Why didn't we on challenge Quicy's catch?

[OrderKindOfAlmostRestored]

This is the same situation as the waved-off touchdown against Virginia Tech, the game we lost in 2009 when our WR (Meno Holt, I think) caught the ball in the end zone, fell down, and as he fell, the ball popped out.

 

Before this rule, that's a catch and we win that game. The rule's been in effect for a few years, and we lost that game - and this catch - because of it.

I thought the same thing at first, but this is different than that play. Enunwa caught the ball, his knee was down, and then he reached for the end zone (a "football move") and the ball popped out. Play was dead as soon as his knee was down. The Va Tech play, Holt had his arms wrapped around the ball and it came out once he hit the ground. He never made a "football move" and that's why it was an incompletion. Quincy's was a catch all the way.

 

As for people questioning why Bo didn't challenge it, my question is - why should he have to? The refs know immediately that it's a questionable play -- why isn't it reviewed right away? If the coaches should be blamed for anything, it's for snapping the ball way too early (18 seconds left according to Mills). We do that all the time and it drives me crazy. In the 2010 Texas game there were at least 2 calls that were missed on the field and we snapped the ball early TO PUNT. I feel like the coaches in the booth need to get a TV so they can let Bo know when slow things down.

[knapplc]

This is the same situation as the waved-off touchdown against Virginia Tech, the game we lost in 2009 when our WR (Meno Holt, I think) caught the ball in the end zone, fell down, and as he fell, the ball popped out.

 

Before this rule, that's a catch and we win that game. The rule's been in effect for a few years, and we lost that game - and this catch - because of it.

I thought the same thing at first, but this is different than that play. Enunwa caught the ball, his knee was down, and then he reached for the end zone (a "football move") and the ball popped out. Play was dead as soon as his knee was down. The Va Tech play, Holt had his arms wrapped around the ball and it came out once he hit the ground. He never made a "football move" and that's why it was an incompletion. Quincy's was a catch all the way.

 

As for people questioning why Bo didn't challenge it, my question is - why should he have to? The refs know immediately that it's a questionable play -- why isn't it reviewed right away? If the coaches should be blamed for anything, it's for snapping the ball way too early (18 seconds left according to Mills). We do that all the time and it drives me crazy. In the 2010 Texas game there were at least 2 calls that were missed on the field and we snapped the ball early TO PUNT. I feel like the coaches in the booth need to get a TV so they can let Bo know when slow things down.

 

Q's fall was not complete when his knee hit, which is why the play continued. He had to come to a complete stop, with the ball, for it to be a catch. While I can see where you're coming from with the "football move" aspect of it, the fact is that it was close enough not to be obvious.

 

As for why Bo didn't challenge it, it was a close game and every time out could have been crucial. Every single play is reviewed in college football, and this one was as well. If they were going to overturn it, they would have done it without Bo's challenge.

 

Personally, I think Q should have been given the catch. But that's the homer in me talking. If that had been a Wiscy receiver, I'd be cool with the call.

[HuskerThor]

This is the same situation as the waved-off touchdown against Virginia Tech, the game we lost in 2009 when our WR (Meno Holt, I think) caught the ball in the end zone, fell down, and as he fell, the ball popped out.

 

Before this rule, that's a catch and we win that game. The rule's been in effect for a few years, and we lost that game - and this catch - because of it.

I thought the same thing at first, but this is different than that play. Enunwa caught the ball, his knee was down, and then he reached for the end zone (a "football move") and the ball popped out. Play was dead as soon as his knee was down. The Va Tech play, Holt had his arms wrapped around the ball and it came out once he hit the ground. He never made a "football move" and that's why it was an incompletion. Quincy's was a catch all the way.

 

As for people questioning why Bo didn't challenge it, my question is - why should he have to? The refs know immediately that it's a questionable play -- why isn't it reviewed right away? If the coaches should be blamed for anything, it's for snapping the ball way too early (18 seconds left according to Mills). We do that all the time and it drives me crazy. In the 2010 Texas game there were at least 2 calls that were missed on the field and we snapped the ball early TO PUNT. I feel like the coaches in the booth need to get a TV so they can let Bo know when slow things down.

 

Q's fall was not complete when his knee hit, which is why the play continued.

Not complete when his knee hit?

 

If that's true, then why was Stave called down when his knee hit? That play was called dead at that spot. Same goes for kick offs. As soon as they put their knee down play is over.

 

Q's knee was down play should be over, period.

[knapplc]

 

Q's fall was not complete when his knee hit, which is why the play continued.

Not complete when his knee hit?

 

If that's true, then why was Stave called down when his knee hit? That play was called dead at that spot. Same goes for kick offs. As soon as they put their knee down play is over.

 

Q's knee was down play should be over, period.

 

Because that's how the rule is written. It's stupid, it's different than Stave's fall, but it's the rule.

 

Think of it like the 2010 Missouri game. PJ Smith rocks Blaine Gabbert's little world, the ball pops out, we pick it up and we're running it in for a TD. Oops! Refs called a dead ball, because Gabby's forward progress had stopped. That's a legit rule - it's just BS.

 

This rule is BS, too. But it's the rule.

[The Dude]

The official who could actually see the play seemed pretty sure it was a catch. The guy who had defenders in his way was the one that over-ruled him. That seemed odd. At the very least it should have been reviewed.

[OrderKindOfAlmostRestored]

Same thing happened when Montee Ball came up a yard short of the goal line. The official from the opposite side of the field called it a TD. Hard to believe a zebra would make a call against our ref-loving coach.

[HuskerShark]

Why didn't we on challenge Quicy's catch?

 

Who the hell is Quicy?

[jimmiet99]

i thought the challenge should have been done on taylors fumble. I have watched it a few times and looked pretty clear the arm was coming forward. oh and i do agree quincys was a catch

[dvdcrr]

That was a catch. He caught the ball and was down by contact long before the ball came out. I think because replay makes things look a lot different than full speed it should have been challenged. Look you know certain things in your heart. The fact that this WAS a catch is one of those things. Rule book be dammed We don't need refs watching action after the play is dead.

[Mavric]

This rule has been in the college game for several years.

 

If a receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, the receiver must maintain control of the ball through the entire process. If the ball comes loose, it is an incomplete pass. This rule was put in place for just these types of circumstances and this same call is made many times every Saturday. There is no reason to review that play when it was clearly incomplete by rule.

 

The rule book gives several examples. This one is probable applies most to the Enunwa incomplete pass:

 

Completed Pass—ARTICLE 6

Approved Ruling 7-3-6

IX. 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.

 

You can download the rule book here.

This doesn't apply. This is when a player falls to the ground and the ball comes loose "AND THEN" the ball touches the ground before they've "caught" the ball. So you're falling, land on your back, ball pops out. The ball has to be loose before it makes contact with the ground - in which case it's an incomplete pass. However, if the receiver had possession of the football, the ball first makes contact with ground "and then" comes loose - it's a catch. Otherwise, if you applied this rule to all catches (which you have to correct?), then a RB that receives the ball in the backfield and runs for 50 yards before being tackled, however goes down and as he does the ball comes into contact with the ground and (while he still has possession) it comes loose...then the ball would be 50 yards back at the original line of scrimmage and ruled as incomplete (when it was clearly a complete pass).

 

The argument isn't whether it was complete/incomplete...it's whether he officially had possession before the ball hit the turf. That's why this rule specifies "in the process of completing a catch". That's the only time it applies. So was Enunwa in the process of completing the catch, or did he already have possession? I think he clearly did. So did the announcers.

The difference is where they were when they caught the ball. The rules are different if you catch the ball with your feet (or foot) on the ground vs. catch the ball while in the air. If you catch the ball while in the air, you have to maintain control all the way to the ground, whether that's just two feet or your whole body.

 

That's why your analogy with the RB running 50 yards doesn't apply. He either caught the ball with his feet on the ground or returned to the ground and began running while in control so it is a completed catch. If you catch it in the air, you have to maintain control through going to the ground with whatever body parts hit the ground in the time immediately following the catch. Just because your feet hit first doesn't "complete the catch" if the rest of your body goes to the ground immediately afterwards.

[Mavric]

That was a catch. He caught the ball and was down by contact long before the ball came out. I think because replay makes things look a lot different than full speed it should have been challenged. Look you know certain things in your heart. The fact that this WAS a catch is one of those things. Rule book be dammed We don't need refs watching action after the play is dead.

"Down by contact" has no bearing in college. It is only an NFL rule.

[HuskerShark]

i thought the challenge should have been done on taylors fumble. I have watched it a few times and looked pretty clear the arm was coming forward. oh and i do agree quincys was a catch

 

Agreed. That is the one that really bugged me too.

[Huskerfan1985]

Why didn't we on challenge Quicy's catch?

 

Who the hell is Quicy?

whats an "on challenge"?

 

Crazy how we all see things a little different. I thought it was a catch, but i also thought taylor's was clearly a fumble. Splitting hairs, but they often determine outcomes of games.

[OrderKindOfAlmostRestored]

That was a catch. He caught the ball and was down by contact long before the ball came out. I think because replay makes things look a lot different than full speed it should have been challenged. Look you know certain things in your heart. The fact that this WAS a catch is one of those things. Rule book be dammed We don't need refs watching action after the play is dead.

"Down by contact" has no bearing in college. It is only an NFL rule.

His knee contacted the turf. Count it!

[2ndNnine]

if Quicy hadn't reached out to try and get and extra 6 inches and holds on to the ball, there's no question. I doubt very much that call gets overturned.