receiever blocked OOB's-stays there for 4 steps-jumps from OOB's to make catch???

[MJT]

In the IA/Minn game today, an IA player definitely pushed a Minn receiver OOB's on his route, but then the receiver took 4 more steps OOB's on his own, then jumped from OOB's caught the ball in the air and landed inbounds. It was ruled incomplete on the field, reviewed, and overturned.
The R said "indisputable replay evidence showed the receiver was pushed OOB's then reestablished his position inbounds before making the catch. He was blocked OOB's, but he ran OOB's on his own 4 more steps. He did not get inbounds, before jumping to catch the ball. He jumped from OOB's and while inbounds jumped and caught the ball.
It seems if he came back inbounds, then jumped it would be good, but how did he establish himself inbounds if he lept from OOB's? Did they get this one right????

[Theisey]

I have no idea why the Ref said what he said. We have no NCAA rule that says the receiver has to reestablish his position after being blocked OOB.

All he has to do is come back in or in this case he jumped from the OOB spot and completed a catch when he came down in bounds.
I'm not worried about him taking four steps either. When you have a receiver streaking down the field, it takes a few steps to regain ones balance to be able to get yourself back on the field. Jumping from the OOB area does not change the fact that he is still eligible to touch the ball as he was legally blocked out.

I say they got it right.
Not clear to me why the play was originally ruled on the field to be incomplete. Even if he did go out on his own, the pass would still be complete by definition, but there would be a flag down and a 0 yardage penalty with the down counted at the previous spot as the receiver was first to touch the ball.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Theisey
I have no idea why the Ref said what he said. We have no NCAA rule that says the receiver has to reestablish his position after being blocked OOB.

All he has to do is come back in or in this case he jumped from the OOB spot and completed a catch when he came down in bounds.
I'm not worried about him taking four steps either. When you have a receiver streaking down the field, it takes a few steps to regain ones balance to be able to get yourself back on the field. Jumping from the OOB area does not change the fact that he is still eligible to touch the ball as he was legally blocked out.

I say they got it right.
Not clear to me why the play was originally ruled on the field to be incomplete. Even if he did go out on his own, the pass would still be complete by definition, but there would be a flag down and a 0 yardage penalty with the down counted at the previous spot as the receiver was first to touch the ball.

That was one of the things I did not understand. Why when it was obvious it was a catch, did he rule incomplete, then why the R said what he did. I wasn't sure if I was missing something, cuz I thought I understood the rule. I think they did get it right, just wierd how it all happened.

[BktBallRef]

This is one that confuses a lot of people.

While the receiver was OOB, he was not OOB when he touched the ball. To be OOB, the player has to be touching OOB. He was onbounds when he made the catch because the catch was not complete until his feet touched ground.

This ain't basketball where you are where you were until you get where you're going.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
This is one that confuses a lot of people.

While the receiver was OOB, he was not OOB when he touched the ball. To be OOB, the player has to be touching OOB. He was onbounds when he made the catch because the catch was not complete until his feet touched ground.

This ain't basketball where you are where you were until you get where you're going.

Exactly, if you aren't touchin OOB, you're inbounds! Its not like basketball where you are where you were until you get where you're going.

[Dommer1]

This whole "reestablish" thing as an NFL thing and has nothing to do with NCAA football. Unfortunately, the term is sometimes used even by NCAA officials, which just complicates things.

[Theisey]

That's part of the problem, we should not be using terms that do not exist in the code we are officating under whether it be NCAA or NF.

[parepat]

How does this same scenario play out under Federation rules?

[MJT]

Originally posted by parepat
How does this same scenario play out under Federation rules?

If you feel he came back inbounds at his 1st opportunity he is ok, but if he did not, it is illegal participation at the point of his return inbounds.

[chiefgil]

Were Big 10 officials working that game?

[Theisey]

Originally posted by chiefgil
Were Big 10 officials working that game?

considering it was a conference game, one would assume so.

[Dommer1]

Ah, yes, the Big 10. Otherwise known as the little NFL...
But they do have some pretty good officials in that conference.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MJT

If you feel he came back inbounds at his 1st opportunity he is ok, but if he did not, it is illegal participation at the point of his return inbounds.

Agreed. But I think that the situation described above would not be IP.

Imagine getting pushed 2 or 3 yards OOB while running hard down the sideline. The first step is OOB. It would be virtually impossible to get back in on the second step. Coming back in on the third or fourth step would be very, very reasonable. Think about it.

[MJT]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Agreed. But I think that the situation described above would not be IP.

Imagine getting pushed 2 or 3 yards OOB while running hard down the sideline. The first step is OOB. It would be virtually impossible to get back in on the second step. Coming back in on the third or fourth step would be very, very reasonable. Think about it.

I agree, it is a judgement call, but if you saw this particular play, he did not try to come back IB's when he could have.

[BktBallRef]

Evidently, the wing official disagreed with you.