Raiders touchdown no-catch

[Bullycon]

I think everyone here will probably agree with referee Carl Cheffers ruling Louis Murphy's attempted touchdown reception incomplete.

What if that play happened under NFHS rules? He had possession of the ball. He contacted the ground inbounds. I can't find any rule like that of the NFL or NCAA, where the player must keep possession after going to the ground.

I'm ruling touchdown. Anyone disagree?

[Welpe]

This soley depends upon the philosophy you're using. I don't believe this is necessarily an NCAA rule either but it is a pretty common philosophy that the receiver must retain possession throughout contact with the ground. In other words, he must survive the contact with the ground.

In my old association, there was no official guidance on how this should be ruled but if I were to make a split decision on this, and was able to get a clear a look as I did on reply, I'd probably rule incomplete as well.

That said, you're going to have a very hard time seeing this play in 4/5 man mechanics. The NFL refs (whom are very good), weren't able to see it without the aid of replay and they're working 7-man.

[BktBallRef]

He catches the ball, lands with both feet, falls to the ground, controls ball, drops ball, picks up ball and stands up.

What if he catches the ball, lands with both feet, falls to the ground, controls ball, drops ball, stands up and walks away?

Is the call still incomplete? Does the appearnce that he caught the ball and is now intentionally releasing it becuase the play is over get him the catch?

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

He catches the ball, lands with both feet, falls to the ground, controls ball, drops ball, picks up ball and stands up.

What if he catches the ball, lands with both feet, falls to the ground, controls ball, drops ball, stands up and walks away?

Is the call still incomplete? Does the appearnce that he caught the ball and is now intentionally releasing it becuase the play is over get him the catch?

Had a hard time following all that.

The NFL rule used to be this (and I think it still is)

If a receiver catches the ball in an endzone or along a sideline and he is going down to the ground during the catch, he must show clear possession of the ball all the way through completing contact with the ground. In the play in question, the ball moved in his arms when he hit the ground and was thus rules incomplete.

[Welpe]

The ball not only moved in his arms, it fell out, hit the turf and went back into his arms.

Here's the video, play around the 1:30 mark.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...ers-highlights

[Bullycon]

OK, after reading the NFHS forum and this month's Referee magazine, my ruling on the field is reversed. I'm on board with the maintaining control after falling to the ground.

Follow-up question: At what point after contacting the ground is possession established and the catch complete? This question was posed to me by several coworkers and I did not have a good answer for them. Folks have pointed out that Murphy's rear hit the ground, then he rolled and the ball hit the ground, clearly moving in his hand.

Is it a question of momentum? Murphy's momentum from falling to the ground was still going when the ball came loose. That seems reasonable, but I don't know if it's an official factor.

Is there some other factor that we should be looking for as officials? When has "touching the ground" finished?

Side Note: Welpe, I believe you are correct that the NCAA rules do not contain this principle, but the Interpretation section does. I wish the NFHS Case Book had some plays that explained a catch versus no-catch.

[Texas Aggie]

NCAA: its a judgment call whether the receiver firmly grasped the ball when his arm holding the ball hit the ground. The fact that the ball hit the ground is not a problem. If it was loose, it is an incompletion by approved ruling. If it is not loose, it is a TD.

I've watched the replay a few times and can't tell for sure that the ball was actually LOOSE from his arm.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mikesears

Had a hard time following all that.

The NFL rule used to be this (and I think it still is)

If a receiver catches the ball in an endzone or along a sideline and he is going down to the ground during the catch, he must show clear possession of the ball all the way through completing contact with the ground. In the play in question, the ball moved in his arms when he hit the ground and was thus rules incomplete.

You are correct.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The ball not only moved in his arms, it fell out, hit the turf and went back into his arms.

That's the part I was questioning..."went back into his arms."

I thought he controlled to the ground and then lost control. That's why I question if he had just gotten up instead of regaining possession, as if he had deliberately released the ball and gotten up...might the call have been different?