Catch ? (video)

[TXMike]

NFL video but I assume the NCAA conferences also want this called incomplete?  I am glad I don't answer to a NCAA or NFL soup cause this is a catch for me

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

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would agree with the R's review call that this is incomplete.  The player is off balance and going to the ground while securing the ball and when the ball touches the ground it immediately comes loose.  IMO the NFL has been 100% consistant on this and unless the player maintains possession and control all the way through contact with the ground thereby completing the catch it's INC.  I believe, with the exception of 1 foot instead of 2 inbounds, that the NCAA rule is called the same way, altough U's don't get a chance to make this call very often.   

[Hank]

I agree with Mike, this is a catch.

This is not "going to the ground as an integral part of the catch."  Instead, the player makes the catch before going to the ground.  He then trips himself and is knocked off balance and to the ground by the defender.  But the catch had already been made and the TD had already been scored.

If this one was called the way the NFL "wants" it called, they should change what they want.

[Atlanta Blue]

The NFL doesn't have to change anything.  Under their rules, this is NOT a catch:

8-1-3-Item 1:
Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

No doubt, in real time, this was a tough call.  The F has to watch the bobble, the feet, the pylon, the sideline as well as contact with the ground.  But the replay shows that Gresham touched the ground with the ball as he went down, and didn't maintain control.  under NFL rules, incomplete.

[clearwall]

Stupid CBS and their crummy production...didnt show the ball coming loose in any of the replays until about 2:30 into that clip. Add that on to them taking the Cowboys game off the air in the THIRD QUARTER and im just flat out done with them

[mbyron]

Under NFL rules, incomplete.

Yep. And for those who love the call and hate the rule: bear in mind that NFL rules HEAVILY favor the offense, especially on passing plays. This is one provision that takes some of that back, and to my mind that's fair.

[Bullycon]

This is not "going to the ground as an integral part of the catch."  Instead, the player makes the catch before going to the ground.  He then trips himself and is knocked off balance and to the ground by the defender.  But the catch had already been made and the TD had already been scored.

Disagree completely. He does not have two feet and a football move. He gets one foot, then trips and starts to fall. Now he's going to the ground and he hasn't established possession yet. So he must hold on when he hits the ground. He doesn't. Incomplete.

[TXMike]

Do you see the way he is holding the ball as he goes down? !? !?   That sure looks like a firm grasp and control to me

[APG]

No catch...didn't maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

[Atlanta Blue]

Do you see the way he is holding the ball as he goes down? !? !?   That sure looks like a firm grasp and control to me

Doesn't matter.  Since he was going to the ground as a part of making the catch, he is required to maintain contact THROUGH the contact with the ground, and he didn't.

The NCAA does not have the same rule.  They MIGHT have the same philosophy, and although I don't think so, I don't know.  But by NFL rules, this was not a catch.  No doubt, it was a close call, but the replay correctly overturned the call.

[TXMike]

My comment was for NCAA rules which is why I specifically included the rule language

[Osric Pureheart]

Pereira tweeted that he wouldn't have overturned that.  FWIW I see juggling, control, a step and a half, and then he starts going down, but that's through orange-tinted shades.

[Chester]

Excellent play Mike.  Keep em coming.  Unless there are any replay officials on here, I don't think we as on field officials should worry about this play.  Call this a catch and let replay worry about it.  I don't think the FJ could even see the ball wobble when it hit the ground and the BJ was probably to far away to see it. 

[Morningrise]

The feet are not in question. To overturn this call in either NCAA or (what i know of) NFL rules, you need to make two judgements. First, you must answer YES to the question: Was the receiver's fall to the ground part of the PROCESS of the catch? Second, you must answer NO to the question: Did he maintain control when the ball touched the ground? The best views of this are at about 4:59 and 5:09 in the video.

I think yes, he goes to the ground as part of the process - but it's close, so close that I would have been happier if replay had deferred to the calling official and let the play stand as inconclusive. As for maintaining control, that's close too, but I think at 5:09 you can see his palm separate from the ball.

[chymechowder]

there's a difference between the NFL's "going to the ground" and the same for NCAA, right?

in NCAA, going to the ground is only an issue if the receiver had been AIRBORNE, no?  this receiver never went airborne. by ncaa rules, the whole maintain while going to the ground shouldnt' come into play. does he have possession with one foot down in the endzone and the all having broken the plane?  if so, TD, imo.

[NVFOA_Ump]

in NCAA, going to the ground is only an issue if the receiver had been AIRBORNE, no?  this receiver never went airborne. by ncaa rules, the whole maintain while going to the ground shouldnt' come into play.

IMO not totally correct.  Here's one of a several 7-3-6 AR's that seems to say that the implementation of the rule is in fact very similar to the NFL's version regarding completing a catch if "going to the ground":

Completed Pass—ARTICLE 6 / Approved Ruling 7-3-6
XII. Receiver A85 stretches out at the Team B two-yard line and grasps a forward pass and is going to the ground on his own as he is attempting to complete the catch. As A85 falls to the ground in the end zone, the ball immediately comes loose and falls to the ground.
RULING: Incomplete pass. Any receiver going to the ground on his own in the process of making a catch must maintain control of the ball when he hits the ground.

[Atlanta Blue]

NCAA:
Any receiver going to the ground on his own in the process of making a catch must maintain control of the ball when he hits the ground.

NFL:
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground

That looks like a pretty big difference in the two rule sets.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So, under NCAA rules, if the receiver is already going to the ground on his own as here where he basically tripped himself, and then he's contacted by the defender in the process of going to the ground, where does that fit in the rule? 

Does any contact by the defender change the reason he's going to the ground, even if he's clearly going to the ground prior to the contact, thereby eliminating the requirement to maintain possession through contact with the ground?

[mbyron]

So if the receiver is already going to the ground on his own as here where he basically tripped himself, and then he's contacted by the defender in the process of going to the ground, where does that fit in the rule? 

Does any contact by the defender change the reason he's going to the ground, even if he's clearly going to the ground prior to the contact, thereby eliminating the requirement to maintain possession through contact with the ground?

I'm assuming that you're asking about the OP.

1. NFL: if he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession through contact with the ground. Period.

2. NFL: no, since the reason he goes to the ground is irrelevant.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Actually I was intending to ask if this play were an NCAA rules game, how would we handle the call?

[chymechowder]

that's a good point about that a.r., NV.  although that AR has always bugged me.  because editorially I think it's kinda sloppy that they dont include that in the black and white definition of a catch. 

but philosophically, I can see that a player who extends his arms, or goes into a crouch--and then goes to the ground as a result of such a move--should have to maintain throughout.  just as if he had been airborne.

so in ncaa if the receiver goes airborne, and then goes to the ground he has to maintain throughout. whether or not he is also contacted by a defender while airborne.  because he went airborne on his own.

but in this play, he didn't go airborne.  and he dind't go to the ground  completely on his own. (yes he trips himself, but he's also contacted.)  so for me this is a catch in ncaa. 

no airborne element. we have solid possession in the endzone and contact by a defender.  TD, imo.

p.s. for NVFOA:  where are you tomorrow?  I have Burlington/Lexington.

[Berkut]

In regards to the NCAA, the only place I've seen language about an airborne receiver having to maintain control, or "going to the ground on their own" is in the ARs, not in the rules.

That suggests (to me anyway) that those are not rules, but rulings - which means that there isn't a RULE that says that a receiver going to the ground is any different whether he is going on his own, or as a result of the defender. The ARs are not exhaustive, so the fact that one includes language like "...an airborne receiver must maintain control of the ball while going to the ground..." does NOT mean that a non-airborne receiver does NOT need to maintain control as well.

The ARs are kind of maddening. They have one example of an airborne receiver losing control when he hits the ground, and state that it is not a catch, but don't say anything about a non-airborne receiver doing the same thing - is that because it is different, or because the AR is attempting to make it clear that an airborne receiver has to maintain control just like a non-airborne receiver?

Same thing with "on his own" AR 7-3-6-XII uses this language: "Any receiver going to the ground on his own in the process of maintaining a catch must maintain control of the ball when he hits the ground". Ok, great. But does that mean that if he is getting tackled and doesn't maintain control, ie NOT on his own, then that is a completed pass? Surely not!

I think this AR is to illustrate that even if the player is all by himself, he STILL must meet the same standards as if he was NOT all by himself - not that the standards are different.

From a rule perspective, there is silence. Rule 2-4-4 defines a catch/posession, and rule 7-3-6 a completed pass, and neither pf them say anything about a difference between an airborne player and a non-airborne player as it relates to controlling a ball while going to the ground assisted or otherwise. You could look at 2-4-3-1 as it relates to 2-4-1 to conclude that a player not in flight does not need to control it to the ground, but AR 7-3-6-XII makes it clear that at least when he is going by himself he certainly does. I can't imagine that a player being tackled is not required to control the catch through contact with the ground as well.

[NVFOA_Ump]

......... but in this play, he didn't go airborne.  and he didn't go to the ground  completely on his own. (yes he trips himself, but he's also contacted.)  so for me this is a catch in ncaa. 

no airborne element. we have solid possession in the endzone and contact by a defender.  TD, imo.

p.s. for NVFOA:  where are you tomorrow?  I have Burlington/Lexington.

I'm very close to agreement here, but do we absolve the receiver from being in full possession and control when he contacts the ground, simply because he was contacted by the defender AFTER he was already going to the ground on his own?

p.s. for chymechowder:  My T-Day game is Bellingham/Norton.  Sure hope the weatherman is right and this cold rain goes away or we'll by slopping in the mud!

[GAHSUMPIRE]

I will submit that by the rules, it was corectly overturned. But can I say what a freaking ridiculous rule this is?

Can someone tell me the reason this rule was enacted? What problem does it solve? Seems like it creates more problems than it solves, other than to give the tv networks more time to air commercials while the R is under the replay hood.

Correct me if I am wrong (and I very well could be). Runner A32 jumps in the air from the 2 yd line, breaks the plane of the goal line, and is pushed back where he falls on the ground at the 1 yd line. After contacting the ground, the ball comes loose. but since he has already broken the plane of the goal line, is it not still a touchdown?

[Berkut]

A runner has already established possession though, a receiver has not.