TD or Not??

[matref0]

Would like to get opinions from you on this series of pictures from a NAIA game and if you would call this play a touchdown or not. Ruling on the field was no TD. Understand it may be difficult to tell with still pictures, but was wondering what everyone thought. The pictures are numbered in succession 1-7.

http://members.cox.net/trivman/Wrestling/MSUN.pdf

Also, is there a NCAA rule against kicking a ball out of a receiver's hands?

Thanks

[MJT]

No way you can tell anything from those pictures as the camera is not on the goal line.

NCAA rule on illegal kicking the ball would show it is fine. You also have to rule the kick to be "intentional" to have it be illegal.
Illegally Kicking Ball
ARTICLE 4. A player shall not kick a loose ball, a forward pass or a ball
being held for a place kick by an opponent. These illegal acts do not change
the status of the loose ball or forward pass; but if the player holding the ball
for a place kick loses possession during a scrimmage down, it is a fumble
and a loose ball; if during a free kick, the ball remains dead (A.R. 8-7-2-
VII).

[grantsrc]

Hopefully there was DPI called on the play. Granted still pictures are easier to see than live action but the left hand looks like it was there before the ball got there.

From still pictures, it is difficult to get an idea of timing and how long he had the ball. My initial reaction though would be TD. But again, I have no idea as to how long he controled, or even if he controled, the football.

Which game is this?

[JasonTX]

I'll go with whatever the ruling on the field is. Can't tell anything from still photos.

[Kirby]

It is very tough to tell, but it looks like one of those "cheap completions" in which by the strictest rule in the book you could rule a completed pass (one foot down and possession of the ball for an instant). The same type of play occurred in the MNF game last night and was ruled incomplete, and while I know the rules and philosophies are different from NFL to NCAA to FED, I believe these types of "bang-bang plays" should be ruled as incomplete passes at all levels when the receiver doesn't maintain possession, after contact with the ground or an opponent, after immediately catching the pass.

Therefore, I would rule this play as an incomplete pass (only if I am interpreting the still shots correctly as they happened on the field).

[JRutledge]

I agree that there is not much you can tell from these pictures. It would be different from what we see in full motion video. I also feel that officials can make decisions based on some basic philosophies and seeing still pictures might not be the best way to know what would be called for sure, but you sure can come up with a call based on some simply philosophies. Based on some basic philosophy that I have been taught over the years, I have no TD. The receiver did not appear to maintain control after hitting the ground. I know at the college level this is expected for a catch to be completed.

Also this would not be a kick unless you thought of this as intentional and is not a rule that will be nit-picked by officials too often. The kick would really have to be obvious and based on these pictures it looks much more like bodies tangled up and the foot inadvertently hits the ball.

Peace

[AndrewMcCarthy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also this would not be a kick unless you thought of this as intentional and is not a rule that will be nit-picked by officials too often. The kick would really have to be obvious and based on these pictures it looks much more like bodies tangled up and the foot inadvertently hits the ball.

What if it's obviously intentional? What's the rule against that?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AndrewMcCarthy

What if it's obviously intentional? What's the rule against that?

I guess if the ball is in possession of the receiver you have a point.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Given that they are only stills... I lean towards a TD.

It seems in pic 6 that the player has control while down. If the real estate under him is the EZ, I think possession was established long enough before the defense kicked the ball out of A's hands.

[HLin NC]

and he's got the same angle as the photographer. Also we have no idea what the timing is between frames. We can't see if the the foot made contact with the ball or the receiver's hands. We also can't determine if the kick was an intentional act from the photos.

It is a nice sequence to study but I'd defer to the officials that were there.

[TXMike]

I'd say Montana State-Northern and Carroll College. Since Montana State (white) only had 1 TD and it was by # 33 so this play with #86 must have been ruled incomplete.

[jjrye22]

Like everyone else I would not say anything definative based on still shots, but my reading of it would lean towards incomplete.
I see it as the R loosing control when he comes in contact with the ground, which for us would be incomplete, but timing would be all important to know for sure.

James

[The Roamin' Umpire]

As others have said, officials are always told: See the whole play before ruling. Getting much out of stills is highly imprecise.

That said, if these photos happen at the speed that I'm guessing they do, this should probably be incomplete. The rule of thumb I use (some will argue) is this: Would I want it to be a catch-and-fumble if the play happened at midfield? If the answer is no, then I don't have a catch in the end zone either.

[matref0]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I did not see the play via video and the photos were sent to me by a friend of mine who was at the game. Since I ref a different sport, I agree with the comments on still photos.

This was a playoff game between Carroll College and Montana St-Northern. this situation was 3rd and Goal and the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass, no DPI or illegal kick.