Catch or no catch (NFHS)

[HLin NC]

Been discussed on the NFHS FB page- from end zone view, he tucks ball into his right arm then breaks plane. Anything after that doesn't matter as it was a TD when he broke the plane with possession.

Some have gone back and found where the WR stepped out of bounds further up field but no IP flag was thrown, which would have negated the score anyway so in a perfect world.......

Deep wing was obviously screened out for some of the play by the receivers own body.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Been discussed on the NFHS FB page- from end zone view, he tucks ball into his right arm then breaks plane. Anything after that doesn't matter as it was a TD when he broke the plane with possession.

Some have gone back and found where the WR stepped out of bounds further up field but no IP flag was thrown, which would have negated the score anyway so in a perfect world.......

Deep wing was obviously screened out for some of the play by the receivers own body.

If he was going to the ground as part of completing the catch, I'd make him survive the ground. But in this play the catch was obviously completed well before this and the dive was part of the run, not the catch.

The end zone view doesn't tell me when he actually crosses the plane of the GL, but I'm assuming it's pieced together from other views.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

If he was going to the ground as part of completing the catch, I'd make him survive the ground.
The end zone view doesn't tell me when he actually crosses the plane of the GL, but I'm assuming it's pieced together from other views.

I don't find anything about, "I'd make him survive the ground" included in NFHS 2-4 that defines a "catch", a long as there is confirmation when, " first contacting the ground (in bounds) while maintaining possession" the requirements for "a catch" have been met, which may well be different that other rule codes.

If in the endzone NFHS 8-2-b establishes it is a TD, and what happens thereafter happens to a dead ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't find anything about, "I'd make him survive the ground" included in NFHS 2-4 that defines a "catch", a long as there is confirmation when, " first contacting the ground (in bounds) while maintaining possession" the requirements for "a catch" have been met, which may well be different that other rule codes.

If in the endzone NFHS 8-2-b establishes it is a TD, and what happens thereafter happens to a dead ball.

You can quote what you want till the cows come home, but:

If he's in the process of catching the ball as he's going to the ground and the ball comes out, there's no way I'm ruling it a catch.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

You can quote what you want till the cows come home, but:

If he's in the process of catching the ball as he's going to the ground and the ball comes out, there's no way I'm ruling it a catch.

I run into some coaches who feel the same way, even after explaining the differences to them. The only suggestion I can then offer is, perhaps they should consider coaching at a different level, where they may be more comfortable with rules.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't find anything about, "I'd make him survive the ground" included in NFHS 2-4 that defines a "catch", a long as there is confirmation when, " first contacting the ground (in bounds) while maintaining possession" the requirements for "a catch" have been met, which may well be different that other rule codes.

If in the endzone NFHS 8-2-b establishes it is a TD, and what happens thereafter happens to a dead ball.

I see "surviving the ground" and "first contacting the ground (in bounds) while maintaining possession" as part of the catch as the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong?

[GoodScout]

I saw a Hudl film of the play, and also missed was that the receiver stepped out out bounds while running his route. The IP, were it called, would have made any catch irrelevant.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by GoodScout

I saw a Hudl film of the play, and also missed was that the receiver stepped out out bounds while running his route. The IP, were it called, would have made any catch irrelevant.

I've also read that the officials erred on a couple of fumbles by the losing team that should have been awarded to the winning team, but ended up staying with the losing team. Assuming they truly erred and failed to officiate two turnovers correctly, that could have impacted the game significantly.

Of course none of this should matter because nothing should be changed. The game is over. That should be the end of it. Even if it's not, how do you pick one missed call out of an entire game and only "fix" that one?

Unfortunately they set a precedent earlier this year overturning an umpire's call that ended a playoff baseball game, breaking multiple rules in the process. Things likely won't be quite as simple as they should be.

[CT1]

I can't tell from the video whether the ball broke the GL plane before it came loose. What I *can* tell is that there was a completed pass.

So....if you're the deep wing on that side (or perhaps even the R or BJ), do you go to the covering official and ask him what he saw?

[9thIsleZebra]

Looks similar to the Jesse James play. In this play I'd have ruled a TD. Receiver has the ball and reaches for the goal line with ball still in control. There is a question of whether the receiver was not in full control of the ball but it would be difficult to see in real time. Once the ball breaks the goal line plane, anything that happens after that is during a dead ball period.