Catch/No Catch and IR (video)

[TXMike]

We agree on the outcome if not on how we got there

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[michaeldwilson]

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

[Atlanta Blue]

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".

[michaeldwilson]

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

[mccormicw]

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. 

[Diablo]

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.

[TXMike]

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.

[RedTD]

OK Let me try: 
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??