Ravens/Steelers game

[chymechowder]

JRut and PSU, I completely agree that it's the height of knuckleheadedness for anyone, especially a non-official, to take a bang-bang play/ruling and offer it as proof of the officials' incompetence...when someone might have an otherwise fair question, it hurts their overall argument when the conversation degenerates into claims like that.

I have a question on a ruling in this game:

When the Ravens successfully challenged the ruling of a Steeler completed pass down by the goal-line.

after review Carollo said the receiver failed to maintain possession while going to the ground. this surprised me. I've only got the NCAA rules (Massachusetts highschool) to go on, but my understanding is that this applies to plays when a receiver LEAVES HIS FEET to make a catch. when he subsequently comes to the ground (either all on his own or being hit/pushed while airborne), he must maintain possession throughout the process.

but in the steelers/ravens game, it looked as thought the WR leaned, made the catch, took two steps, GOT HIT ON THE LEG by ravens DB, THEN fell, arm outstretched. where the ball was jostled upon contact with the ground.

what do others think? does the NFL have a different rule about "going to the ground"? because unless I missed something, it looked like a catch, two steps, a tackle, then down by contact.

(ALSO: Major kudos to the wingman who correctly spotted ball mere inches from the goal line! in real time--and even in some replays--it looked like the ball was on the line.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I have a question on a ruling in this game:

When the Ravens successfully challenged the ruling of a Steeler completed pass down by the goal-line.

after review Carollo said the receiver failed to maintain possession while going to the ground. this surprised me. I've only got the NCAA rules (Massachusetts highschool) to go on, but my understanding is that this applies to plays when a receiver LEAVES HIS FEET to make a catch. when he subsequently comes to the ground (either all on his own or being hit/pushed while airborne), he must maintain possession throughout the process.

but in the steelers/ravens game, it looked as thought the WR leaned, made the catch, took two steps, GOT HIT ON THE LEG by ravens DB, THEN fell, arm outstretched. where the ball was jostled upon contact with the ground.

what do others think? does the NFL have a different rule about "going to the ground"? because unless I missed something, it looked like a catch, two steps, a tackle, then down by contact.

First off all I must state that I did not see the play. But the common interpretation at the NFL and NCAA levels are that a receiver attempting to catch the ball must maintain control through the ground. In other words if the ball is not controlled after hitting the ground, then it is not a catch. That is the interpretation from both the NFL and NCAA. And frankly at the high school level is a common practice where I live to require the same thing.

Originally Posted by chymechowder

(ALSO: Major kudos to the wingman who correctly spotted ball mere inches from the goal line! in real time--and even in some replays--it looked like the ball was on the line.)

Did not see this play either, but I will take your word for it.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First off all I must state that I did not see the play. But the common interpretation at the NFL and NCAA levels are that a receiver attempting to catch the ball must maintain control through the ground. In other words if the ball is not controlled after hitting the ground, then it is not a catch. That is the interpretation from both the NFL and NCAA. And frankly at the high school level is a common practice where I live to require the same thing.

I believe you are correct in your understanding of making a catch while the defender is in contact with the receiver. In this case, I recall he was not in contact with the receiver. chymechowder described it as I recall so I didn't think the "control through the ground" would apply in this case. On another forum someone pointed out he thought the contact was pretty immediate with the catch so then I guess it would apply. I thought it also had to be an airborne receiver but I've been told that is not a factor in this type of play in the NFL.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I believe you are correct in your understanding of making a catch while the defender is in contact with the receiver. In this case, I recall he was not in contact with the receiver. chymechowder described it as I recall so I didn't think the "control through the ground" would apply in this case. On another forum someone pointed out he thought the contact was pretty immediate with the catch so then I guess it would apply. I thought it also had to be an airborne receiver but I've been told that is not a factor in this type of play in the NFL.

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

I know you did not see the play. I am just looking for clarification. Consider these three hypothetical situations:

1. A80 goes up to catch a pass while airborn where he is immediately contacted and tackled
2. A80 catches a pass with both feet already on the ground. He is contacted as he catches the ball and is immediately tackled
3. A80 catches a pass with both feet on the ground and runs another 3 yards before he is contacted and tackled

In each case, A80 maintains possession throughout the catch until his arms contact the ground and the ball comes loose.

My understanding was this was an incomplete pass in situation (a). Someone else has told me it's also an incomplete pass in situation (b) but not (c). Those who have seen the play debate whether (b) or (c) is what happened. I leaned toward (c) but I would have to see it again. Regardless of what actually happened on this play, do you know if the rules support situation (b) as complete or incomplete?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I know you did not see the play. I am just looking for clarification. Consider these three hypothetical situations:

1. A80 goes up to catch a pass while airborn where he is immediately contacted and tackled
2. A80 catches a pass with both feet already on the ground. He is contacted as he catches the ball and is immediately tackled
3. A80 catches a pass with both feet on the ground and runs another 3 yards before he is contacted and tackled

In each case, A80 maintains possession throughout the catch until his arms contact the ground and the ball comes loose.

My understanding was this was an incomplete pass in situation (a). Someone else has told me it's also an incomplete pass in situation (b) but not (c). Those who have seen the play debate whether (b) or (c) is what happened. I leaned toward (c) but I would have to see it again. Regardless of what actually happened on this play, do you know if the rules support situation (b) as complete or incomplete?

I'd rule incomplete in (a) and (b), complete in (c).

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I'd rule incomplete in (a) and (b), complete in (c).

This is consistent with Mike Pereira's ruling for the NFL.