Catch - No/Catch

[TXMike]

This was from a bowl game yesterday  http://youtu.be/PqB5488l1JU

This is from a Tx HS game:  http://youtu.be/Rikn30H9osI

The difference is?

[FLbackjudge]

Lost the video before I saw the complete play in the Marshall-NIU game, but I assume it was eventually ruled incomplete?  It was a lot closer to being complete than the HS play (though I admit complete ignorance of the rules modifications you guys use).  The HS receiver clearly did not complete the process, and I would have ruled incomplete.  The NIU receiver might have been deemed to make a separate football-related move when he reached out for the line to gain.  If so, it would be a complete pass, but I would have ruled it incomplete, too.

[Kalle]

In the first one the receiver is not going to the ground during the process of the catch. He becomes the runner before he goes to the ground. In the second one the receiver is going to the ground before completing the catch, thus it should have been ruled incomplete, in my opinion. As a supervisor, though, I would not have a major problem with the first one being ruled incomplete on the field, as it is pretty close. I would have an issue with the second one being ruled complete.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would agree with Kalle here.  IMO 1st play is a clean catch by an upright player who becomes a ball carrier followed by a football move to turn and stretch for the LTG. On the 2nd play the catch, stretch toward the goal line while going to the ground, and loss of possession is all one continuous move.

[TXMike]

What I don't like is this inherent assumption that because the HS receiver happened to be moving already towards the GL as he caught the ball he is held to a higher standard than the receiver who was going parallel to the GL.  The HS receiver did not need to turn which is the move some are saying the college receiver made to "prove" he had possession. 

This whole deal is as strange as the ruling that says when a receiver at the sideline puts toe down and then Heel but heel is OOB he is OOB while the receiver who "dots the I" with a toe tap inbounds before stepping out with other foot gets a completion. 

[Kalle]

I'm not entirely sure if I follow you. In the first play the receiver would be awarded the same forward progress even if he was going forward, caught the ball, was knocked off balance, extended the ball past the line to gain, had a non-foot/hand body part touch the ground and immediately lost the ball. The direction of the player is immaterial, what happens before he completes the catch is.

I don't have a big problem with the current interpretation. If the receiver is not going to the ground, secures the ball, has one foot down, and is then knocked off balance and loses the ball after touching the ground, it is a catch. If the balance is lost before the catch is completed, control must be maintained throughout the fall ("show me the ball").

[bkdow]

IMHO, first one is catch.  Good spot because the knees of the receiver hit the ground before he gets the ball fully stretched out.  He secured the ball before going to the ground and the stretch was an additional move after it is a catch.

Second one is not a catch because he was going to the ground in the process of securing the ball.  He has to maintain control.  I'd say no catch.