RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matt97 on November 27, 2020, 11:07:56 PM

Title: Completion?
Post by: Matt97 on November 27, 2020, 11:07:56 PM
Receiver makes a catch in corner of endzone, secures ball and backpeddles three steps out of the end zone and falls to his back out of the end zone and ball then pops out as his back hits the ground. Complete pass and TD or incomplete?
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: BetweenTheLines on November 28, 2020, 06:39:28 AM
You answered your own question. He made a catch in the EZ. TD!!!
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: HLinNC on November 28, 2020, 09:41:00 AM
NFHS 2-4-1  "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a liveball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball .........."

NCAA rule and interp may differ.
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: ElvisLives on November 28, 2020, 11:06:31 AM
NFHS 2-4-1  "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a liveball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball .........."

NCAA rule and interp may differ.

For NCAA, we'd need to know if the three back-pedal steps were under his own control, or if he was "going to the ground," i.e., not under his own bodily control. Three back-pedal steps sounds suspiciously like he was under control, then just lost his footing and went to the ground well after the catch was complete. Hard enough to take three forward steps while "going to the ground," much less three back-pedal steps.
By the description, I'd say catch (which means complete pass, and TD, in this case).
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: bossman72 on November 28, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
Sounds like a catch and TD at all levels, but I'd have to see it.
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: HLinNC on November 29, 2020, 12:07:39 PM
This sounds suspiciously like the TAMU vs LSU play, which would not be NFHS.
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: ilyazhito on November 30, 2020, 12:11:19 PM
It sounds like a completed pass and touchdown under any ruleset.
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: HLinNC on November 30, 2020, 01:47:31 PM
If this is what he's talking about, replay overruled it.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1332857929687556096

This thread probably should be moved to General Discussion.
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: dammitbobby on November 30, 2020, 03:20:02 PM
tbh given the quality of that clip - hard to tell.  And I know we hate single pictures of something to evaluate, but based on this, I would say he did not have possession when the ball crossed the plane, and at this exact moment, that doesn't look like he has secured it, and his foot is OOB.

Here's a better quality (and different) view) https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/1332858563937579008
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: AlUpstateNY on November 30, 2020, 04:17:55 PM
tbh given the quality of that clip - hard to tell.  And I know we hate single pictures of something to evaluate, but based on this, I would say he did not have possession when the ball crossed the plane, and at this exact moment, that doesn't look like he has secured it, and his foot is OOB.

Here's a better quality (and different) view) https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/1332858563937579008

This seems like a perfect opportunity to allow a poor dead horse to rest in peace.  No matter how many different photos/looks you get, this play has already been decided and NOTHING is going to change that decision.  The covering official seems to be in a perfect position to view the action, and his view and vision, will never be exactly the same as any isolated photo, or film (viewed at any speed).  The game official's judgment was subject to IR, which presumably had access to the "best" photographic evidence and a competent evaluator either agreed with the field officials conclusion, or decided to overturn it.  Either way it, "Is what it is".  Any continued assessment is utterly meaningless and will have no bearing on the conclusion reached, it's effect on the contest or constructive reference to any subsequent, similar incident. 
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: ElvisLives on November 30, 2020, 04:20:50 PM
As usual, people see what they want to see, then complain when the facts ain't what they want them to be.

The receiver is airborne when he gets the ball in his hands, then one foot lands in the field of play, and then the second foot lands on the sideline. All the while the receiver is falling backward to the ground. He must maintain control of the ball during the entire process of the catch. As bad of an angle as this video is, you can still see the ball bobbling - not just moving slightly - as his foot touches the sideline, and as he is falling to the ground. This is not a catch. Incomplete pass. Nice athletic action, but not a catch, by rule.
Oh, replay changed it from a TD to an incomplete pass. Shocking.

A far cry from backpedaling three steps after getting firm control of the ball, then stumbling and falling to the ground. 
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: dammitbobby on November 30, 2020, 04:32:04 PM
This seems like a perfect opportunity to allow a poor dead horse to rest in peace.  No matter how many different photos/looks you get, this play has already been decided and NOTHING is going to change that decision.  The covering official seems to be in a perfect position to view the action, and his view and vision, will never be exactly the same as any isolated photo, or film (viewed at any speed).  The game official's judgment was subject to IR, which presumably had access to the "best" photographic evidence and a competent evaluator either agreed with the field officials conclusion, or decided to overturn it.  Either way it, "Is what it is".  Any continued assessment is utterly meaningless and will have no bearing on the conclusion reached, it's effect on the contest or constructive reference to any subsequent, similar incident.

Nobody here is trying to re-officiate the game or say they were wrong.  I commented on it, because I took the time to look at it, and to see if, from what I could see, I would reach the same conclusion, and if not, why not.  All for the purpose of making me a better official, and understanding what they saw/didn't see (as best as I can tell) so that if I'm ever in that position to make a call like that, I have a better chance to get it right.  It's no different than watching film to learn - in fact, that's exactly what this is.

TBH if I were that SJ would have called that a catch too. 
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: AlUpstateNY on November 30, 2020, 09:15:51 PM
As usual, people see what they want to see, then complain when the facts ain't what they want them to be.

The receiver is airborne when he gets the ball in his hands, then one foot lands in the field of play, and then the second foot lands on the sideline. All the while the receiver is falling backward to the ground. He must maintain control of the ball during the entire process of the catch. As bad of an angle as this video is, you can still see the ball bobbling - not just moving slightly - as his foot touches the sideline, and as he is falling to the ground. This is not a catch. Incomplete pass. Nice athletic action, but not a catch, by rule.
Oh, replay changed it from a TD to an incomplete pass. Shocking.

A far cry from backpedaling three steps after getting firm control of the ball, then stumbling and falling to the ground.

Not always, football officials see what they believe their eyes tell them, which at times, may not be as complete and accurate and informative as what multiple camera angles, that can be manipulated at multiple and different speeds are able to record.  Which is the reason there is IR review (at levels of the game above the NFHS level).

A principal benefit of IR, from a training perspective, is that it allows officials to review the benefit of certain perspectives gained from proper positioning, not being too close, or too far, making sure that the area you may be assessing from is not congested with unauthorized spectators, focusing on what you need to be observing while avoiding unnecessary congestion and of course knowing what, specifically, you should be focusing on (as quidded by the appropriate rule).

We base our judgments on what we SEE, rather than what we think (assume, suspect, etc.) might appear to have happened. Everything we see happens at a single speed, in "real time".  Camera views can move closer (after the fact) and often change angles  and views to move around congestion that may block a complete view, at a variety of angles.

Vince Lombardi suggested, "Perfection is NOT attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence", which is what IR is capable of accomplishing, but even that remains short of consistent and absolute perfection.  Using film and cameras is a valuable tool in helping the chase of excellence, by demonstrating the impact and importance of pursuing and applying learned and effective practices, but the individual human observation is not likely EVER to match the continuing progress of multiple camera observations, which are far more likely to continue improving.
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: ElvisLives on December 02, 2020, 06:18:04 AM
Al,
Wasn’t talking about officials. Fans, especially, see what they want to see, facts be hanged.
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: CalhounLJ on December 02, 2020, 09:14:16 AM

We base our judgments on what we SEE, rather than what we think (assume, suspect, etc.) might appear to have happened. Everything we see happens at a single speed, in "real time".  Camera views can move closer (after the fact) and often change angles  and views to move around congestion that may block a complete view, at a variety of angles.

Actually, this is not true. Many times we base our judgments on what we think we see instead of what we actually see.
https://earthsky.org/human-world/brain-tricks-optical-illusions-asapscience-video
Title: Re: Completion?
Post by: AlUpstateNY on December 02, 2020, 10:49:32 AM
Al,
Wasn’t talking about officials. Fans, especially, see what they want to see, facts be hanged.

Absolutely, unfortunately that is an "Occupational hazard" we're stuck with.  Fans, especially the loud ones, don't have to be right, just annoying.  TRULY believing what you've seen is absolutely correct, is pretty much the same as being correct, at least to you  Unfortunately, that leaves being proven incorrect a regrettable possibility.