Catch?

[NCVAReferee]

Catch or no catch?

Scenario 1: A89 jumps and grasps the football in B's end zone.  A89 controls the football.  A89 comes down and touches one foot inbounds in the end zone.  Just as A89's one foot touches the ground in the end zone, B44 tackles A89 and the ball comes loose and strikes the ground. 

Scenario 2: A89 jumps and grasps the football in B's end zone.  A89 controls the football.  A89 comes down and touches one foot inbounds in the end zone.  A89 continues to fall to the ground and when he hits the ground, the ball comes loose and subsequently strikes the ground.

[pjsaul]

Based on the description, in both cases I would say no catch.

A89 did not complete the catch in either instance (I don't think this is actually supported in the NFHS rule book, but decades of common football sense dictates this).

Where A89 is does not matter. A89 never completed the catch and therefore never possessed the ball, so we have no catch and no touchdown.

[Atlanta Blue]

By rule, both are touchdowns.  But by more and more accepted practice, the receiver must survive contact with the ground, be it his own or forced contact.  The theory is, if he didn't survive contact with the ground, then he really didn't have control prior to that point.

[Ralph Damren]

WHEN IN QUESTION : Catch or not.......no catch (When in question guide, p. 80 - Manual).

[NCVAReferee]

AB I understand this appears to be the trend, but do you know where we can substantiate that claim in the rule book or in case play?  Otherwise, to me it seems we have to rule those plays a TD.

[HLinNC]

You can't because the definition of a catch is not the same as the NFL or NCAA.  Going to the ground has no support in NFHS.  I understand the philosophy but a catch in high school is "easier".  I understand AB's point about accepted practice but you better insure that you are following whatever Chapel Hill says.  If they don't say anything, better go by the book.

[NCVAReferee]

HLinNC - I agree completely with you.  However, the videos posted on the NCHSAA website about Catches drive me crazy.  The videos, while created in Arizona, talk about "surviving the ground" on plays like this.  If the videos are posted by Chapel Hill on their page, do you consider this their endorsement?

[pjsaul]

If you are going to say these example plays are touchdowns, then would you willing to be call them a catch and fumble if they occurred at midfield?

You would need to in order to be consistent.

[ALStripes17]

If you are going to say these example plays are touchdowns, then would you willing to be call them a catch and fumble if they occurred at midfield?

You would need to in order to be consistent.

Amen. No way any official survives another week calling plays like this a catch and fumble in the middle of the field.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[SouthGARef]

Definition of a catch:

"“The act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball."

While maintaining possession of the ball. That's enough rule basis for me to accept the growing premise that a player needs to maintain control throughout the process. That word "maintain" insinuates that there must be a continued possession, not just instantaneously.

[HLinNC]

If the videos are posted by Chapel Hill on their page, do you consider this their endorsement?

I think things get linked without fully reviewing everything.

I think you get support until the wrong person fusses opposite your ruling.

In scenario 1 I can live with an incomplete.  Scenario 2 is a tougher sell.  Foot down with possession in the end zone, better rule that a TD.  Whatever happens after that is immaterial, the ball was dead.

[AlUpstateNY]

Amen. No way any official survives another week calling plays like this a catch and fumble in the middle of the field.

If you are seeking a "One size fits all" situation, "Catch" is not a smart place to look.

The current NFHS rule painfully, clearly states: (NFHS 2-4-1)  A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.........". 

It might help to consider NFHS 2-34-1: "a ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it."

As suggested above, it should be the same conclusion, regarding what YOU have seen whether that specific play is in the EZ or on the 50 YL, and depends entirely on what YOU have observed in that instance.  Did YOU see the player hold or control a live ball in flight, and when he first touched the ground was he "maintaining possession of the ball" when he "first touched inbounds", or not.

If in the EZ, meeting all the above requirements would produce a TD (NFHS 8-1-b) whereas at the 50 yard line, depending on what specifically YOU observed, it could be a catch, and if subsequently dislodged; a fumble.  If you judge that the requirements were not satisfied, it is an incomplete pass, in either scenario.

There's no vote, no poll, no situational significance, it all depends on what YOU believe YOU actually saw, and whether YOU judge all the requirements were met, or not met.

I would suggest the meaning of "maintain" relates only to continuing possession of the ball through "first touching the ground, inbounds", and is not dependent on any subsequent actions. (But that's just my understanding, YOU have to arrive at your own understanding of the NFHS rule).

As Ralph points out, guidance on pg 80 of the Officials Manual, when in doubt if ALL the requirements were fully satisfied, "No catch", which is totally dependent on what specifically YOU have observed in this specific instance.

[bama_stripes]

If you are going to say these example plays are touchdowns, then would you willing to be call them a catch and fumble if they occurred at midfield?

Exactly.  In our association, both these plays would be ruled "no catch".

[ncwingman]

Definition of a catch:

"“The act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball."

While maintaining possession of the ball. That's enough rule basis for me to accept the growing premise that a player needs to maintain control throughout the process. That word "maintain" insinuates that there must be a continued possession, not just instantaneously.

I don't disagree with your interpretation, but the rule doesn't quite say that exactly when expanded to the "process of the catch" (to borrow a term from other codes).

If the receiver gains possession the ball in flight and makes first contact with the ground inbounds with his foot while maintaining possession of the ball, we've got a catch, correct? What if his immediate, second contact with the ground (as he's falling) jars the ball loose? By the letter of the rule, that's a catch and fumble (but I'm sure not going to call it that way).

The real issue is that, right or wrong / based on rule or not, we use the "process of the catch" and the subsequent action to positively rule on whether or not the receiver actually had possession of the ball. In all of these examples, we're assuming the conclusion based on a statement we cannot evaluate on the field. There's no light that turns on when the receiver gains possession of the ball in flight, but in the test questions we're told that possession has been gained.

To make the scenarios are a little more realistic, we should state that the receiver "appears to gain control" or "touches/bats the ball into his hands" (I'm open to better phrasing on that) where we then use the subsequent action to make a determination on possession. Without possession, we have no catch.

[pjsaul]

There's no light that turns on when the receiver gains possession of the ball in flight, but in the test questions we're told that possession has been gained.

The way I process this in my head is that the receiver is given possession of the ball retroactively to where he first controlled it after completing "the process of the catch" (to again borrow phrasing from other codes).

This is how, for example, we award a touchdown to a receiver who controls the ball past the goal line, but completes the catch at the 2 yard line. Once he completes the catch, this is a touchdown, but not before.

[AlUpstateNY]

The way I process this in my head is that the receiver is given possession of the ball retroactively to where he first controlled it after completing "the process of the catch" (to again borrow phrasing from other codes).

I think the difficulty is trying to covert what you might be looking at, into words that might consistently and accurately define it.  Two examples stand out; 1. A Supreme court Justice observing, "I recognize pornography when I see it, but I just can't define it" (or words to that effect), and 2. "You can draw a picture of a beautiful woman, but you can't **** (Make love to) it.

The phrase, "the process of the catch" seems just as ambiguous as the NFHS rule.

There is one significant difference between "the same catch" in the EZ and at the 50 yl,; In the EZ, if you rule a catch, and therefore a TD, the play is instantly over, whereas at the 50 yl, play may continue raising the possibility of a subsequent fumble.

[dch]

It seems that the catch / no-catch situation is a lot tougher now than it was when I started officiating.  Discussions I have had with NCAA and NFL officials all agree -- it's different than it used to be and none of the rules are clearly definitive at any level.  Most agree that the trouble is centered around just what this discussion has touched on --- is it different at the 50 yard line vs the end zone, and how much does defensive contact enter into the ruling?  The changes re catch or no catch really started happening when the philosophy of "no cheap fumbles" entered the picture. Coaches with influence (particularly NCAA) didn't like loosing the ball when their receivers took a big hit immediately after gaining control of the ball.  Many defenders didn't play the ball at all, they just timed it to hit the receiver hard just after the ball got there.  The pendulum has swung pretty far --- "make a football move", "all the way to the ground" and more.  We have all seen some TV plays where 2 or 3 steps wasn't enough to complete the catch. It is a tough call.  Slow motion / stop action replay only makes it worse.  Almost makes me glad I'm old and in the stands now.

[bigjohn]

Catch  
1. If in doubt, the pass is incomplete vs. the ball caught & then fumbled. The act
of making a catch is a process that includes maintaining firm control of the ball
throughout the entire act. The receiver must have the opportunity to perform
a second act (i.e. dive to pylon, possess & turn up field) in order to rule catch.
2. If a player has control of the ball but, in the act of making the catch, comes to
the ground & loses control, it is incomplete. The catch must survive the
contact with the ground.   
3. If he is upright & immediately hit, he must maintain control of the ball or it is
an incomplete pass.

http://www.ohsaa.org/officials/bulletins/FBRulesPhilosophies.pdf

[AlUpstateNY]

If that's what Ohio wants to require for Ohio, it's completely up to Ohio.  It still really seems to depend on what the covering official actually sees happening in the play he's looking at.

[bossman72]

Definition of a catch:

"“The act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball."

While maintaining possession of the ball. That's enough rule basis for me to accept the growing premise that a player needs to maintain control throughout the process. That word "maintain" insinuates that there must be a continued possession, not just instantaneously.

+1

[HLinNC]

NCHSAA sent this out this morning via Arbiter e-mail.  Most of it deals with the goal line but:

If an airborne receiver possesses the ball while airborne over the end zone, it is not a catch until the receiver touches the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.  When such a player is contacted by a defender and comes to the ground in the field of play, the catch is completed.  The ball is dead when he completes the catch by touching the ground.  Thus a touchdown is scored.


It comes from Referee mag so I know some of us have issues with them from time to time.

[ALStripes17]

NCHSAA sent this out this morning via Arbiter e-mail.  Most of it deals with the goal line but:

If an airborne receiver possesses the ball while airborne over the end zone, it is not a catch until the receiver touches the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.  When such a player is contacted by a defender and comes to the ground in the field of play, the catch is completed.  The ball is dead when he completes the catch by touching the ground.  Thus a touchdown is scored.


It comes from Referee mag so I know some of us have issues with them from time to time.

I would say that the cite incorrectly uses the term 'field of play' according to the definitions.... but even the definitions in the rule book don't seem to want to work with each other (looking at 2-10-2 and 2-26-1).

It's still hard to swallow that email because there are a lot of instances where you would now have to rule 'catch and fumble' in the 'field of play' for that interp to hold water.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk