to be harder than that?

Mariano Rivera is without a doubt the best reliever I've ever seen. As a kid I thought Sutter and Gossage were unhittable, but Rivera, it seems to me has set the bar higher than any reliever ever has. I would agree with those who say he is a hall of fame caliber player. However, I think he would have been that as a starter too. Remember that his first season as a reliever (after he had initially bombed as a starter by the way) was 1996 and he pitched 107 spectacular innings, but not as a closer. Ultimately, I conclude that the Yankees have misused him. I see no reason why he would not be one of the best starters in the game.

Simply put, a relief pitcher is usually a relief pitcher because he's not good enough to be a starter. Or, to put it another way, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Righetti and John Smoltz were no better pitchers in relief than they were starters, they were always good pitchers, but as starters they were judged against the other best pitchers in the league, namely starters. As relievers they are judged against other relievers, known in every other sport as "guys coming off the bench." Now that we see that Rick Aguilera, among others, was an effective closer it has become apparent that almost every decent starting pitcher could also be among the best relievers in the league. That is to say, Bruce Sutter and Goose would have been starting pitchers about as good as Dennis Eckersley was, nothing more

Therefore, King is correct, Relievers do not belong in the hall any more than pinchhitters and defensive replacements.

I could not believe the comments by Joe Theisman after the spitting incident in the Washington-Tampa game. First, he hadn't heard Mike Carey say that #21 had been ejected. Then he wanted the replay booth to get involved, which obviously they could not. Then he just blasted Mike Carey for making a wrong call which could affect the outcome of a playoff game.

Carey was standing right in the middle of the incident. It was obvious that he must have seen something that wasn't picked up on camera. Spitting was the most likely candidate from the begginning. Theisman's rant was just completely out of left field and revealed a level of unmatched incompetence in the broadcasting field.