Catch?
 

A1 goes to his knee to catch a pass. B1 closing hard on him and gets there right after the ball does. A1 had the ball but then lost it as a result of the hit.

Does the fact that he had possession while his knee was on the ground have any bearing on catch/no catch?

Well, yes and no. If the official had ruled that he had possession, then he would have ruled it a catch. Being on the ground inbounds is part of the definition of a catch, so that is a relevant point. 2-4-1

But it's official's judgment whether he had possession. I guess you thought he did; apparently the official disagreed.

Philosophy on this play has evolved over the years, and a receiver must generally retain possession through immediate contact with the ground or an opponent.

and everyone has a different threshold of "immediate".

You could post a video of this exact play and get differing opinions of catch / no catch.

A decent rule-of-thumb to use for catch/no-catch in a situation like this: could the receiver have pitched the ball to a teammate prior to losing control?

If yes, you have a catch/fumble.

If no, you have an incomplete pass.

A much more effective "Rule-of-thumb is to allow a professional, impartial and trained arbiter to independently judge what has happened, which is essentially what the written rules of the game include.

Although everyone present at a High School football game is entitled to their opinion, only the judgment of the covering official is accepted as deciding what actually happened. The rule makers were wise enough to understand, and dictate, that anything else would invite absolute chaos.

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.

Figured I'd go check to see if the "by rule" guy was right.

The rule does not dictate that a split second constitutes possession. So it's incorrect to say that this is true "by rule."

As I said, philosophy has evolved on possession, and we have moved away from the old-school idea that holding onto the ball for any length of time constitutes possession.

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.

Video of the play in question.

Austin Kelly Breaks Up 4th & 10 Pass - Simon Kenton 19 Dixie 14 - YouTube

Correctly ruled incomplete. Not borderline, IMO.

Agreed

I agree, incomplete. Not even close to me.

No question this is incomplete

Incomplete all day.

Peace

+1 to the incomplete bandwagon.