It clearly hit the ground on the last angle.

This is also a call in an NF (High School State Finals)

No one said a word about this call.

BTW, this was in 2011.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zbRQNvnsxKI" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Jesse James demonstrated more control of the ball than the receiver in that video.

Here is another play that resembles the play this past weekend.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R6mjKOXVHVY" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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

I didn't see any loss of control whatsoever

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.

I'm surprised to see people struggle with understanding what is meant by "going to the ground as part of completing the catch". When I first heard about this play I figured there would be some uncertainty over whether he made a move before lunging for the end zone. When I finally I saw I was surprised how obvious he was going to the ground the entire time. That is one thing that is not in question at all. Because of that, none of the other actions matter. You can make arguments over whether or not the ball hit the ground when it was loose or if there is enough evidence to obviously overturn the call on the field, but neither are horrible calls. They are just calls and someone paid to make that decision made an unbiased decision.

Someone commented the NFL has made the catch rule too complicated. I would argue they have greatly simplified it. This play is a great example. Very simple...go to the ground, maintain control, catch. Without that you have all kinds of subjective decisions to make on this play.

If you really want a play like this to be a TD you need to remove catch/no catch from replay. I agree to the naked eye in real time on the field, this was a catch. Thanks to technical rules and HD cameras with multiple angles, the bobble is detected and this becomes an incomplete pass. You have to accept that decision if you are going to have replay.

I think the argument in favor of this being a TD is that he clearly made a clean catch with control of the ball and lunged for the endzone, only losing control after the ball had broken the plane. People are seeing that as a football move. Given the inconsistent way that replay decisions have been made this year, with several decisions not being supported by video, it should be no surprise that high-profile calls are getting even more attention than usual. Also, technically, he survived his "initial contact with the ground," which was his knee, then lunged for the endzone, losing the ball after that.

I do think it's worth exploring if there's a way to modify the rule so that this play and others like it are touchdowns, as they should be, in my opinion. The key would be to do it in such a way that it's not going to lead to a bunch of cheap turnovers in the field of play. Perhaps a rule change that only applies to the endzone?

That didn't stop replay from overturning Zach Miller's touchdown on the play that could have cost him his leg.

To argue you that you are adding a lot of additional information that is irrelevant. He's clearly going to the ground as part of making the catch so the only thing you have to worry about is if he maintains control and the ball doesn't hit the ground if it comes loose. If that doesn't happen you have a catch. Now you are dealing with location of the ball when the knee hits under NCAA/NFHS rules. If you are going to change the rule to somehow allow these to be catches you are going to be adding a ton of subjectivity to the call and a lot more inconsistency. I'd rather not go back to that.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's the issue people have with the rule. I completely understand the rule as interpreted. It's also clearly not consistently applied, and a rule that has plays such as this not be a touchdown is flawed. If this rule were applied consistently, maybe it could be acceptable, but it's not.

I think a better option needs to be put in place, even if it increases subjectivity. The supposed objectivity that comes with the rule in its current form is undercut by poor replay decisions from New York.

I disagree with the lack of consistency. If you understand what the rule means it is significantly more consistent. Announcers and fans feel it's not consistent because they don't know the rule. I feel the same way when I watch basketball. It seems like block/charge and other fouls are very inconsistently called. But I'm smart enough to know I don't understand the rule and how it's called.

When I sit in association and study group meetings and we discuss catch/no catch plays there is a lot less debate about them, especially when the receiver is going to the ground. It takes away so many things you may have previously considered. Did he maintain control? Did the loose ball hit the ground? If the first question is yes and the second question is no you have a catch. It's as simple as that. Bang bang hits that cause the ball to come loose, incomplete. There is still some gray area but it is so much smaller and that leads to consistency. If you don't feel it's there you are buying what the commentators are selling.

Ok, what's your point? You already posted at length on that play in an earlier thread. We're talking about these plays.

You're missing the point. I understand the rule. Replay's determination of what is or isn't "surviving the ground" is inconsistent.