Dez Bryant Catch

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

In HS with a 5 man crew, that same play is probably going to be ruled a catch.
The BJ would be blocked out and I doubt a wing is going to see the ball touch the ground.

That depends on the crew, but in my situation I would have ruled that incomplete. You cannot survive the ground and hand me the ball, shame on you. And this play would not have been impossible to see for a BJ either IMO. The BJ might have been the closest one to the play in a 5 man.

Peace

[HLin NC]

So standing on the goal line, between the hashes, you are going to see through the receiver to see the ball touch the ground. The friggin FJ missed it right in front of him.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

everyone knows the rule, the officials know what is needed to be a catch when the ball hits the ground.

Why was it called a catch to start with?? It should have been ruled incomplete and Dallas should have had to challenge and lost.

It looked like he moved to quickly to the spot and didn't stay focused on the receiver long enough to clearly see him as he hit the ground. Take your time and see the entire play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

So standing on the goal line, between the hashes, you are going to see through the receiver to see the ball touch the ground. The friggin FJ missed it right in front of him.

I would have no better look than an official several yards behind trying to see the football.

And if the ball popped out when he hit the ground, easy call. We do not have 50 angles and slow-motion replay.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would have no better look than an official several yards behind trying to see the football.

And if the ball popped out when he hit the ground, easy call. We do not have 50 angles and slow-motion replay.

Peace

Well you'd have to have seen that the ball hit the ground, otherwise he'd still have an opportunity to finish the catch.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That depends on the crew, but in my situation I would have ruled that incomplete.

Horse hockey.

The only thing you (or any other 5-man BJ) would have seen is that the ball popped up into the air and Bryant was able to re-possess it. You'd call it a TD and congratulate yourself on your excellent timing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Horse hockey.

The only thing you (or any other 5-man BJ) would have seen is that the ball popped up into the air and Bryant was able to re-possess it. You'd call it a TD and congratulate yourself on your excellent timing.

If you say so.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Well you'd have to have seen that the ball hit the ground, otherwise he'd still have an opportunity to finish the catch.

Well if a ball pops up in that manner, it likely hit the ground. You make some rather confident deductions in 5 man.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That depends on the crew, but in my situation I would have ruled that incomplete. You cannot survive the ground and hand me the ball, shame on you. And this play would not have been impossible to see for a BJ either IMO. The BJ might have been the closest one to the play in a 5 man. Peace

I uinderstand both NFL and NCAA have adopted "survive the ground" type interpretations, but under the NFHS code, has there been any such official instruction? Reading 2-4-1 "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession....."

If possession is maintained while "first contacting the ground", why would losing possession while subsequently rolling along the ground matter, at least as far as the "catch" being completed?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I uinderstand both NFL and NCAA have adopted "survive the ground" type interpretations, but under the NFHS code, has there been any such official instruction? Reading 2-4-1 "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession....."

If possession is maintained while "first contacting the ground", why would losing possession while subsequently rolling along the ground matter, at least as far as the "catch" being completed?

The NF has not said anything honestly about this and I do not care what they say about this. I do not officiate for the NF. What I do is a philosophy to be consistent in situations. It makes the rulings simple and easy to make a call in high speed. I do not call holding based on the NF wording alone either. Never seen anything about POA or advantage/disadvantage, but that is what is widely applied where I live.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The NF has not said anything honestly about this and I do not care what they say about this. I do not officiate for the NF. What I do is a philosophy to be consistent in situations. It makes the rulings simple and easy to make a call in high speed. I do not call holding based on the NF wording alone either. Never seen anything about POA or advantage/disadvantage, but that is what is widely applied where I live.

Peace

I understand completely, and it's much the same situation where I live. Actually, I was hoping that maybe someone has seen some sort of instruction/guidance to help clarify this situation, and I just missed it.

The list of things that would benefit from a little NFHS clarification, never seems to change or get any shorter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I understand completely, and it's much the same situation where I live. Actually, I was hoping that maybe someone has seen some sort of instruction/guidance to help clarify this situation, and I just missed it.

The list of things that would benefit from a little NFHS clarification, never seems to change or get any shorter.

If the NF wants things to be done there way, they need to produce videos, trainings with videos like that is used at the NCAA or NFL levels all the time that make their philosophies clear. The NF just thinks a PowerPoint and a couple of videos of targeting is sufficient. But they never address illegal blocks, holding, catches, fumbles or even dead ball fouls. Those would help in bringing consistency. All those things are left to local areas to decide what is acceptable. And for me I use what is taught by the guys at the higher levels.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All those things are left to local areas to decide what is acceptable. And for me I use what is taught by the guys at the higher levels. Peace

A lot more responsive guidance would be a definite benefit. However we shouldn't lose sight of the reality that people BELOW the age of 19, are a lot different physically, emotionally and experience wise than adults who WORK in an enormous entertainment venue that has entirely different objectives than "interscholastic" sports.

Collegiate and professional levels of football are undoubtedly played at a higher level, and many of the enhancements developed at, or for, these levels do provide benefit and improvement to the game, but not all.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

A lot more responsive guidance would be a definite benefit. However we shouldn't lose sight of the reality that people BELOW the age of 19, are a lot different physically, emotionally and experience wise than adults who WORK in an enormous entertainment venue that has entirely different objectives than "interscholastic" sports.

Collegiate and professional levels of football are undoubtedly played at a higher level, and many of the enhancements developed at, or for, these levels do provide benefit and improvement to the game, but not all.

I do not think it is too much to ask players to do basic things. I also do not think if we do what many suggest, we will have very debatable situations where fumbles ruled because we use another arbitrary line of things like "how many feet touch" when the player displays no control or likelihood for control. Sorry, that to me is not good for the officials either. It is not IMO bad to require a player to show complete control. With the texture of the gloves, they can do that if they really control the ball.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it is too much to ask players to do basic things. I also do not think if we do what many suggest, we will have very debatable situations where fumbles ruled because we use another arbitrary line of things like "how many feet touch" when the player displays no control or likelihood for control. Sorry, that to me is not good for the officials either. It is not IMO bad to require a player to show complete control. With the texture of the gloves, they can do that if they really control the ball.

Peace

I agree. I get frustrated when I see a bang-bang hit after a catch and the crew rules catch/fumble because the receiver had one foot touching the ground when he possessed the ball. It's a cheap turnover. It may not be an officially endorsed philosophy by the NFHS, but I know a lot of officials who use philosophies similar to NCAA and NFL on catch/no catch. It makes it so much more consistent.