Completely agree ajmc. As an FYI, my post wasn't to convert anyone, but to show how and why I came up with my ruling. Incidentally, when I saw the play in full motion, I ruled catch/progress stopped. After viewing the slow motions, I posted the above.

I agree about the ruling of another official: I wouldn't feel an official made an incorrect call if they ruled incomplete, or catch/fumble.

However, I think you're wrong about the eyelash level. Video will either prove a call was correct, incorrect, or offer a position that this video shows: there is support for either ruling, based on what is ruled on the field. Isn't that why we use video: to get the call correct. If the video shows support for either call, then so be it.

The only official I saw was what appeared to be a deep guy in angle 2. Did you see others?

I think most of us use the philosophy that we would not give a player the benefit of the doubt if his "error" cause the situation. In this case, the player made an error (dropped the ball) so there is no reason to lean toward giving him a catch and forward progress. We also don't want to give a cheap turnover and TD either so the best call is incomplete.

In the first play, at full speed I couldn't see well enough to know how I would have ruled. In the second one, I would have called it incomplete.

I believe that saying he dropped the ball isn't sufficient. Players with and without possession can drop the ball. You need to clarify that you do not believe that the ball carrier earned possession in order to rule incomplete.

Can you specify why he didn't obtain possession? Discussing that is how your can impart knowledge to others...

JR,

Since we are using different rule books, this won't be a clean answer.

The receiver was trying to catch the ball and establish possession. While trying to do that, he ended up dropping the ball so if there was a question in my mind about which way to call it, I would not give the receiver the benefit of the doubt. I'd "punish" him for dropping the ball (an error on his part) by leaning the other way and calling it incomplete. Again, this is only if I were unsure of whether he had possession or not.

Does that answer your question?

Yes - it sounds to me like you're saying that A never had the ball firmly in his grasp to award possession.

We have a same philosophy here in Canada: when in doubt: incomplete. The corollary is that once you're certain of something, that's what it is. Whether it be a TD, a catch, incomplete, or a foul. To then go back and change my mind means that I need to learn from the situation and strive to have better judgment.

There is a post at another forum (refstripes) regarding the first video. It's from Bill LeMonnier and he says INCOMPLETE. I quote:

Survive the ground and/or survive the hit. If the hit is not late than the hit can be a factor in ruling this an incomplete pass. TV gives us some pretty good looks that neither official appeared to have in live action. The receiver went immediately to the ground and was immediately contacted by the defender. The ball came out immediately with this action. Not an easy call by any stretch of the imagination. I'd call this incomplete. The receiver hasn't survived the hit. Just being on the ground when the pass comes in doesn't mean you've possessed the ball. Make them hang on to the ball. Individual and crew consistency will improve if everyone on your crew can be on the same page with this type of call. That's one reason for the NCAA push for making these incomplete... it improves the consistency of this type of call. Make them possess it... in the field of play and in the end zone.

IMHO the player was down, on the ground with possession. TD. Then the hit ... but since Mr. LeMonnier is a Football Consultant and I'm an amateur referee I'd give his opinion more attention than mine. ;-) I am surprised that the most of you would have ruled TD as well.

As a high school official, I likely would have ruled no catch on the second one. At full speed, I don't think it looks like the receiver clearly had possession of the ball -- thus no catch. When you slow it down, it looks like he maybe did.

If I had ruled a catch, I would not have blown the ball dead for forward progress. The purpose behind the forward progress rule is to keep defenders from dragging ball carriers back or the like. Here, this isn't happening -- he's getting wrapped up and brought down. I'd let that play go until the ball carrier is down.

Catch or no catch
 

White adjustable mesh hat on R, others wearing solid black hats without white piping, maybe their rules are different....
I would have called it a catch, and tossed the flag on B for illegal helmet contact.

I'm not sure but i think catch.

From my point of view today as an official I would rule it as a no catch. No one really "controlled" the ball before the ball touched the ground.

That's a trucker hat ladies and gentlemen.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Touchdown.

The receiver did survive contact with the opponent and held possession. The subsequent hit by the second B player is immaterial as the play is over by rule due to the touchdown.