Uncatchable
 

How do you define "uncatchable" (NCAA) for yourself. I have been in many crews and every referee has a different opinion of what an uncatchable pass is.

I know that you would say: no possibility to reach the ball - but what does that mean in reality? ... how many meters/yards should the ball be away in order to call it uncatchable? :confused:

I do only NFHS, so I don't need a definition of 'uncatchable'. The term does not appear in the rules.

We have the definition in NCAA, but not sure if this helps. It really comes down to your own personal judgement. If there is question, then the rule says it is catchable. If I see a play and my judgement tells me there is no way he could have caught a pass, then it's uncatchable. What I judge to be that, may not be the same as what you judge. I know you already knew all that so I'm just thinking out loud.

A catchable forward pass is an untouched legal forward
pass beyond the neutral zone to an eligible player who has a reasonable
opportunity to catch the ball. When in question, a legal forward pass is
catchable.

To me, if the ball lands inbounds or only slightly out of bounds, the presumption is that it is catchable. That presumption can, of course, be overcome by other things, but as Jason said, in NCAA, its catchable until it isn't!

One other thing to think about: when the receiver basically gives up on a ball. When I work back judge, the receiver still has to make the effort, to the extent he can, to get to the ball. If he's knocked down, get's spun around, or otherwise is taken out of the play by the contact of the defender, then this isn't really an issue. However, if he simply gets blocked and then gives up, I'm not going to bail him out with a call even if he possibly could get to the ball. This happens more at the lower levels than it does at the varsity or college level, but I have seen even those receivers go out of bounds and just expect a flag to be thrown.

Why do you rule that way? If the act of interference (or in your opinion, what would have been interference had the potential receiver kept after the ball) took place at a given time, what difference should it make to the team's options, other than to allow the play to stand, how the player acted after the interference? For instance, if the ball is thrown and then he "simply gets blocked and then gives up", but it appears that the ball would have been catchable by that player had not the interference taken place, why shouldn't the player expect the flag to be thrown, even if he just sits down at that point?

How about this one: B1 enters the neutral zone, and A1, seeing that, calls for the snap and spikes the ball. Do you void the encroachment because A1, satisfied to draw the foul instead of making an attempt to play, didn't justify the penalty?

Hmmm ... thanks for your comments - I thought that answering this question isn't easy because everyone has a different understanding for uncatchable. I also think that there is a difference for uncatchable if the player is overthrown (ball over his head) or if the ball is thrown sideways/lateral away from the player.

Would you call a pass uncatchable if the player really tries to get to the ball, but he is:
a) overthrown by 1yrd
b) overthrown by 2yrds
c) overthrown by 3yrds
d) overthrown by 4yrds

e) ball is thrown sidways away from the player 1yrd
f) ball is thrown sidways away from the player 2yrds
g) ball is thrown sidways away from the player 3yrds
h) ball is thrown sidways away from the player 4yrds
i) ball is thrown sidways away from the player 5yrds

I know - stupid question, but somewhere you have to draw a line in the sand ....

That's not how officiating judgment works. You don't determine a set distance from the receiver and then look for that distance. Doing so fails to take into account too many variables (player ability, weather, game situation, etc.).

The rules leave a great deal up to officials' judgment. There's a reason for that, and your efforts to define away judgment will be futile.

Don't you think that instead of being based on a distance, it would be on a judgment of whether the player could have gotten there absent the interference? That could be a variable distance depending on how much the player could've been knocked off line, and how far the player and the ball still had to move after the interference took place.

For instance, if the interferer just knocked away the potential receiver's hands as they were jumping straight up for the ball, it would just be a question of whether the ball was too high to reach. OTOH, if the interferer grabbed the potential receiver while a "bomb" throw was still rising, and it eventually came down a long way away from either of them, there's hardly any place on the field the offended player couldn't've gotten to in that time -- and I don't care if the offended player does give up on the ball in that case, he "earns" the penalty option without working for it.

If they give up on the ball, how exactly am I supposed to know or rule that he could have caught it? The player obviously didn't think he could catch it. Why should I think he could have caught it?

Now, if he gets turned around by the contact or otherwise distracted, then this won't apply. Giving up on the ball and losing his knowledge of where the ball is due to no fault of his own are 2 different things.

There are no such exceptions in the rules that I am aware of on these sorts of calls. For DPI, there is a clear exception: uncatchable pass. Don't extrapolate one rule or one ruling to another completely different rule. DPI is a different rule entirely.

Besides, your play example isn't even similar to what I'm talking about. In your play, the QB didn't "give up" on anything. Quite the opposite -- he ran the play CAUSING the penalty. That's actually good football. A&M used to do this all the time when RC Slocum was coaching. Whenever the defense got into the NZ, the center would automatically snap, everyone else would hold their position, and the QB would usually kneel down. That's a free 5 yards and often a first down. Later, the QB coach realized that QB could sneak and pick up real yardage -- once I think they ran 25 yards or so for a TD as most of the defense froze and the rest had to chase.

Taking advantage of an opponent's error is NOT giving up on a play. That's silly.

First of all, that's not so obvious. The player may just have decided it's not worth his while to try to get a better outcome than the penalty would produce.
Because, whether or not the player thought he could have caught it after being interfered with, that's not what the ruling is about. It's about whether he could have caught it if he had not been interfered with. How are you supposed to rule on that? Just apply general knowledge of human abilities. You don't have to decide whether he would have caught the ball -- nobody can figure that -- only whether the catch was possible.

Why does he have to get entirely turned around or "distracted"? Why couldn't he have just been bumped off line or had his hands knocked away? If any of those things affected his ability to complete the pass (or to compete it in a more favorable position), why shouldn't they be penalized, regardless of how the interfered-with player acts afterward? And if the contact was not enough to affect his ability to catch the ball (or to catch it in a more favorable position), why are you even reaching for a flag?

But your allowing a player's actions after the foul to determine whether a foul occurred (by affecting whether you consider the ball catchable) violates one of the fundamentals of fouls and penalties: that the penalty option is supposed to be based on play up to that time, not afterward.

But you're saying that the player's continuing to attempt to catch the ball causes that penalty.

It is giving up on the play to kneel down or spike the ball, when you consider what you wrote above about picking up real yardage! But you don't take away a penalty option because of how the offended side acts after the foul in that case, so why should you in the case of pass interference? "Catchable" refers to the condition of the pass had no interference occurred, not its condition with the interference.

I was told a long time ago by a D1 Back Judge that if the ball lands inbounds or slightly out of bounds, consider the ball catchable. These athletes in his words do amazing things and you should always give them the benefit of the doubt. That is the standard I use, but then again I am just getting in the college to where I have to make that determination. I will see this year if I am consistent.

Peace

What if the receiver gives up on the ball BEFORE he's interviewed with. Essentially saying it's not catchable or at least he's not going to try to catch it?

Heh...cute typo, hits home for job seekers.

Anyway, if the contact was against a team A player who wasn't attempting at that time to catch the pass, how does it qualify as interference, regardless of the catchability of the ball? If the contact was against a team B player during the down before the pass, it could still be interference because it would be silly to have to presume he was preparing for an interception of a ball that hadn't been thrown yet.