RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on January 03, 2012, 11:25:21 PM
-
This one will be subject of much water cooler talk in coming days
http://youtu.be/QOG7i8pN2rc (http://youtu.be/QOG7i8pN2rc)
Looks to me that when a receiver does not have his hands or arms between the ground and the ball he is risking this type play being called incomplete if the ball moves the slightest bit when it touches the ground. That is what I see happen in this play. (Of course I also think he was OOB so maybe I am not the best judge. I see his arm touching OOB before he is able to secure possession)
-
Hands most definitely do not have to be under the ball, which they are not, but he does have to maintain full control (the ball cannot move at all) for the catch to be completed. It does look like the ball moves a little (very little) bit when the nose of the ball hits the ground. Wow!!!
-
HD Video clip, I enabled the comments section on this youtube video for our amusement :)
http://youtu.be/b0Xh8MlPw38
@ :44, :53 and 1:37 i think are the best views if you agree with IR. The ball moves and it looks like right before the ball contacts the ground he is moving his right hand to try and secure possession of the ball.
-
Hands under the ball mean nothing. Did the player have "control"? Movement doesn't necessarily mean a loss of control.
Personally, I don't think there was enough to overturn the call. but a bigger miss was the Michigan kicker moving forward before the snap on a FG - twice.
-
The standard for reversing a call on the field is VERY VERY high. "The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand." Just saying. :sTiR:
-
Having no dog in that fight, I thought it would get overturned after seeing the replays. IMO, the contact with the ground pushed the ball further into his hands, and aided the receiver in maintaining possession.
YMMV.
-
While watching this last night, I actually felt it would stand. Perhaps the ball moves, but it does not appear 'obvious' to me (50 drunks in a bar, etc). Interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, when IR originally started, the NCAA interpretation was DIFFERENT from the NFL in that IF the ball strikes the ground but does not move, it is still considered a catch. I believe the NFL rule is that if any part (I believe the controversial play was the 'point' of the ball), the ruling is incomplete.
-
I believe the NFL rule is that if any part (I believe the controversial play was the 'point' of the ball), the ruling is incomplete.
Not true. In the NFL, it's not the ball touching the ground, it is the maintaining of control. It is possible for the ball to touch the ground while control is still maintained.
-
Looked like control and a catch. Not sure he was in bounds though. Either way, not conclusive to over rule the call on the field.
-
On another note, What are your thoughts on the covering official's position on the play? Not that he was in any way out of position by mechanics, but did he have the best possible angle to rule properly?
-
Personally, I don't think there was enough to overturn the call. but a bigger miss was the Michigan kicker moving forward before the snap on a FG - twice.
For once we agree on both counts!
-
Hands under the ball mean nothing. Did the player have "control"? Movement doesn't necessarily mean a loss of control.
Hands under the ball DO MEAN something. It means the ball is NOT touching the ground. and as long as the ball is not touching the ground it can jiggle, bounce and move around all day until he gets final possession (unless he goes OOB first)
-
^flag
It's pretty apparent to me that the ball was not totally under control in addition to having had a very small portion of it actually resting in "the white"/(OOB) when control was actually achieved. I definitely felt like it would be ultimately overturned on video review. But I can see why the calling official ruled as he did! z^
-
You're argung semantics, and proved my point with your very next phrase.
It's not having the hands under it that matter, it's NOT having it touch the ground and having that cause a loss of control. Even if you have your hands under the ball, if you don't maintain control, it's not a catch.
-
I was talking about the player who has hands UNDER the ball and does not have complete control but manages to gain it before he goes OOB or the ball touches the ground. It is physically possibly for the hands to be outstretched in front of the receiver as he dives forward, the ball hits his hands while his hands are resting on the ground, the ball bounces up, the receiver's continuing forward momentum brings his body over his hands (and the ball), and he then falls down on the ball with hands still underneath the ball and ball now trapped between chest and hands. If he stops there, that is a catch.
-
I was talking about the player who has hands UNDER the ball and does not have complete control but manages to gain it before he goes OOB or the ball touches the ground. It is physically possibly for the hands to be outstretched in front of the receiver as he dives forward, the ball hits his hands while his hands are resting on the ground, the ball bounces up, the receiver's continuing forward momentum brings his body over his hands (and the ball), and he then falls down on the ball with hands still underneath the ball and ball now trapped between chest and hands. If he stops there, that is a catch.
Sure, but it has nothing to do with the HANDS, it has to do with the ball not hitting the ground. It could have been his foot under the ball, his chest, his leg, the opponent's leg, it doesn't matter. There is nothing magic about the HANDS being under the ball. All of the magic is in the ball not hitting the ground causing the player to lose control.
-
On another note, What are your thoughts on the covering official's position on the play? Not that he was in any way out of position by mechanics, but did he have the best possible angle to rule properly?
I think he was in the position he was supposed to be in, it's just not the best angle because that's the way some plays work out. If he tried to move to the sideline, he probably ends up having to make the call on the move which I think is worse than having the angle he got stuck with.
My only complaint (being the picky coach that I am) would be he should have looked to the BJ for help and/or confirmation. With the way the catch was made, there's no way he sees thru the receivers body to "know" anything about a possible bobble and contact with the ground initially and only gets a view of the ball after the receiver rolls over. Did the BJ have any view? Who knows, but he should at least look for it.
That said, I think in this game at that moment, it's a catch. I think he had sufficient control before the ball hit the ground (if it ever really did) and didn't lose it after. And I think the point of his elbow hits in bounds after the catch and before the rest of him slides oob.
editted to add: funny how a certain word for illegitimate child changes to "coach"
-
For those saying catch completed in the field of play.
How would you rule a similar play with a team B player making the same attempt to intercept a ball at the B-1/2 yard line where his elbow hits. He then slides into the end zone. Down at the B-1/2 or catch completed in the end zone for a toucback?
-
You're argung semantics, and proved my point with your very next phrase.
It's not having the hands under it that matter, it's NOT having it touch the ground and having that cause a loss of control. Even if you have your hands under the ball, if you don't maintain control, it's not a catch.
It's probably semantics, but the rules do not say "complete control" but that the ball must be "firmly grasped" before the play can be ruled a reception. In the video example, the ball is loose within the player's arms when the nose of the ball touches the ground (it does not matter if it moves or not). Since the player does not have the ball firmly grasped when the nose of the ball touches the ground, it must be ruled incomplete.
-
It's probably semantics, but the rules do not say "complete control" but that the ball must be "firmly grasped" before the play can be ruled a reception. In the video example, the ball is loose within the player's arms when the nose of the ball touches the ground (it does not matter if it moves or not). Since the player does not have the ball firmly grasped when the nose of the ball touches the ground, it must be ruled incomplete.
Firmly grasped is a judgment call. Nothing says a ball that is firmly grapsed can't "move".
Whichever way it was called on the field, there was not enough video evidence to change the call. That is the problem with what Instant Replay has become. It is substituting what the replay official THINKS should have been the call rather than simply confirming or overturning obvious errors. Replay officials are the "activist judges" of the football world.
Read the philosophy of replay in the NCAA:
The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
Somewhere along the way, that philosophy has gotten lost in the actual application.
-
Firmly grasped is a judgment call. Nothing says a ball that is firmly grapsed can't "move".
Whichever way it was called on the field, there was not enough video evidence to change the call.
Even as a judgment call, we can objectively see and therefore judge that the player does not have the ball firmly grasped -- and "grasped" means in the hands, not arms. Whatever may or may not be said about the live call on the field, the replay shows that this is not a catch according to the rules of NCAA football.
-
"grasped" means in the hands, not arms.
There is nothing anywhere that supports such a ruling. To be caught, the ball must be possessed. Possed is defined by the NCAA as "holding or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds." There is NO requirement that it be in his his "hands". A player controlling the ball while holding it against his chest with his arms is clearly meeting the rule.
If it didn't, no kick returner would ever have possession of the ball. Returners pin the ball against their chest with their arms, which meets the requirement of possession. To require a pass receiver to have the ball in his "hands" is adding an element that does not exist in the rules or interpretations.
-
I can agree with your statement on this.
Thanks,
Mike
-
Firmly grasped is a judgment call. Nothing says a ball that is firmly grapsed can't "move".
Common sense and the philosophy of "catch" say that a ball that moves is by defintion, NOT firmly grasped. Since that is what the replay officials are looking for, i.e the moving ball, then that is what we have to use.
-
Common sense and the philosophy of "catch" say that a ball that moves is by defintion, NOT firmly grasped. Since that is what the replay officials are looking for, i.e the moving ball, then that is what we have to use.
No doubt. If the ball moves, it's not firmly grasped. But if the ball does not move, that does not automatically prove that it WAS firmly grasped, as the video example show. The receiver moves his arms forward, apparently to break his fall. Consequently, the ball is not firmly grasped in his arms when the nose of the ball touches the ground. Therefore, by rule, incomplete pass.
-
We agree on the outcome if not on how we got there
-
Why do we keep coming back to "firmly grasped"? Those words dont exist in the rules or interpretations. the only time the word "grasped" is used at all refers to a face mask foul.
A player needs to secure it "firmly" by "holding or controlling" it.
And if replay officials have to use frame by frame slow motion from various angles to even get to a debatable point, then the philosophy of the system has been lost.
This one has caused great debate here and among learned officials, and there isn't a consensus either way. I was copied on emails from two SEC replay officials today, and they disagreed on whether there was enough to overturn the call.
-
Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 3. a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Gains possession (Rule 2-4-1) of a live ball in flight; or
2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first
touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or
3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first returns
to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held that the
dead-ball provisions
-
Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 3. a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Gains possession (Rule 2-4-1) of a live ball in flight; or
2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first
touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or
3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first returns
to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held that the
dead-ball provisions
You are correct, I was looking at "possession", and not "catch".
-
You are correct, I was looking at "possession", and not "catch".
Yes, possession = "secures the ball by firmly holding or controlling it"; or "firmly grasp." Either of these needs to happen.
Thanks,
Mike
-
I have to agree with AB. If we cant even get most of the officials in this forum to agree whether or not it was a catch, how can replay overturn the call?
If the standard to be applied is that the ball doesnt move at all in order to be possessed or caught, there will be very few catches where the receivers goes to the ground. The ball is going to move a little most of the time.
-
I have to agree with AB. If we cant even get most of the officials in this forum to agree whether or not it was a catch, how can replay overturn the call?
As AB speculated earlier (see below), even though the wording is explicit, the application can & does deviate. That flexibility is not uncommon within NCAA rules.
Read the philosophy of replay in the NCAA:
12-1-2 The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
Somewhere along the way, that philosophy has gotten lost in the actual application.
-
I have to agree with AB. If we cant even get most of the officials in this forum to agree whether or not it was a catch, how can replay overturn the call?
If the standard to be applied is that the ball doesnt move at all in order to be possessed or caught, there will be very few catches where the receivers goes to the ground. The ball is going to move a little most of the time.
It does not matter if the ball moves if the receiver comes to ground inbounds and the moving ball does not touch the ground. It is still a catch.
If the receiver goes down to the ground out of bounds (and I mean after he has first touched some part of his body to ground in bounds) then that is supposed to be "proof" he did not have firm grasp and control when he touched in bounds so incomplete is ruled.
And whether he is falling to the ground in or out of bounds and the moving ball touches the ground before he can demonstrate firm grasp and control, it is to be ruled incomplete.
-
OK Let me try: :sTiR:
IMHO This is not a question of the definition of a catch. If it were we wouldn't be talking about it. This is a case of IVE or officiating from the booth. AB has quoted the philosophy given Replay Officials straight out of the NCAA Rule Book. It is very demanding when the RO reverses a ruling on the field
1. Does the airborne receiver gain possession and get a body part down inbounds? (:37) Is left elbow down OOB - No IVE. Was the airborne receiver NOT in possession of the ball? Questionable but no IVE. A case (based on rules application) can be made that possession is accomplished. Forearms can be used to grant possession. No IVE? On Field official rules possession and body part down.
2. Does airborne receiver maintain possession of the ball through contact with the ball? 1:21 indicates the ball does touch the ground. Does it clearly show (IVE) that the receiver has lost possession of the ball as a result of the initial contact with the ground. Maybe but only maybe. It could indicate loss of possession or it could indicate normal movement of the ball but not loss of possession. On Field Official rules possession not lost.
3. Does the receiver lose possession as he slides OOB? 2:18 and 2:33 gives strong indication the receiver has the ball firmly grasped to his torso with his forearms as he slides along the ground. On Field official rules he does not lose possession as he slides along the ground.
Do we have IVE (based on NCAA guidance) to overturn the On Field official??