Airborne Receiver

[NWMichiganRef]

NFHS rules. In high school football, the rules state that the ground CAN cause an incomplete pass. In our game last week we had the situation where an airborne receiver (in this case it was the defender) go up and catch/gain possession while in the air. When he came down his knee hit the ground first (in the field of play) and then the rest of his body hit the ground, also in the field of play. The contact with the ground caused the ball to pop out. The linesmen ruled this a catch due to the knee hitting the ground first after possession was secured. It wasn't a very popular call but I think we called it correctly. Was this the correct call?

[wwcfoa43]

In Canada, we have the same interpretation that the ground can cause an incompletion.

In my interpretation, unless the knee hitting the ground and the rest of the body hitting the ground can be clearly distinguished as separate events and not part of the same action of hitting the ground, I would rule that the pass was incomplete because the player's possession did not survive the contact with the ground.

For it to be complete in this situation, the player would have to land on his knee, pause with control of the ball and then fall over to hit the ground "again".

[HLin NC]

Sound to me as if he had possession as the knee touched the ground, thus a catch, thus an Int, thus 1st and 10 Team B.

The knee is "other than a hand or foot".

[cdoug]

Originally Posted by NWMichiganRef

NFHS rules. In high school football, the rules state that the ground CAN cause an incomplete pass. In our game last week we had the situation where an airborne receiver (in this case it was the defender) go up and catch/gain possession while in the air. When he came down his knee hit the ground first (in the field of play) and then the rest of his body hit the ground, also in the field of play. The contact with the ground caused the ball to pop out. The linesmen ruled this a catch due to the knee hitting the ground first after possession was secured. It wasn't a very popular call but I think we called it correctly. Was this the correct call?

Do you have a rule citation for this? I can't find it right off.

[Mike L]

In our assoc we would rule this a non-catch.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Mike L

In our assoc we would rule this a non-catch.

Same here. He needs to survive contact with the ground.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

In Canada, we have the same interpretation that the ground can cause an incompletion.

In my interpretation, unless the knee hitting the ground and the rest of the body hitting the ground can be clearly distinguished as separate events and not part of the same action of hitting the ground, I would rule that the pass was incomplete because the player's possession did not survive the contact with the ground.

For it to be complete in this situation, the player would have to land on his knee, pause with control of the ball and then fall over to hit the ground "again".

I agree on both accounts.

But you forgot two things: #1 - the lightbulb. #2 - 2 years some members were confused, thinking that my responses were replies based on US codes. They missed the the only indication that the ruling is Canadian in the message title. That's why I have since added the "CANADIAN RULING:" text at the beginning of rulings.

[grantsrc]

I go with incomplete as well. I think philosophy would state that he should maintain possession. I'm sure some of you are going to get a little up in arms about this saying that we don't have rules support for this ruling. But I feel the receiver, in this case the defender, should maintain control of the ball throughout the entire action.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

I go with incomplete as well. I think philosophy would state that he should maintain possession. I'm sure some of you are going to get a little up in arms about this saying that we don't have rules support for this ruling. But I feel the receiver, in this case the defender, should maintain control of the ball throughout the entire action.

Completely agree. Incomplete.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I don't think that the Fed has done a really good job of maintaining a set of consistent interpretations around the concept of "catch." And on top of that, they removed all of the 2.4 (catch) case plays from the Case Book back in 2003 or 2004. These plays contained some great information that now is nowhere to be found.

The actual definition of catch could be said to support the ruling of incomplete:

"A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball." (assuming that "...while maintaining possession of the ball" qualifies both ways that a catch can be completed).

Just as easily, however, one could argue that since contact with the knee was the "...first contacting (of) the ground inbounds," and the receiver maintained possession through that 'first contact' with the ground, the pass should be ruled complete.

George Demetriou wrote an article about airborne receivers in the September issue of REFEREE Magazine. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he says in the article, it raises some very good questions. If nothing else, it point s out the need for the Fed to really clean up its definition of catch.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

I go with incomplete as well. I think philosophy would state that he should maintain possession. I'm sure some of you are going to get a little up in arms about this saying that we don't have rules support for this ruling. But I feel the receiver, in this case the defender, should maintain control of the ball throughout the entire action.

Grant – With what I am about to say, you may get the impression I don’t agree with the philosophy – I do. The problem is it is a philosophy written by and for another set of rules. I have never seen anything from the NF in support of or denouncing the philosophy. And portions of the philosophy are contradictory to NF rules as written.

I agree with Bob M, until the NF addresses this by rule and with case plays, it will continue to be discussed without resolution on this board and others. The only philosophy I can derive from the NF is to go with your gut.

[JRutledge]

If a player cannot come to the ground and still keep the ball, then I do not have a catch. The NF does not have to address this for me to make a call. And I do not think the NF is going to address this because they really do not need to. The NCAA always does a better job to give information on plays and situations. Like I have said before, the NF does a lot of things slowly and if they were on top of many issues, you would not see the many disagreements on how you handle a gimmick offense. This philosophy is easier to explain and easier to be consist on. If I had to judge whether someone had control after they hit the ground, then you might get all kinds of different judgments. I think this philosophy does nothing more than keep us consistent.

Peace

[svm1010]

I'm with Rutledge on this one... Incomplete. As BobM quotes, 2-4-1 specifically states that the receiver must maintain possession of the ball as a requirement of a "catch" and possession indicates a level of control over the ball. If the receiver can't control the ball past the one instance where he contacts the ball I don't think he has control and therefore possession and therefore no catch.