Catch or no catch (NFHS)

[voiceoflg]

Video

I don't have a dog in the fight, and the next NFHS football game I officiate will be my first. Just curious from those who do this every week if you think this was a catch or not. The play starts 20 seconds in and another angle around 30 seconds in.

Thanks.

[ajmc]

Tough call. The pass was clearly complete and the receiver had possession when he became a runner. After he was hit, however, and BEFORE he contacted the ground, he appeared to lose possession of the ball (on the way down).

From the angle of the camera, you can't tell whether he had broken the plane of the goal line before, or after, he lost possession. Subsequent camera angle showed the wing official in the proper position to make that judgment.

[JRutledge]

I have little issues with the call. Looks to me like he was bobbling the ball the entire part and then tried to dive.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

I have a touchdown. Clean catch followed by the ball breaking the plane prior to him losing possession. The only debate I could even consider entertaining would be that he was down prior the ball breaking the plane, and I just don't think that's the case.

[Rich]

Watching the end zone view, it looks like the ball is coming loose before he's down.

I didn't see what Jeff saw, but I don't care enough to go back and watch again.

[Rich]

Oh, look, they're appealing to the GHSA to overturn the call of incomplete.

Won't happen, you say?

Well, the GHSA decided to overturn a judgment call in a baseball game this past spring despite their own rules.

Precedent Set, Georgia Faces 2nd Judgment Call Protest | Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

Oh, look, they're appealing to the GHSA to overturn the call of incomplete.

Won't happen, you say?

Well, the GHSA decided to overturn a judgment call in a baseball game this past spring despite their own rules.

Precedent Set, Georgia Faces 2nd Judgment Call Protest | Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League

Once you open a can of worms, it's really hard to get them all back in the can.

[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.