Touchdown or interception?

[Hayseed]

While we're at this can someone explain the actual ruling on touchdown catches in the endzone? Our receiver had possesion of the ball and had it taken from him while falling down from what I could see....in the olden days that was a TD. Remember back in the 70's when Jery Tagge reached the ball over to win our share of the title? The Fox announcers said they apparently changed the rule to something like the NFL ruling that he has to maintain possession to the end of the play in order for it to be a catch. I wasn't aware of that having seen players cross the goal line then lose the ball and still get the TD. I'm okay with whatever the rule is, I'd just like to know what it is.

What's the official rulebook say about that? 

[hskrpwr13]

What I know is that the rule for "crossing the plane" is different when running into the EZ than when the catch occurs in the EZ. Receiver must maintain possession through "the process of the catch", which includes having possession when lying on the ground. 

[The Dude]

According to Google AI:

 

"If the player goes to the ground while catching the ball, they must maintain control of the ball throughout the process."

[Jason Sitoke]

8 minutes ago, hskrpwr13 said:

What I know is that the rule for "crossing the plane" is different when running into the EZ than when the catch occurs in the EZ. Receiver must maintain possession through "the process of the catch", which includes having possession when lying on the ground. 

Mostly (as I understand it) has to do with catching while going to the ground, whether it’s in the end zone, on the sideline, or in the middle of the field:

 

• ‘If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.’

What I saw was our guy begin the process of the catch, but didn’t complete it. As they were going to the ground, the defender gained possession and maintained possession. 
 

it could be argued that to overturn it you have to be sure the ball never contacted the ground, which I’m not sure there was a clear angle.  Either way, I thought it was an interception in real time, and nothing about the replay changed my mind. 

[Hayseed]

Great explanations! Thanks. So I think it was a good call then. I'm assuming it's the same for catching a pass, getting a foot down, then losing the ball out of bounds= incomplete.
But breaking the plane on a run is still good enough. Tagge is still greatest reacher in Husker history!

Plus I just learned that  "plane" means any two-dimensional surface that extends infinitely through space, while "plain" is a place with grass and cows.

[Scarlet]

We lost to Virginia Tech during Bo's reign one year.  Menelik Holt looked to have scored. Had possession of the catch at the back of end zone, one foot down, but then lost control when he hit the turf out of bounds.  

[Undone]

50 minutes ago, The Dude said:

According to Google AI:

 

"If the player goes to the ground while catching the ball, they must maintain control of the ball throughout the process."

 

Outsourcing your posting to AI...I thought your posts had really improved lately, Dude.   

 

Totally kidding, totally kidding!!    

@floridacorn & @Moiraine pointed out yesterday that it was most likely actually an incomplete pass.

[JJ Husker]

56 minutes ago, Hayseed said:

Plus I just learned that  "plane" means any two-dimensional surface that extends infinitely through space, while "plain" is a place with grass and cows.

Wait. You really just learned this difference?

[JJ Husker]

39 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Outsourcing your posting to AI...I thought your posts had really improved lately, Dude.   

 

Totally kidding, totally kidding!!    

@floridacorn & @Moiraine pointed out yesterday that it was most likely actually an incomplete pass.

Yes, I wish the TV guys would’ve focused more on if the ball touched the ground and was or was not caught by either player. The little bit we got to see sure looked like it was probably incomplete but inconclusive because the camera angle either wasn’t available or they failed to show it to us.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Hayseed said:

But breaking the plane on a run is still good enough

Yes because the ball carrier has already established possession of the ball prior to crossing the plane of the endzone.   Different scenario than trying to establish possession while in the end zone. 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

I felt when I watched the play over.  He had possession then crossed the goal line and started to go to the ground.  His hip hit first before the ball started moving.  To me he's down with control then the kid rips it away from him. That really turned the tide.  Gave IL some extra juice.  

[ECisGod]

On 9/22/2024 at 12:14 PM, JJ Husker said:

Yes, I wish the TV guys would’ve focused more on if the ball touched the ground and was or was not caught by either player. The little bit we got to see sure looked like it was probably incomplete but inconclusive because the camera angle either wasn’t available or they failed to show it to us.

I agree, from what I saw in replays it was pretty obvious that the ball hit the ground & neither player had the ball.  I kept repeating as they reviewed it that it was either a TD or incomplete.  Was shocked when they decided it was an interception.

[Lorewarn]

59 minutes ago, ECisGod said:

I agree, from what I saw in replays it was pretty obvious that the ball hit the ground & neither player had the ball.  I kept repeating as they reviewed it that it was either a TD or incomplete.  Was shocked when they decided it was an interception.

 

 

The ruling on the field was wrong imo, but since it was called a touchdown, I don't think they should've been able to overturn it, even though it was probably in interception or otherwise an incomplete pass in actuality.

[runningblind]

17 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

The ruling on the field was wrong imo, but since it was called a touchdown, I don't think they should've been able to overturn it, even though it was probably in interception or otherwise an incomplete pass in actuality.

I think it's a silly notion to acknowledge that even though you know what the correct call is after replay, because they called it wrong on the field in real time, they should leave it as the wrong call just because.  Do you hear how dumb that sounds?

 

Get the call correct, period. I don't care what was called on the field, that is a dumb rule.

[Mavric]

6 minutes ago, runningblind said:

I think it's a silly notion to acknowledge that even though you know what the correct call is after replay, because they called it wrong on the field in real time, they should leave it as the wrong call just because.  Do you hear how dumb that sounds?

 

Get the call correct, period. I don't care what was called on the field, that is a dumb rule.

 

That's because there's a difference between what something "looks like" or "probably happened" and what is clear and indisputable.