Rules interpretation

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Tim Griffin asked about the frustration of playing so well on D only to lose it. Pelini said they have to finish the game. Then he asked if that will help in conference play and he said in effect, yes.

 

Then Sam Mckewon asked if they shoudl have challenged Holts drop when he went out of the endzone. Pelini said he didn't have a good view and people told him that Holt was clearly bobbling the ball so he didn't challenge.

The replay on tv didn't show Holt bobbling the ball. He had control of the ball until he hit the ground THEN it bobbled.

[jjamuss]

Tim Griffin asked about the frustration of playing so well on D only to lose it. Pelini said they have to finish the game. Then he asked if that will help in conference play and he said in effect, yes.

 

Then Sam Mckewon asked if they shoudl have challenged Holts drop when he went out of the endzone. Pelini said he didn't have a good view and people told him that Holt was clearly bobbling the ball so he didn't challenge.

The replay on tv didn't show Holt bobbling the ball. He had control of the ball until he hit the ground THEN it bobbled.

and VT had the EXACT same thing happen to them early in the game, and of course it was ruled a completed catch... although the ball didnt pop out like it did on Holt. But here is the question I am sure everyone is asking... WHEN going out of bounds, when does the play die? I think the fact Holts knee touched, the ball was tuck and NOT BOBBLING that it should be a completed catch... it was ONLY when he land ON the ball that it came loose.

 

I thought having Big XII officials might make up for some of the SH*T calls those ACC phags called on us last year... but OH NO... got to screw the Huskers anyway possible. I hope Bo gets to see those officials again, and tears them a new one!

[caveman99]

Tim Griffin asked about the frustration of playing so well on D only to lose it. Pelini said they have to finish the game. Then he asked if that will help in conference play and he said in effect, yes.

 

Then Sam Mckewon asked if they shoudl have challenged Holts drop when he went out of the endzone. Pelini said he didn't have a good view and people told him that Holt was clearly bobbling the ball so he didn't challenge.

The replay on tv didn't show Holt bobbling the ball. He had control of the ball until he hit the ground THEN it bobbled.

and VT had the EXACT same thing happen to them early in the game, and of course it was ruled a completed catch... although the ball didnt pop out like it did on Holt. But here is the question I am sure everyone is asking... WHEN going out of bounds, when does the play die? I think the fact Holts knee touched, the ball was tuck and NOT BOBBLING that it should be a completed catch... it was ONLY when he land ON the ball that it came loose.

 

I thought having Big XII officials might make up for some of the SH*T calls those ACC phags called on us last year... but OH NO... got to screw the Huskers anyway possible. I hope Bo gets to see those officials again, and tears them a new one!

because he was falling as he was making the catch, he has to maintain control when he hits the ground no matter whether it was inbounds or not.

[knapplc]

and VT had the EXACT same thing happen to them early in the game, and of course it was ruled a completed catch... although the ball didnt pop out like it did on Holt. But here is the question I am sure everyone is asking... WHEN going out of bounds, when does the play die? I think the fact Holts knee touched, the ball was tuck and NOT BOBBLING that it should be a completed catch... it was ONLY when he land ON the ball that it came loose.

 

I thought having Big XII officials might make up for some of the SH*T calls those ACC phags called on us last year... but OH NO... got to screw the Huskers anyway possible. I hope Bo gets to see those officials again, and tears them a new one!

On a fumble, that's the rule. If the player contacts the ground, and that contact causes the fumble, it's not a fumble. But on a catch, the player MUST maintain complete possession until his body stops moving, after impacting the ground. So it doesn't matter, according to this rule, that Holt caught and secured the ball. Once it pops out, it's an incompletion.

 

What's stupid about that is, with that exact same grip Holt could have run for 80 yards. Had he not caught it diving out the back of the end zone, it would have been a completion.

 

If the ground can't cause a fumble while running, it shouldn't cause an incompletion, either. Holt clearly received the ball and tucked it, but that's not good enough for this rule.

 

There are situations where this rule has an application. This shouldn't be one of them.

[MoStateHusker]

What did I start?

It wasn't a catch. I tried to find some rule that would say it was, but there isn't any.

 

Die thread, bring on LL

[Captain K]

He did NOT dive to catch the ball! Watch the slo mo. He is completely balanced and had this happened anywhere other than the back of the end zone he would have run further. He wanted to get down as field running out and short distance to concrete wall. Remember he is running full speed looking back for a few seconds to track ball. He chose to fall to stop himself or pay a huge price if wall is closer or he keeps his feet and can't control stopping.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

On a fumble, that's the rule. If the player contacts the ground, and that contact causes the fumble, it's not a fumble. But on a catch, the player MUST maintain complete possession until his body stops moving, after impacting the ground. So it doesn't matter, according to this rule, that Holt caught and secured the ball. Once it pops out, it's an incompletion.

 

What's stupid about that is, with that exact same grip Holt could have run for 80 yards. Had he not caught it diving out the back of the end zone, it would have been a completion.

 

If the ground can't cause a fumble while running, it shouldn't cause an incompletion, either. Holt clearly received the ball and tucked it, but that's not good enough for this rule.

 

There are situations where this rule has an application. This shouldn't be one of them.

Agreed.

[caveman99]

He did NOT dive to catch the ball! Watch the slo mo. He is completely balanced and had this happened anywhere other than the back of the end zone he would have run further. He wanted to get down as field running out and short distance to concrete wall. Remember he is running full speed looking back for a few seconds to track ball. He chose to fall to stop himself or pay a huge price if wall is closer or he keeps his feet and can't control stopping.

Doesn't matter, had he made 2 steps or a football move after he gained possession then he would have been fine. However his first move after pulling the ball in was to fall and hence he has to maintain control through the fall. You seem to be implying that the Refs need to take intent into consideration, how do you expect them to do that?

[rsx4now]

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.

 

NOT APPLICABLE, reciever was not airborne so everything in this rule DOES NOT apply to Holt's catch.

 

 

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.

 

NOT APPLICABLE, This rule is used much like the one above. It is the exact same thing as being airborne but catching it at a different point in the descent. Think of it this way, there is no possible way in either circumstance that the reciever can stay on his feet. Holt could have physically regained balance and stayed on his feet. He wasn't dragging feet, he was taking steps!

 

Any rule that says something to simultaneous hitting the ground and losing football.

 

NOT APPLICABLE, He is down when his knee touches. He still has control at this point. Holt could have spiked the ball at this point.

 

I am not being biased. If VT had did the same thing, I would have instantly thought they missed a call.

 

If it makes it easier for you to get over the game that it was an incompletion then just say it already LOL because it was a TD!

[Twodocs]

it seems ev en Bo thought ti was td

just sayin

if there is a rule everbody knows fine

 

but Bo has not heard it either

 

Can we not discuss the catch/ not catch in this thread? Any more updates from the presser?

[Husker Runner]

it seems ev en Bo thought ti was td

just sayin

if there is a rule everbody knows fine

 

but Bo has not heard it either

 

Can we not discuss the catch/ not catch in this thread? Any more updates from the presser?

 

It wouldn't be the first time a coach was not familiar with some fine detail of a rule.

[Fuzzy]

Ok after reading the rule that was posted in the link. I found this...

 

"Airborne receiver A85 possesses the ball 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 hitting the ground, the ball comes loose and touches the ground. Ruling: Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver must maintain control of the ball if going to the ground in the process of completing a catch."

 

Holt didnt fall to the ground inbounds, he was out of bounds when he fell to the ground and coughed up the ball.

 

I guess how people took this was the rules being posted on the site never really clarified whether he was in or out of bounds when he fell.

[VA Husker Fan]

Ok after reading the rule that was posted in the link. I found this...

 

"Airborne receiver A85 possesses the ball 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 hitting the ground, the ball comes loose and touches the ground. Ruling: Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver must maintain control of the ball if going to the ground in the process of completing a catch."

 

Holt didnt fall to the ground inbounds, he was out of bounds when he fell to the ground and coughed up the ball.

 

I guess how people took this was the rules being posted on the site never really clarified whether he was in or out of bounds when he fell.

OK, but keep reading. You can't find one rule that doesn't apply and assume it's the only rule. How about:

 

"XIII. Airborne receiver A85 possesses the ball and in the process of going

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

he falls to the ground out of bounds. Immediately upon hitting the

ground out of bounds, the ball comes loose. RULING: Incomplete

pass regardless of whether or not the ball hits the ground because the

receiver is out of bounds."

 

The question is whether the ball people popped loose when his body hits the ground is still considered "Immediately" when his knee hits first. This is how I've consistently seen it ruled. Rarely does the knee not hit first.

[EbylHusker]

It is consistently ruled (now, with the rules change in whatever year it was) that you must maintain possession of the ball through the entire catch. If you are catching the ball and falling to the ground this means you have to maintain the ball through impact with the ground. If you do not, they don't consider you to have possession.

[nebraskapit]

it seems ev en Bo thought ti was td

just sayin

if there is a rule everbody knows fine

 

but Bo has not heard it either

 

Can we not discuss the catch/ not catch in this thread? Any more updates from the presser?

 

It wouldn't be the first time a coach was not familiar with some fine detail of a rule.

 

 

... or an official...