Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Thanks for saying that and the problem with your point. You want a subjective situation to be ruled possession and he did not complete the part of the rule that is required. He was going to the ground and did not "survive the ground." In the play I showed, the play had a player take a few steps while trying to bring the ball in and clearly lost the ball after being hit. Now in that play, I showed for the high school game, if we use the standard that you and others would like or suggest the rule says, he took several steps. Nothing about his actual control of the ball or when did he have control is up for major debate. So every play we would debate if he had control and in the Jesse James play, we would have plays similar and debate when or if he had control. Again, he did not survive the ground, the rule is clear. We would be debating other plays like this all the time and have no line to judge. Surviving the ground standard at least requires you come all the way to the ground and after to demonstrate control. This is why the rule will not likely change and if it does, we will be back here debating the plays in question. Peace
|
From this film view, I couldn't tell WHEN the received lost control of the ball, or if he ever secured control and possession, before losing control of the ball.
However, the covering official seemed to be in excellent position to fully observe the action, completely and appeared to rule the pass incomplete.
I see no reason to question his call, however had the call gone the other way, I would still give preference to the calling officials view, and judgment, on THIS call.
For the record, many football plays are similar, BUT no two have ever been exactly alike in every aspect, so how a different, even extremely similar, play may have been decided has no DIRECT bearing on this play..
Consistency is a laudable objective, and reviewing similar plays can be very helpful from a mechanics, rule interpretation, positioning and observation perspectives, but seeking an ENTIRE "one size fits all" is a delusion.