NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD.



All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

Also, the NFL has the right to determine when you have possession. To the NFL you must complete the process of the catch which includes surviving the ground or surviving the hit. There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.

Peace

What's your opinion on this one?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

What's your opinion on this one?

Did the ball hit the ground? Video did not support that it did.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did the ball hit the ground? Video did not support that it did.

Peace

It clearly hit the ground on the last angle.

[JRutledge]

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.



Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.



Peace

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

[JRutledge]

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



Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

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

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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

It clearly hit the ground on the last angle.

I didn't see any loss of control whatsoever

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by scrounge

I didn't see any loss of control whatsoever

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

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

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

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

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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

It's relevant here because the same rule was applied. The replay official, Riveron, erred in the overturn there, which speaks to the lack of consistency even though the rule is written in a way to try to limit subjectivity. I'm suggesting that the rule should be re-written in a way that's more logical with what "should" be a considered a touchdown even if it adds subjectivity because the subjectivity has been there regardless.