What is a catch?

[NDohio]

I saw this "catch" overturned during the Wisconsin/Northwestern game.

Watch Jazz Peavy’s controversial overturned TD reception « Big Ten Network

There has been a ton of talk about what is a catch in the NFL lately, but this was the first one I have seen in college, and it's ridiculous. I see no possible way this is not considered a catch.

 

[gkIrish]

I saw this "catch" overturned during the Wisconsin/Northwestern game.

Watch Jazz Peavy’s controversial overturned TD reception « Big Ten Network

There has been a ton of talk about what is a catch in the NFL lately, but this was the first one I have seen in college, and it's ridiculous. I see no possible way this is not considered a catch.

Oh my goodness I heard about this but had not seen the video until now. Is this serious??? I'm surprised those refs got out of there alive.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Horrible call. Not close. If it is, the rule is wrong.

 

[NDohio]

Called a touchdown on the field and overturned in the booth. How? What did they see that was conclusive evidence to change the call?

 

[kmoose]

By rule, the call was correct.

If a player goes to the ground as part of the play, then they have to maintain possession of the ball throughout that process. The ball did come loose as he hit the ground. While he did not drop the ball, in the sense of it hitting the ground, he did not regain possession of it, either. As he was coming back up, he had the ball trapped against his body with the back of his hand, and then he just let it go and even punched it away. I agree that the rule is bad, in that it is too vague. There's no clear definition of "possession" or "control". And what constitutes "as part of the play"? But, in defense of the officials, I believe they applied the rule correctly.

 

[wizards8507]

Here's the rule in question:

Airborne receiver A85 grasps a forward pass and in the process of going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot inbounds as he falls to the ground out of bounds. Immediately upon A85 hitting the ground out of bounds, the ball comes loose. RULING: Incomplete pass regardless of whether or not the ball hits the ground because the receiver is out of bounds.

The rule is fine, but it's a horseshit interpretation. The guy wasn't airborne and did not fall in the process of the catch. He fell well after the catch was completed.

By rule, the call was correct.

If a player goes to the ground as part of the play, then they have to maintain possession of the ball throughout that process. The ball did come loose as he hit the ground. While he did not drop the ball, in the sense of it hitting the ground, he did not regain possession of it, either. As he was coming back up, he had the ball trapped against his body with the back of his hand, and then he just let it go and even punched it away. I agree that the rule is bad, in that it is too vague. There's no clear definition of "possession" or "control". And what constitutes "as part of the play"? But, in defense of the officials, I believe they applied the rule correctly.

Where's that rule in the NCAA rulebook? I believe you're correct with regard to the NFL interpretation, but I can't find that phraseology in the NCAA rules.

On the bolded, I don't think he was going to the ground as part of the play. I think the catch was completed, the play was dead, and then he fell.

 

[NDohio]

By rule, the call was correct.

If a player goes to the ground as part of the play, then they have to maintain possession of the ball throughout that process. The ball did come loose as he hit the ground. While he did not drop the ball, in the sense of it hitting the ground, he did not regain possession of it, either. As he was coming back up, he had the ball trapped against his body with the back of his hand, and then he just let it go and even punched it away. I agree that the rule is bad, in that it is too vague. There's no clear definition of "possession" or "control". And what constitutes "as part of the play"? But, in defense of the officials, I believe they applied the rule correctly.

My biggest problem with that is that he took three(maybe four) steps with the ball before going to the ground.

I think he established possession before even going to the ground.

 

[IrishLax]

kmoose, you're thinking NFL. The college rulebook doesn't really say all that, as wizards just enumerated. The college rule specifically exists for when a player in contacted in the air or otherwise has to leap to make a catch, grabs the ball with possession and gets a foot down, and then the ball comes loose when he hits the ground.

In the Wisconsin player's case, he takes like 5 steps with the ball and is never "airborne"... the play is over when he's still about 5 yards from going out of bounds.

They blew the call, because these refs had NFL on the mind. It would've been (probably) the right call in the NFL. The whole "process of the catch" thing doesn't even really exist in college, where you just need one foot and possession.

 

[NDohio]

kmoose, you're thinking NFL. The college rulebook doesn't really say all that, as wizards just enumerated. The college rule specifically exists for when a player in contacted in the air or otherwise has to leap to make a catch, grabs the ball with possession and gets a foot down, and then the ball comes loose when he hits the ground.

In the Wisconsin player's case, he takes like 5 steps with the ball and is never "airborne"... the play is over when he's still about 5 yards from going out of bounds.

They blew the call, because these refs had NFL on the mind. It would've been (probably) the right call in the NFL. The whole "process of the catch" thing doesn't even really exist in college, where you just need one foot and possession.

I agree that this would have probably been called an incomplete pass on the NFL and rightfully so according to the rule. At the same time, I think it has become entirely too convoluted in the NFL. This particular play should be a catch no matter what level of football you are playing.

 

[kmoose]

kmoose, you're thinking NFL. The college rulebook doesn't really say all that, as wizards just enumerated. The college rule specifically exists for when a player in contacted in the air or otherwise has to leap to make a catch, grabs the ball with possession and gets a foot down, and then the ball comes loose when he hits the ground.

In the Wisconsin player's case, he takes like 5 steps with the ball and is never "airborne"... the play is over when he's still about 5 yards from going out of bounds.

They blew the call, because these refs had NFL on the mind. It would've been (probably) the right call in the NFL. The whole "process of the catch" thing doesn't even really exist in college, where you just need one foot and possession.

You guys know how to use google, right?

The NCAA adopted the "process of the catch" 2 years ago:

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/2013-14_NCAA_FB_Rules_Changes.pdf

b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass(with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone.

 

[IrishLax]

You guys know how to use google, right?

The NCAA adopted the "process of the catch" 2 years ago:

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/2013-14_NCAA_FB_Rules_Changes.pdf

Nope. Had no idea they added that. Dumb move by them, the rule has always been fine as is.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

What I don't understand is how the ground has any impact on this play at all when he clearly caught the ball, took more than enough steps to be considered a football move, then went down to the ground at which point he lost control. The ball was caught, this was a TD and the play was over before the ground ever came into play here, ESPECIALLY since he only went to the ground from being pushed from behind, at which point his knee hitting the ground in bounds with secure possession of the football should have ended the play since he had already secured the catch and made a football move.

 

[kmoose]

What I don't understand is how the ground has any impact on this play at all when he clearly caught the ball, took more than enough steps to be considered a football move, then went down to the ground at which point he lost control. The ball was caught, this was a TD and the play was over before the ground ever came into play here, ESPECIALLY since he only went to the ground from being pushed from behind, at which point his knee hitting the ground in bounds with secure possession of the football should have ended the play since he had already secured the catch and made a football move.

Its a bad rule, because it doesn't clearly define what is possession, or what steps occur in the process of the catch. But, from a grading the officials standpoint, they got the call right according to the rule. You can't blame them for following the rule is all I was saying. Well, I was also saying that it is a bad, or at best poorly written, rule.

 

[dad4aa]

You guys know how to use google, right?

The NCAA adopted the "process of the catch" 2 years ago:

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/2013-14_NCAA_FB_Rules_Changes.pdf

The question I have is what is included in the "process of the catch"? How many steps is enough prior to going to the ground? He took three steps after the catch and then was pushed and took another two as he was falling to the ground. Hard to tell with the only angle we can see, but it looks like he had control prior to the push and falling.

So the question is, did he go to the ground "in the act of catching a pass" or did he catch a pass and then get pushed to the ground?

 

[pkt77242]

You guys know how to use google, right?

The NCAA adopted the "process of the catch" 2 years ago:

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/2013-14_NCAA_FB_Rules_Changes.pdf

Looks like he made the catch and took a couple of steps and then went to the ground. I don't think he went to the ground in the process of catching the ball, so shouldn't they have disregarded that part?

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

Looks like he made the catch and took a couple of steps and then went to the ground. I don't think he went to the ground in the process of catching the ball, so shouldn't they have disregarded that part?

That is my stance too...additionally he went to the ground being pushed in the back and still had possession when his knee hit, so even by that rule he is down by contact at that point with possession...touchdown.

 

[kmoose]

I only posted the rule to show that the NCAA does, in fact, use the "process of the catch" rule. It doesn't just exist in the NFL, as some people suggested. I'm not defending the rule as it is written or anything.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

Its a bad rule, because it doesn't clearly define what is possession, or what steps occur in the process of the catch. But, from a grading the officials standpoint, they got the call right according to the rule. You can't blame them for following the rule is all I was saying. Well, I was also saying that it is a bad, or at best poorly written, rule.

I understand what you are saying, but in this instance that rule doesn't even apply. If he secures the catch and takes 4 steps (which he did in this instance) that qualifies as possession and making a football move. He was also pushed in the back which sent him to the ground. He did not hit the ground in the process of making the catch. He hit the ground in the process of being tackled after already establishing the catch. He still had firm possession with no bobble at which point his knee his the ground (which was even in bounds, although it wouldnt have mattered in this instance). This was a touchdown and the rule you're referencing, although it was used to reverse the call should not have even been relevant to this play, which is what the valid argument being made is.

 

[dad4aa]

I only posted the rule to show that the NCAA does, in fact, use the "process of the catch" rule. It doesn't just exist in the NFL, as some people suggested. I'm not defending the rule as it is written or anything.

I took I that way and hopefully everyone else did too. Just brings up a lot of debate now on where you draw the line on "process of the catch".

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

I only posted the rule to show that the NCAA does, in fact, use the "process of the catch" rule. It doesn't just exist in the NFL, as some people suggested. I'm not defending the rule as it is written or anything.

No I get that and wasn't trying to imply that you were, so apologies if it came off that way. I am just making the point that in the sequence of this catch/possession/defender contact/ground contact/lost possession, this rule should not even apply.

 

[ShakeDown]

Would that have been ruled a fumble if ground contact would have been in bounds?

Yup.

In my mind is it therefore a catch, and a subsistent loss of possession?

Yup.

Of course, the ground cannot cause a fumble...

 

[BGIF]

Would that have been ruled a fumble if ground contact would have been in bounds?

Yup.

In my mind is it therefore a catch, and a subsistent loss of possession?

Yup.

Of course, the ground cannot cause a fumble...

He was downed in bounds at the 59 second mark of the video. His knee makes contact with the ground in the end zone with the ball still within the end zone. His momentum carried him out of bounds after he was downed.

 

[connor_in]

What about the ever popular "make a FOOTBALL MOVE"?

 

[Irish#1]

That's a catch, period!

 

[kmoose]

No I get that and wasn't trying to imply that you were, so apologies if it came off that way. I am just making the point that in the sequence of this catch/possession/defender contact/ground contact/lost possession, this rule should not even apply.

I asked my buddy, who officiates California High School and JuCO games, about this.... according to him, the process of the catch is over when the receiver becomes a runner. If he takes a bunch of steps due to momentum, and never becomes a runner, then the process is still ongoing. I think that's a pretty bad rule, but it is how they are taught to enforce it.

 

[NDbrbkny]

i don't know what's worse, that or michigan state getting hosed

 

[ND NYC]

i'm not sure he ever had full and total possession of that ball I got to be honest, and I have no dog in this fight.

ps 2nd and goal at the one at home, wiscy needs to run the damn ball in, no??

 

[irishfan]

No clue in college or the pros. Golden Tate was gifted a TD a couple weeks ago while Eifert had one a few weeks ago similar that was much more of a catch to the naked eye but was not ruled one. Not sure if college is the same way as the pros where the catch rules seem to be different in the end zone than they are in the open field. NCAA and NFL both need to re-do their rules.

Like most here, I watch tons of football and seem to have a couple catch reviews each week where I don't know what the call will be. I could've sworn the Dez catch last year was a legit catch as he lunged for the end zone with the ball (thus becoming a carrier after completing the catch) before the ground knocked the ball loose but I was clearly wrong there.

 

[Grahambo]

Nobody knows what a catch is anymore.