I watched the game in Charleston in a rowdy bar with no sound. On the pass Sellers thru to the back of the endzone (couldn't see who the reciever was), what was the call on why it was incomplete? On reviews it looked like he stayed in bounds and had control. TIA
The TD catch that wasn't....
- Thread starter sdjwm001
- Start date
Ground knocked the ball out even though he got three feet in. An odd rule especially considering that you can basically fumble it over the goal line.
Exactly. The different rules for what is and isn't a catch are ridiculous in both college AND the NFL.
I believe if you catch it with control and get two feet/take two steps, that should be a catch. Period.
Agree the rules could use some rationalizing and optimizing, but as the rules are written that was a pretty clear incompletion.
Watch the replay again...... there were three things you will note....
1) His hands were initially extended to catch the ball which he did......
2) He then proceeded to bring the ball down and literally "tucked it" into his side
3) At the time of tucking it, his knee was down inbounds........
My argument is : AT THAT POINT, the play is over.... Touchdown. Much like extending the nose of the ball over the goal line = instant TD, and whatever happens after that is irrelevant...
But alas, there is now a 4th criteria in the rules for some reason - Must "survive" the coming to the ground part, which he didn't do....
Right call - Bad rule IMHO. Contradictory to meeting the definition of a finished play. It is called fairly across the board though, so... whatever.
1) His hands were initially extended to catch the ball which he did......
2) He then proceeded to bring the ball down and literally "tucked it" into his side
3) At the time of tucking it, his knee was down inbounds........
My argument is : AT THAT POINT, the play is over.... Touchdown. Much like extending the nose of the ball over the goal line = instant TD, and whatever happens after that is irrelevant...
But alas, there is now a 4th criteria in the rules for some reason - Must "survive" the coming to the ground part, which he didn't do....
Right call - Bad rule IMHO. Contradictory to meeting the definition of a finished play. It is called fairly across the board though, so... whatever.
On a running play, can the ground cause a fumble in the field of play? I'm asking. I know for certain that if the ball carrier is inbounds when he is going down but the ground knocks it out of his hands out of bounds, that would not be a fumble.
On a running play, can the ground cause a fumble in the field of play? I'm asking.
The ground cannot cause a fumble, because by definition the player would be "down" at the same moment the ground causes the fumble.
Technically - yes.
In reality, extremely rare. Could be a pass play too where the receiver definitely makes a catch and no one touches him, he becomes a runner....it doesn't necessarily have to be a running play per se'.
In that case, a ball that is caught and controlled as an inbounds receiver is falling out of bounds should be ruled a catch, even if the ground detaches it out of bounds, or so it seems to me.
Not true. Here's video proof...... from just 3 weeks ago.....
The argument is not "Was this a bad call?" (Obviously, yes, it was a horrible call....and NOT the point)
The POINT is - YES, the ground can cause a fumble. However, it is extremely rare...
Here's 2 videos, NFL and College, 1998. Extremely rare, but yes, the ground can certainly cause a fumble.....
In order to fumble, you must first have posession of the ball. A runner has posession and therefore, no, the ground cannot cause a fumble, as the runner is down upon contact with the ground.
On the other hand, a receiver who is in the act of catching the ball and at the same time going to the ground, does not have posession until maintaining posession after contact with the ground.
This was what the dude on TV was saying. The rules specialist, not the regular commentators. To make a catch, you have to survive the ground.
My thoughts exactly. When a runner dives over the goal line with the ball extended with one hand and the ground jars the ball loose, is it a touchdown? Yes.
The ground cannot cause a fumble. Campbell had control with knee on the ground in bounds - touchdown as soon as the knee hits the ground.
The misnomer - "The ground cannot cause a fumble" in college or NFL is simply wrong, and often repeated.....
I *LITERALLY* posted a video of it happening in 1998..... Ark Vs Tenn.
Sorry, I just get really aggravated with people repeating non truths....
But hey, I guess video evidence is being denied now...... again, IT IS VERY RARE - but YES, the ground can "cause" a fumble.....
I *LITERALLY* posted a video of it happening in 1998..... Ark Vs Tenn.
Sorry, I just get really aggravated with people repeating non truths....
But hey, I guess video evidence is being denied now...... again, IT IS VERY RARE - but YES, the ground can "cause" a fumble.....
Wrong context..... goaline scenario is not the same as open field scenario. Sorry, but it's not.
As soon as the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD.... that is NOT the same as the ball crossing....say.... the 35 yard line....
Two completely different scenarios.
Why is it not a touchdown as soon as Campbell ''possesses'' the ball in the end zone and his knee hits the ground and the ball comes out?
Ah.....
Because (for whatever reason) the rule states you must "survive" the ground, Ie; the process of the catch all the way TO and THROUGH the ground.....
That specific rule for "pass plays" / receivers - completely contradicts every other rule we know about football......
For example of a contradiction..... a running back who is tackled does not need to "survive" the process of going to the ground.... vivid example.... a running back is tackled from behind and his KNEES hit the ground, but he continues to fall forward and the ball comes out , before hitting the ground or not......
Doesn't matter.... as soon as his knees are down, the play is dead, even if the ball pops out before the tackle is technically finished....
Not the case with a "catch" on a pass play..... I don't know why and generally don't like the rule but I do understand it.
I guess on pass plays they want it "pretty" - regardless of the other rules that apply to every other rule of a ball carrier.
This rule makes no sense when it only applies to a receiver and no other players.
It only makes sense that the catch is complete when the receiver possesses the ball and he touches the ground in the field of play.
Why penalize the receiver for a collision with the ground causing the ball to come out after he has successfully executed making the catch? This makes the ground an extra defender against the pass.
Thanks. You understand what I'm getting at: logical consistency.
Completely agree. It only applies to "catchers" of the ball, if thrown, ie: "receivers" , RB coming out of the backfield to catch a pass, etc....
If it went to the supreme court, it would be ruled unconstitutional as it doesn't apply to every other player possessing the ball. Lol. It's silly.... but again, I guess they want the "prettiness" of completing a pass all the way through the whistle, basically. Shrugs.....
It all started about twenty years ago when the NFL had all sorts of problems deciding what was or wasn't a catch, and if it was a catch and bobbled, might it be a fumble. Too may bang-bang plays and replay would over rule the refs. So they decided on a third element, surviving the ground, to make receptions harder to make, but easier for the refs to call.
This is my hangup.
If the ball is knocked out of a ball carrier's hands after the tip of the tip of the football crosses the goal line and the ball is picked up by the opposing team, it's irrelevant. The second any portion of the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD and anything that happens after that is irrelevant.
Campbell very clearly caught the ball, got both feet (and knees?) down well in bounds before falling out of bounds when the ball came out. In my mind, what happens when he comes down out of bounds is irrelevant. He possessed the ball in the end zone. TD.
But if the knee touches the ground first, he's down and the play is dead, right? That's not just a technicality.
Exactly. If a runner's knee hits the ground a fraction of a second before the ground forces the ball out, it's irrelevant. His knee was touching the ground, the he's down and the play is dead so what happens after that is irrelevant.
You are overthinking this. It has to be a CATCH first, before he can be ruled inbounds, whether in the middle of the field, sideline or in the endzone. It is not a catch, no matter where the reciever is on the field, if during the act of making the reception, the receiver is going to the ground until he maintains posession after hitting the ground.
What you describe above is true, however, the runner must by rule already have posession to be ruled down.
By any definition out there, Campbell caught the ball. He caught it with both hands, pulled it into his body, got both feet down in bounds, then his knee(s) came down in the end zone as well. He was down, with the ball, in the end zone. Play over.
That's not overthinking it at all. Overthinking it is talking about what happened to the ball after the play was dead and he fell out of bounds.
Lets say for example on a non TD play the Qb throws low and receiver has to go to a knee to catch the ball. Typical on screen passes. Then the receiver immediately gets blown up and the ball is knocked out. That’s still a catch.
My point exactly. Campbell possessed the ball and hit the ground in the endzone with possession - play over, TD.
Campbell beat the defender, why does the ground become a second defender he has to beat when it's already over at that point?
Right. To me, the key is that his knee(s) hit the ground first. Player is down. Ball dead. Play over. It wasn't a leaping grab where he lays out for the ball and the ball pops loose as he hits the ground.
I believe he lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. Have to maintain control of the ball through the fall regardless if is in the field of play or the endzone.
But buy the time his torso hit the ground, he'd already come down with the ball with both feet in bound and his knee(s) had hit in bounds as well. To me that's the key. His knee(s) hit so he was down. The ball is dead at that point.
In my opinion, he was no longer in the act of catching a pass. Once his knee was down, the play was dead.
That might be your opinion, but your opinion, but by the actual rule, it was an incomplete pass. It clearly states that. He lost the ball when he hit the ground making it an incompletion.
The rule, as written is extremely vague. "In the act of catching a pass" leaves a lot open to interpretation. If, after his knee touches the ground, the ground causes the ball to pop out, and that is ruled an incomplete pass, that opens a lot of other calls up to this interpretation. As noted above, why isn't a fumble when a RB's knee his the ground and then the ground causes the ball to pop out. In that circumstance, a ref will say "There was no fumble on the play, the runner's knee was down prior to the ball coming out."
He came down with both feet with secure possession of the ball, knee came down, still with secure possession of the ball. Ball is dead at that point. No longer in the act of catching a pass.
Get unlimited access today.