Catch or No Catch?

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Both of these plays are excellent teaching tools. In particular, the first one points out a fundamental philosophical difference between Fed and NCAA. In Fed, one might justifiably say that the player had possession while on his back in the endzone. Therefore the ball is dead (and the result is a TD) when the defender comes in and strips the ball off the receiver's chest. In NCAA, the prevalent thought is that the result is an incomplete pass. Their philosophy is that the receiver's control must survive both (a) his going to the ground, i.e. the ground can cause an incompletion, and (b) the immediate hit by the defender (assuming that the hit isn't so late as to be deemed a PF).

In the second play--the one that JugglingRef posted--I see it as an incomplete pass for both codes. Notice that when the defender finally makes contact with the receiver's arm(s), the ball is well below his belt, and the ball actually has its point in the receiver's crotch--not a place where I could legitimately say he had clear control and possession. And, with all due respect to JR, I really can't see it as a situation where forward progress has been stopped, since the runner hasn't lost voluntary use of his legs. Ask yourself: If the receiver had maintained possession and then broken free, would you feel good about having blown the whistle and killed the play?

[JugglingReferee]

In the second video (the one that I posted), the first angle is not as good as the second angle.

Using the second angle, my opinion is this timeline:

• @ -0:16
  • first touch of the ball with left hand
  • ball hits facemask
  • ball hits left hand again
• @ -0:15
  • ball is loose
  • ball is bobbled between right and left hands
• @ -0:14
  • ball brought down to his gut area
  • initial contact by B
• @ -0:13
  • ball firmly grasped by both hands in gut area
  • first step with possession using left leg
• @ -0:12
  • second step with possession using right leg
  • third step with possession using left leg
  • ball is in right hand, not being bobbled or coming out
• @ -0:11
  • ball starts to come out

The ball comes loose after that. During all the steps, I do not see a loss of possession, or any bobbling. In my opinion, 3 steps is adequate for possession, even if he does momentarily use his body to help secure control.

Forward progress philosophies often mention surviving contact with the ground or with a player. Since A stepped twice with contact from B, he established this contact survival.

After initial contact by B, A still maintained an upright position while stepping. After another 2 steps, he started to go down on his own, in my opinion, due to the superior position by the defensive player. At that point, forward progress is stopped. I believe that A has lost voluntary use of his legs because B is clearly pushing A backwards and to the ground. I stopped the video at -0:12 to get this view:



The ball carrier is not getting out of that position. Even if B releases his grip on A, A's momentum will carry him to the ground.

IMHO, you either have a fumble or forward progress stopped situation.

If A were to break free (and question our knowledge of physics ), I would not be bothered by having already blown forward progress down, since I am consistent with my rulings.

[ajmc]

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we don't usually have the luxury of detailed analysis in a stop action, second by second review opportunity. The very nature of a bang-bang play is that they happen bang-bang.

Even after reviewing the tape, I would personally conclude the pass was incomplete, but that really is not significant, because I wouldn't argue with anyone calling it a complete pass. Most importantly is the question was the covering official in an appropriate position to see the play and make the call

I think a far greater problem is the notion that being absolutely correct, down to the gnat's eyelash level, is somehow "good for the game". Film and detailed review can be good teaching tools, but that's all they should ever be.

The game is played at the bang-bang level because the speed of that level is what makes the game unique and special.

[JugglingReferee]

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?

[Jim D]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jim D

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...

[Jim D]

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?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jim D

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.

[prosec34]

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.

[logjam]

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.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by logjam

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.

That's a trucker hat ladies and gentlemen.

[thomasz]

I'm not sure but i think catch.

[ML99]

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.