Catch or No Catch?
 

Hello Guys

how would you rule this one (NCAA)?
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2386486/7443923

Catch or No Catch?

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2382/refoj4.png

Only the last few seconds of the clip show what happened clearly. A receiver ends up sitting on his rear in the endzone holding the ball. After that a defender hits him and dislodges the ball. This should have been a TD.

IMO, its a catch and therefore, a TD. He had posession when he hit the ground. Hitting the ground caused him to be down, which ends the play. Looked like the ball didn't come out until he was hit by the defender. Tough play to call without the benefits of looking at it 3 times in slow motion! :D

No ruling from me: poor video.

It seems the last camera view clearly shows the receiver maintaining control of the ball after hitting the ground until a defender bashes it out of his hands with his helmet. The initial TD call looks to have been correct. The deep official appeared to be in excellect position to see what happened and rule on the play. surprisingly he was over ruled.

What's with the mesh adjustable hat on the referee? Hard to maintain credibility when you wear something like that. Is that advertising on the front of it?

Why is that? Mesh typically provides for increased airflow, leading to reduced trapped heat.

And how would you know about trapped heat in Ontario?:D

Not sure what the NCAA definition of a catch is but in Fed, which is what Cali plays under, that should have been a TD from the last look. He had possession and was on the ground, defender knocked loose a dead ball.

Td!

Catch.

So I hooked my laptop up to my 46" TV.

I can see the video a lot better now.

I have a TD. The receiver survived the contact with the ground, therefore touchdown, with Canadian philosophy.

The act that caused the ball to dislodge was the helmet of a B player. Since this act was after the player surviving contact with the ground, it's effect on possession is irrelevant.

The related video on the right:

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2388386/7449583

Thoughts? I have a catch / forward progress stopped.

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?

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:

http://www.wwcfoa.ca/temp/12s_left.JPG

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 :D), I would not be bothered by having already blown forward progress down, since I am consistent with my rulings.

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.

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.