|
REPLY: I don't think that the Fed has done a really good job of maintaining a set of consistent interpretations around the concept of "catch." And on top of that, they removed all of the 2.4 (catch) case plays from the Case Book back in 2003 or 2004. These plays contained some great information that now is nowhere to be found.
The actual definition of catch could be said to support the ruling of incomplete:
"A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball." (assuming that "...while maintaining possession of the ball" qualifies both ways that a catch can be completed).
Just as easily, however, one could argue that since contact with the knee was the "...first contacting (of) the ground inbounds," and the receiver maintained possession through that 'first contact' with the ground, the pass should be ruled complete.
George Demetriou wrote an article about airborne receivers in the September issue of REFEREE Magazine. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he says in the article, it raises some very good questions. If nothing else, it point s out the need for the Fed to really clean up its definition of catch.
__________________
Bob M.
|