Rules interpretation

[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...

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.

 

My bad. I'm a sports official. I feel a duty to defend these guys...

[DCHusker]

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.

 

That would depend.

 

If the receiver had caught the ball and established himself firmly inbounds and then lost the ball when he was tackled out of bounds it would be complete.

 

BUT, if he falls to the ground in the act of catching and loses control of the ball it is incomplete.

[MoStateHusker]

just for further clarification:

 

"Catch, Interception, Recovery

ARTICLE 7. a. To catch a ball means that a player:

1. Gains possession of a live ball in flight; or

2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first

touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or

3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first

returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held

that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and

A.R. 7-3-6-IV).

If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and

control of the ball, it is a catch even though a subsequent step or fall takes

the receiver out of bounds (A.R. 7-3-6-XVII). A player who satisfies any of

these three conditions is said to have completed a catch.

...

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

interception or recovery.

f. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed."

 

This is my interpretation again, but, "loss of the ball simultaneous to retruning to the ground" in live action would make the td "catch" incomplete. However, in replays it shows Holt returning to the ground via his knee before he loses control.

 

I frickin love football! Go Big Red

[Cali Sker (in Boston)]

 

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?

 

The ground can't cause a fumble, but it CAN cause an incompletion. I hate it when I hear people reference "the ground can't cause a fumble" when we're talking about a catch... Pet peeve... Again, the hold call is what you all should be complaining about...

[DCHusker]

just for further clarification:

 

"Catch, Interception, Recovery

ARTICLE 7. a. To catch a ball means that a player:

1. Gains possession of a live ball in flight; or

2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first

touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or

3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first

returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held

that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and

A.R. 7-3-6-IV).

If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and

control of the ball, it is a catch even though a subsequent step or fall takes

the receiver out of bounds (A.R. 7-3-6-XVII). A player who satisfies any of

these three conditions is said to have completed a catch.

...

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

interception or recovery.

f. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed."

 

This is my interpretation again, but, "loss of the ball simultaneous to retruning to the ground" in live action would make the td "catch" incomplete. However, in replays it shows Holt returning to the ground via his knee before he loses control.

 

I frickin love football! Go Big Red

 

Nah, you're right....returning to the ground means the entire act of falling, not just that first knee...

[MoStateHusker]

Nah, you're right....returning to the ground means the entire act of falling, not just that first knee...

I got what your saying

11-1 baby!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cali Sker (in Boston)]

just for further clarification:

 

"Catch, Interception, Recovery

ARTICLE 7. a. To catch a ball means that a player:

1. Gains possession of a live ball in flight; or

2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first

touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or

3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first

returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held

that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and

A.R. 7-3-6-IV).

If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and

control of the ball, it is a catch even though a subsequent step or fall takes

the receiver out of bounds (A.R. 7-3-6-XVII). A player who satisfies any of

these three conditions is said to have completed a catch.

...

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

interception or recovery.

f. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed."

 

This is my interpretation again, but, "loss of the ball simultaneous to retruning to the ground" in live action would make the td "catch" incomplete. However, in replays it shows Holt returning to the ground via his knee before he loses control.

 

I frickin love football! Go Big Red

 

In addition to the rule books there are often interpretations and case plays to sort out these sorts of things. I believe that if you looked in there you'd seem something about a player whose knee/foot hits the ground and then the rest of his body hits, causing the ball to come out. That play was correctly called.

 

No one gonna comment on the holding call?

[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.

 

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...?

 

I am not arguing that. I believe he had control when his knee hit and that he didn't lose control until out of bounds which was after he already had made the catch and was down. I do not believe it was simultaniously.

[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...?

 

I am not arguing that. I believe he had control when his knee hit and that he didn't lose control until out of bounds which was after he already had made the catch and was down. I do not believe it was simultaniously.

 

You're misreading the "simultaneous" part. The knee was down before the ball was out, so that is not simultaneous. BUT the ball came out simultaneous to the body returning to the ground. Therefore no catch.

 

And seriously, NO ONE is going to say anything about the holding call?

[c-flush]

The holding call where our guy took the VT guy down to the ground? Why was that a bad call?

[Cali Sker (in Boston)]

The holding call where our guy took the VT guy down to the ground? Why was that a bad call?

 

Finally. Someone took the bait.

 

Maybe it wasn't a bad call. But it was a "worse" call than the incomplete. Looked to me like the D lineman pushed our guy over and fell on top of him. Or maybe I was just drunk.

[MoStateHusker]

The holding call where our guy took the VT guy down to the ground? Why was that a bad call?

....Or maybe I was just drunk.

 

Go Drunk!!!!!!!!!! I don't care any more! vodka has been my friend tonight!

[Blackshirtsguru]

It was the correct call....end of story.

[HuskerNMO]

The holding call where our guy took the VT guy down to the ground? Why was that a bad call?

 

Finally. Someone took the bait.

 

Maybe it wasn't a bad call. But it was a "worse" call than the incomplete. Looked to me like the D lineman pushed our guy over and fell on top of him. Or maybe I was just drunk.

 

His arm was extended, up around his head as they went down, it looked like he pulled the guy down.

 

Even if they just fell, if your arm is extended outside of your pads, you are making contact with a player and they go down, it will be called pretty often.

[EbylHusker]

It wasn't a touchdown, the refs made the right call...

 

XIV. Receiver A85 stretches out at the Team B two-yard line and grasps

a forward pass and is going to the ground on his own as he is

attempting to complete the catch. As A85 falls to the ground in the

end zone, the ball immediately comes loose and falls to the ground.

RULING: Incomplete pass. Any receiver going to the ground on his

own in the process of making a catch must maintain control of the

ball when he hits the ground.

 

It's right there, just as the announcers said. You must maintain possession of the ball through the impact with the ground. As soon as he hit the ground, the ball came out, which means incomplete pass.