Catch - No-Catch (video)

[TXMike]

This play was on Rom Gilbert's weekly collection this week and got me to wondering...does the "philsophy" re maintaing control when a receiver goes to the ground apply if the receiver is already "on the ground" when he gets hit?  This airborne receiver touches a foot down, appears to be in possession, and is then hit, causing him to go to the ground where he loses possession. Catch is ruled on the field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaboQq3cKyw

[Hawkeye]

I know we're not the NFL, and their rule is different on completing the catch, but we know that many of our philosophies come from the NFL.

My understanding is that in the NFL, if the second foot has not come to the ground and the player is contacted, he must maintain control if he subsequently goes to the ground.

Obviously, we don't have the second foot down requirement, so should that same philosophy be applied here?

[Osric Pureheart]

The other thing about the NFL requirement is that a player must hold on and be on his feet long enough to have "opportunity to perform an act common to the game" before he's credited with an upright catch; which includes taking a step with ball in hand, spinning, jumping, etc.  It's not necessary to actually perform the act; just that you must have been on the ground long enough to take a step if you wanted to.  That's how they differentiate between bang-bang incomplete and catch and fumble.

For me, this player doesn't have that opportunity, so we should then apply going-to-the-ground and it becomes a bang-bang incomplete pass.

[Sumstine]

I believe it fits into the incomplete philosophy.