Rules interpretation

If by rule it was indeed not a catch, perhaps then the NCAA should explain it to national network sportcasters as both guys on the tv cast called it a TD. Travis justice and Rob Zatecha also looked it over and called it a td.

And, I have seen similar catches called a TD so we at least need some NCAA claification!

quote name='nemajordude' date='Sep 21 2009, 07:02 AM' post='473133']

By rule, it was a no catch. I just don't like the rule. A guy catches the ball, controls the ball while one foot (2 in this case) touch the ground in bounds. He controls the ball as he falls to the ground and the ball comes out when he hits the ground out of bounds. Again, by rule it's incomplete so it was the correct call. It's just a bad rule.

 
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 applicable 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.

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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It wasn't a freakin' catch.

I would agree it deserved a review though. They reviewed many other "obvious" plays during the game.

If our offense actually did something and got TDs instead of FGs, we would not have had a problem with one of the TDs being called back.

 
Twodocs said:
They played the Holt touchdown several times on chanel 3 Sunday evening.

Both Travis and Dr. Rob Z. agreed it was a touchdown. They played the replay from several angles!

Will we ever hear from the Big 12 on this?

The officals were not interested in making sure in this game, but, in every other college game I watched they did booth reviews on almost every touchdown.

They really seemed to want to get it right. VT must have had the booth review guy.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct - it was a TD that was never called.

 
he did not fall in the end zone his toe was down he had control knee not down he broke the plane toe in zap touchdown

it is just like guys who extend the ball to break the plane td what happens afterward does not matter and many times the guy is way out of or did not enter the end zone.

Twodocs said:
If by rule it was indeed not a catch, perhaps then the NCAA should explain it to national network sportcasters as both guys on the tv cast called it a TD. Travis justice and Rob Zatecha also looked it over and called it a td.

And, I have seen similar catches called a TD so we at least need some NCAA claification!

quote name='nemajordude' date='Sep 21 2009, 07:02 AM' post='473133']

By rule, it was a no catch. I just don't like the rule. A guy catches the ball, controls the ball while one foot (2 in this case) touch the ground in bounds. He controls the ball as he falls to the ground and the ball comes out when he hits the ground out of bounds. Again, by rule it's incomplete so it was the correct call. It's just a bad rule.
Click to expand...
 
Hey guys! The refs finally were convinced to take another look because so many of you repeat over and over and over that it was a TD. They now agree and have overturned the call! Touchdown! We won!

They also admit they were biased because it was Nebraska.

:facepalm:

I guess I'd better add

:sarcasm

except for the

:facepalm:

 
CoachKevin said:
Yes, he had the TD. Nothing will come of it though as the game is done and over.

The reason it should be a TD is because the rule states when you come down you must maintain control. When his 2nd knee hit in bounds I might add, he had control. At that point the play should be blown dead. Anything after that should not matter.

The other factor is that any time the ball is cross the goal line in control, it is a TD and play is dead at that moment.
Click to expand...
Can we please get over this...

You're quoting the incorrect rule....the dead ball rule applies to players who have already established possession with the football and does not apply to players who leave their feet and are in the process of making a catch when they hit the ground....look at rule 2-2-7 The Definition of a Catch....the player has to maintain control all the way to the ground, not just when the knees hit....

 
Twodocs said:
he did not fall in the end zone his toe was down he had control knee not down he broke the plane toe in zap touchdown

it is just like guys who extend the ball to break the plane td what happens afterward does not matter and many times the guy is way out of or did not enter the end zone.

Twodocs said:
If by rule it was indeed not a catch, perhaps then the NCAA should explain it to national network sportcasters as both guys on the tv cast called it a TD. Travis justice and Rob Zatecha also looked it over and called it a td.

And, I have seen similar catches called a TD so we at least need some NCAA claification!

quote name='nemajordude' date='Sep 21 2009, 07:02 AM' post='473133']

By rule, it was a no catch. I just don't like the rule. A guy catches the ball, controls the ball while one foot (2 in this case) touch the ground in bounds. He controls the ball as he falls to the ground and the ball comes out when he hits the ground out of bounds. Again, by rule it's incomplete so it was the correct call. It's just a bad rule.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's because the guy who breaks the plane is usually a RB who has already established possession.....we're talking about a receiver who is in the process of making a catch.....different rules apply

 
He wasn't airborne so any rules stating that have no relevance to the play. If you're taking that route, then if someone with feet planted catches the ball, has clear possession, then falls on his butt and drops it, that's not a catch? The fall doesn't have to do with the catch, because he didn't have to return to the ground, he was already there when he caught it. It was definitely a touchdown. He caught the ball and had a foot in the endzone. Touchdown. If he wasn't airborne, those rules don't apply, therefore the fall doesn't matter.

 
broganreynik said:
He wasn't airborne so any rules stating that have no relevance to the play. If you're taking that route, then if someone with feet planted catches the ball, has clear possession, then falls on his butt and drops it, that's not a catch? The fall doesn't have to do with the catch, because he didn't have to return to the ground, he was already there when he caught it. It was definitely a touchdown. He caught the ball and had a foot in the endzone. Touchdown. If he wasn't airborne, those rules don't apply, therefore the fall doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Man read the example of the rules above. If you are diving or laid out for the catch you have to maintain possession through the entire catch. The rule is clear. The feet in, the knee down, nothing matters if you don't maintain possession through the reception.

By your explanation, if a guy lays out on the sideline with two feet in bounds to grab a ball and has it in his hands, but hits the ground and drops it, that is a catch?

He didn't catch it, it was a holding call, we lost that game not the officials.

:bang

 
If he would have held on to the ball then the challenge would have come from the booth. The fact that the ball was laying on the ground make the knees down foot down decision irrelevant. If a receiver is on the sideline and lays out for a ball they must do two things.

1) Tap one foot in bounds

2) Have control of the ball even after they hit the ground.

The fact that he lost the ball confirms that he didn't not have control, thus no reason to review if he got a knee of foot in.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top