Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
aj, with all due respect... I'm going to assume you are telling the truth about your experience. If you are, then you have been involved in hundreds of clinics, training sessions, videos, etc that CLEARLY tell us that the receiver must maintain possession longer than just the instant described in the OP. Forget out of bounds considerations here. A receiver that controls the ball as his first foot hits the ground, then comes to the ground with his body and loses that control the moment he hits the ground DID NOT HAVE CONTROL of the ball long enough for us to call it a catch.
If your experience is true, you know that. And you know that well enough that you have taught it, and trained it into our newer officials.
If you don't know that, either you're experience is not the truth, or you've managed to not have 40 years of experience, but rather 1 year of experience 40 times. No offense intended.
|
You must associate with some very shallow people, MD Longhorn, to worry about. or suspect, my comments were fabricated, not that any of that really matters, other than to correct a foolish, and inaccurate, presumption.
Actually, I agree with much of what you suggest, but that is
NOT the way I interpreted the ORIGINAL sample question. As that question
OVERTLY emphasized that the receiver
"CLEARLY" possessed the ball, while airborne and (again)
"CLEARLY" maintained that possession through touching the ground inbounds (in the EZ) and was
SUBSEQUENTLY contacted and knocked to the ground OOB, where he lost possession simultaneously with "hitting" the ground, I have a catch followed by a contact
AFTER the requirements of a TD were satisfied, where the receiver lost possession of a
DEAD BALL.
I understand that sometimes it can be a real pain in the butt to have differences in rule codes, that may complicate officiating for those working at multiple levels. Perhaps "things have changed" for some, but considering the many, many bulletins I've seen, meetings and training sessions I've attende, I don't recall a single one suggesting I should, or could, pick and choose the code
I FELT like following.
In Texas (and Massachusettes) you follow a single code for both interscholastic and collegiate football, so I can appreciate your concern about consistency, but fortunately (or if some prefer, unfortunately) there are differences in the codes applied to interscholastic and collegiate football in the other 48 States, and
officials are required (whether they choose to consider them, or not)
to deal with the complications of "differences".
Sometimes "differences" really don't matter all that much, then again, sometimes they actually do.