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

[MLB 51]

Second. 4th quarter.

[Blackshirts007]

Because it wasn't a catch imo

[admo]

It was clearly a catch. Why didn't we challenge the call?

Don't know if it was challengeable or if the upstairs ppl knew the rules. Yes it was a catch. Ball hits the ground from stretching for yards and the far end zone ref who emphatically called incompletion must have been from Eau Claire....Winnesota-peeka... or Hacken-chewaka...

[deedsker]

Also we lost our challenge early in the game on the Montee Ball touchdown.

Thought that was in first half.

Yeah. So we lost and no longer had a challenge.

[MLB 51]

Also we lost our challenge early in the game on the Montee Ball touchdown.

Thought that was in first half.

Yeah. So we lost and no longer had a challenge.

You get 1 per half.

[Fuzzy]

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.

 

Bo even stated that he knows the rule, though his interpretation of the rule is probably different from what the referees view it. For that reason, Bo didn't want to challenge it and burn a timeout at that point in the game.

 

It shows that Bo is maturing as a coach by picking his battles and not going in swinging at every call. Bo felt it was a battle that he was not going to win based on what the referees would interpret the rule as, even though he thought it was a catch.

 

Also, i could've swore that coaches have two challenges, but only 1 challenge per half. No challenges in OT.

[Bradr]

Bah, I say it was a catch.

 

And that is because as soon as the ground jarred the ball loose, Wisconsin players picked up the ball and insisted that it was a turnover. In order to have a turnover, one must have had possession of the pass. Therefore, if the Wisconsin players say it was a catch, we can call it catch, as they were the closest spectators to the player other than Quincy himself. Yep, works for me.

[Hoosker]

We could have at least waited out the play clock more than we did. We snapped the ball with like 18 seconds to spare. I wish we would have run it down more to see if the booth would stop play and review it (like I felt they should have in the first place).

 

Btw, I say it was a catch also.

He caught with two hands, brought it to his chest, got hit in the air, reached out the ball with one hand (showing he has control/possession of the ball), landed on his butt first, then the ball hits the ground and pops up.

 

We should have beaten Bucky by more than that.

 

Oh well.

[kchusker_chris]

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.

[Blackshirt96]

I don't think Bo wants to get a grass stain on his little red flag. I can't remember him ever throwing it.

[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.

[dergibog]

I don't think Bo wants to get a grass stain on his little red flag. I can't remember him ever throwing it.

 

No red flags in NCAA, only NFL. Also we had already used the one challenge on the Ball touchdown in the first half, so Bo was out. Supposedly, each play in a college football game is reviewed, but I'm not sure why they didn't review that one during a brief timeout. I thought in the stadium that it was incomplete. Watching a replay on TV last night, I thought it was probably a catch. QE caught it and reached out to try to get to the end zone, and the ball popped out when it hit the ground, although he was clearly down before.

 

"Once per game, each head coach may also call a timeout and challenge the ruling on the previous play before the next play starts. A coach must have at least one timeout remaining in order to challenge (teams receive three timeouts per half). If the challenge is successful and the on-field ruling is overturned, the team keeps its timeout and is allowed only one more challenge. If unsuccessful, the team loses its timeout and is allowed no more challenges."

[zoogs]

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.

 

Yeah, I think I always found this to be a BS rule. That catch by Meno in particular, I would have thought he had "scored" at that point. Heck, if I recall, he could have pratically spiked the ball down and it would have been a TD. His "falling" was IMO, very clearly separate and after the catch. Basically an extraneous motion.

 

It did give rise to one of the great lyrics of our time, though, from Schick and Nick.

 

No more first and goal, ending with a freakin' punt.

[Big Red 40]

Man thats a really stupid rule.If you have possession of the ball when you hit the ground,(He did for sure) how can that possibly not be a catch?

That being said im sure the coaches know the rule, and were pretty sure they would lose the challenge.

[JTrain]

There is room for interpretation. It was a catch in my opinion. In the rule book example quoted by whiplash, there are two key words/terms that leave room for interpretation:

1. "Immediately upon A85 hitting the ground..." -- "Immediately" is not clearly defined in the rules, but if we go by the common dictionary definition, Enunwa's catch doesn't meet this criteria. Clearly his butt/hip slams the ground first which does not cause the ball to move from his grasp. He then rotates and reaches the ball for the goal line. When the ball hits the ground, clearly after his butt/hip does, then it's jarred loose.
   
2. ..."while going to the ground in the process of completing a catch" -- "process of completing a catch" is not clearly defined either. In the Enunwa play, he reaches up and firmly grasps the ball with both hands, then tucks the ball to his chest with one hand, hits the ground, rotates and reaches the ball out. In my opinion, the process was over prior to him stretching the ball out.