The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 19, 2013, 05:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spence View Post
I didn't see the play. It came up on a board. Someone said "by rule" it should have been a catch since his knee was down and there was possession even if for a split second.
That's never actually been the rule, but for a long time (and I guess still today, judging by that statement) there seemed to be the prevalent opinion that in situations where if during the action of a catch attempt the ball would be dead if the catch occurred, all the action that occurred after the ball would've been dead should be ignored in determining whether it was a catch. It's as if there were replay review and the film were cut at that instant. I remember 40+ yrs. ago a NFL playoff where a TD pass by the Raiders seemed to have been ruled on that basis.

It's the opposite of "saved by the bell" in boxing. It's actually pretty silly thinking, since the facts of possession are independent of when or whether the ball becomes dead; you can possess a dead ball, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 20, 2013, 01:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 521
Video of the play in question.

Austin Kelly Breaks Up 4th & 10 Pass - Simon Kenton 19 Dixie 14 - YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 20, 2013, 01:35pm
Medium Kahuna
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spence View Post
Video of the play in question.

Correctly ruled incomplete. Not borderline, IMO.
__________________
Never trust an atom: they make up everything.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 20, 2013, 01:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 751
Agreed
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 20, 2013, 03:32pm
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
I agree, incomplete. Not even close to me.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 20, 2013, 10:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
No question this is incomplete
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 21, 2013, 12:12am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,564
Incomplete all day.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fair/foul - then catch/no-catch David Emerling Baseball 36 Tue May 07, 2013 08:58am
Catch/No Catch- Atlanta v. Chicago biggravy Baseball 10 Thu Apr 08, 2010 08:27am
Ankiel injury - Catch/No-catch? TxUmp Baseball 17 Wed May 06, 2009 11:26pm
Catch or no catch(foul ball)? illiniwek8 Baseball 2 Sat Mar 25, 2006 07:16pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1