Rules interpretation

[MoStateHusker]

First of all. Game is over. I shouldn't care, but I got curious....

this is regarding the 2nd to last drive for the Huskers, and in particular the td throw to Holt (I think) that was ruled incomplete.

 

I like to do investigative work and since I saw a good debate on espn.com about it, I thought I would dig in deeper.

 

"ARTICLE 3. A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle

or declare it dead:

b. When any part of the ball carrier’s body, except his hand or foot, touches

the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses

possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his

body, except his hand or foot [Exception: The ball remains alive when

an offensive player has simulated a kick or is in position to kick the ball

held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or

advanced by rule] (A.R. 4-1-3-I)."

 

This is just my interpretation, but the play was dead when Holt's knee hit the ground out of bounds after making the catch. Therefore, because he had possession at that moment and until his elbow hit the ground it should have been ruled a touchdown.

 

Once again, it doesn't matter. but I would like to see others' look into that play and prove me wrong

[J_2_THA_BONE]

I think you're right man because I too thought it should have been a TD, but hey were Nebraska so we don't get that call.

[Apathy]

I think you're right man because I too thought it should have been a TD, but hey were Nebraska so we don't get that call.

 

Remember it was Big 12 officials

[GSG]

I think that it should have been a TD, but I kept thinking about the TD they waved off in the Raiders-Chargers game because the guy didn't go to the ground while securing the ball. It might be a different rule for college though, plus Holt went out of bounds, so who knows.

[J_2_THA_BONE]

I think you're right man because I too thought it should have been a TD, but hey were Nebraska so we don't get that call.

 

Remember it was Big 12 officials

I'm just talking in general. Since it's Nebraska of course they don't get the right call. No matter what officials it is.

[bennychico11]

should have been a TD. He had possession in bounds and lost the ball when he hit the ground out of bounds

If it had been a catch in bounds at the 20 yard line and he had gone out of bounds on the sideline, falling...losing the ball in the process...it would still be considered a completion.

 

I'm no ref or expert on the rules, but that was a bull crap call. They should have at least reviewed it.

[Cali Sker (in Boston)]

I think you're right man because I too thought it should have been a TD, but hey were Nebraska so we don't get that call.

 

Remember it was Big 12 officials

I'm just talking in general. Since it's Nebraska of course they don't get the right call. No matter what officials it is.

 

Holy christ. "Because we're Nebraska we don't get the call"? Do you really think the official is sitting back there on that play thinking, "Hhmm... He looked like he caught it, but I'm not sure. $hit, what should I do? Oh, wait, there's an 'N' on his helmet. Incomplete."? That's total crap.

 

The ball bounced out when he hit the ground. Incomplete. He has to keep control through that. You're looking at the wrong rule. Look up what constitutes a catch.

 

Damn, I wish we didn't give up that long pass play. We wouldn't have to have these discussions...

[knapplc]

They should have at least reviewed it.

I really don't want to get into a "the refs screwed us" conversation, but that's the part that really confused me. Why not at least take a look at it?

[CoachKevin]

His Knee was in bounds. He had one foot in than his knee came down in bounds. He lost possation when his arm and ball hit after that.

 

It was a bad call. Should have been reviewed.

[MoStateHusker]

Damn, I wish we didn't give up that long pass play. We wouldn't have to have these discussions...

agreed! even though I started this

[GSG]

They should have at least reviewed it.

I really don't want to get into a "the refs screwed us" conversation, but that's the part that really confused me. Why not at least take a look at it?

 

I will definitely second that motion.

[J_2_THA_BONE]

I think you're right man because I too thought it should have been a TD, but hey were Nebraska so we don't get that call.

 

Remember it was Big 12 officials

I'm just talking in general. Since it's Nebraska of course they don't get the right call. No matter what officials it is.

 

Holy christ. "Because we're Nebraska we don't get the call"? Do you really think the official is sitting back there on that play thinking, "Hhmm... He looked like he caught it, but I'm not sure. $hit, what should I do? Oh, wait, there's an 'N' on his helmet. Incomplete."? That's total crap.

 

The ball bounced out when he hit the ground. Incomplete. He has to keep control through that. You're looking at the wrong rule. Look up what constitutes a catch.

 

Damn, I wish we didn't give up that long pass play. We wouldn't have to have these discussions...

LOL whoa man I think you took that comment a little too serious. Sarcasm buddy. Like that'd be a REAL explanation for why it wasn't called a TD. Geez chill.

[DCHusker]

First of all. Game is over. I shouldn't care, but I got curious....

this is regarding the 2nd to last drive for the Huskers, and in particular the td throw to Holt (I think) that was ruled incomplete.

 

I like to do investigative work and since I saw a good debate on espn.com about it, I thought I would dig in deeper.

 

"ARTICLE 3. A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle

or declare it dead:

b. When any part of the ball carrier’s body, except his hand or foot, touches

the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses

possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his

body, except his hand or foot [Exception: The ball remains alive when

an offensive player has simulated a kick or is in position to kick the ball

held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or

advanced by rule] (A.R. 4-1-3-I)."

 

This is just my interpretation, but the play was dead when Holt's knee hit the ground out of bounds after making the catch. Therefore, because he had possession at that moment and until his elbow hit the ground it should have been ruled a touchdown.

 

Once again, it doesn't matter. but I would like to see others' look into that play and prove me wrong

 

You're not citing the appropriate rule

 

In the rule 2-2-7 definition of a catch:

 

e. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,

interception or recovery

 

and the pertinent Approve Ruling:

 

XI. Airborne receiver A85 grasps a forward pass and in the process of

going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot as

he falls to the ground inbounds. Immediately upon A85 hitting the

ground, the ball comes loose and touches the ground. RULING:

Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver must maintain control of the

ball while going to the ground in the process of completing a catch.

 

The question is whether his knee hitting the ground inbounds negates the need to maintain control of the ball as the rest of his body hits the ground.

 

You've cited the rule regarding when a live ball becomes dead; just because the ball is no longer "live" at the instant when that first knee contacts the ground doesn't mean that whatever happens thereafter is irrelevant. The ball being "dead" at that point simply means he cannot get up and run if he hasn't been touched nor can he can't be stripped of it for a fumble. He still needs to maintain continuous possession as he the rest of the body falls for it to be ruled a catch.

 

Incomplete pass was the correct call.

[bennychico11]

 

The ball bounced out when he hit the ground. Incomplete. He has to keep control through that. You're looking at the wrong rule. Look up what constitutes a catch.

 

 

then all the plays that I've seen that end up with guys being tackled on the sideline and then losing the ball shouldn't be considered completions?

or maybe we should change the rule that when the ground causes a fumble it's actually an incompletion...and not a dead ball?

[Cali Sker (in Boston)]

His Knee was in bounds. He had one foot in than his knee came down in bounds. He lost possation when his arm and ball hit after that.

 

It was a bad call. Should have been reviewed.

 

Again, you need to keep control of the ball when you hit the ground for it to be a catch. Whether the knee was in bounds and the foot out or vice versa.

 

I believe it's rule 2 section 2 article 7 point 2:

"Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch, interception or recovery."

 

If you guys want to b!tch about a blown call, how about the hold on the previous play when McNeill caught his TD...?