So, did the nose of the ball hit the ground?

[Deuce]

if he establishes control at any point during the catch and brings it down to the ground (caught already at the ground so not hard) then the play is over when his elbow touches. doesnt matter if the ball is shaken more loose.

You're not immediately down if you don't have possession of the ball. He did not have possession of the ball at that point when his elbow hit.

[Glitch]

well they definitely had possession but i guess you mean control. you would definitely need a different picture to show where he established that.

this is just showing that he twisted his body around fast and hard to bang his elbow to the ground after he had the ball securely in his hands.

[hels]

I had V Tech ML so I lost and was/am pissed. Here's my thinking when overturning the on field call -- you need to have 100% indisputable evidence meaning that it is conclusive from many angles that the original call was WRONG. If only one camera angle shows evidence that the play could be overturned that is not good enough.

Think about in a courtroom. To be found guilty there needs to be overwhelming evidence to give the judge/jury over 95% confidence of guilt. This should be the same thinking in overturning the on field call.

With last nights TD I probably think that the ball did touch the ground/move/aid in the catch etc. That is just based on seeing many close catches. The on-field ruling was a TD. There was only one camera angle that looked like the ball touched the ground and moved. All of the other angles looked like good, clean catches. There was not enough evidence for me to think the call should be overturned.

[Glitch]

are you guys thinkiing his hand is not under the ball or what?

[Glitch]

you need 4 pictures to show its a catch with pictures.

-1 with it still in his hands/ controlled/secured before his elbow hits the ground
-one of his elbow hitting the ground first (this one that i perceived to be the main controversy in this thread, but perhaps mistakenly)
-one from each side of the ball upon impact showing each of his hands under the ball.

[shari91]

Those announcers in that clip are shocking. Go to the f'n NCAAF rulebook and see the example they give. A chick in Oz can do it but these wankers can't???? He bobbles the ball at 0:48-0:49. It's not hard for these so called Pros to look up a bloody rule.

Airborne receiver A85 grasps a forward pass and in the process of going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot. Immediately upon A85 hitting the ground, the ball comes loose and touches the ground. RULING: Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver must maintain control of the ball while going to the ground in the process of completing a catch.

There is also another rule about if he lands out of bounds with a bobbled ball. Pass was incomplete.

[MikeT007]

He landed out of bounds anyways

[firehoyt]

The argument is "did the ground assist with the catch". He wasn't out of bounds. Idk how anyone could argue that point.

[tatommack]

I feel for you guys that lost due to this. To me it's a td not enough to overturn it. Vt did everything to win reffs really blew this

[shari91]

I feel for you guys that lost due to this. To me it's a td not enough to overturn it. Vt did everything to win reffs really blew this

Anytime I see threads on here where guys have lost because of a rule book... doesn't matter what sport... I feel quite sad. Crappy way to lose anything. You'd rather have your team get blown out, accept you made the wrong the play and move on. This kind of stuff can haunt you if you had decent money on it.

[Glitch]

this is what i see- catch, then elbow hits ground as hes rolling over with both hands under the ball.

i do not think theres enough to overrule it if it was called incomplete- just because of the limited camera angles available (none attached to his stomach) we all already agree on this.

now its a matter of showing how it was or was not a catch. its going to take a lot of splicing different angles and assuming things but the burden of proof should be on the no-catch. luckily it was ruled a catch so it was.

[Deuce]

this is what i see- catch, then elbow hits ground as hes rolling over with both hands under the ball. i do not think theres enough to overrule it if it was called incomplete- just because of the limited camera angles available (none attached to his stomach) we all already agree on this. now its a matter of showing how it was or was not a catch. its going to take a lot of splicing different angles and assuming things but the burden of proof should be on the no-catch. luckily it was ruled a catch so it was.

He didn't catch the ball or put his hands under the ball. He traps the ball with his wrists which changes position into his hands AFTER the ball hits the ground which assisted him to somewhat hanging on to it. He bobbled it out of bounds as well. How is this hard to figure out?

[stevenash]

Those announcers in that clip are shocking.

Brad Nessler was beyond brutal.
He's a ACC boy, (did Georgia Tech before becoming big time) and called the game like a homer, not like a professional broadcaster.

[shari91]

Brad Nessler was beyond brutal.
He's a ACC boy, (did Georgia Tech before becoming big time) and called the game like a homer, not like a professional broadcaster.

Ah, that makes more sense then. I didn't watch that game... only followed the scoreboard in the 2nd half to grade it for here. And so I watched that clip objectively like you asked. They sounded soooo out of touch even before I went to the NCAA F rule site. They're showing a replay of that ball bouncing around yet they're saying it's definitely a TD. Even I knew after seeing that at the 50 second mark or whatever that it would be overruled and I haven't followed college ball since moving here. You grip that ball like it's your first born child... let it bobble around and you're just asking for trouble.

[Glitch]

i guess i see the points of the other side now. woulda lose a 30 point bet or so there but i definitely see a catch.

[CarpeDime]

wow that is tough, Michigan backer here for full disclosure

The tip of the ball did definitely touch the ground, but did it "aid him in catching the ball"? hard to say but probably not

not sure what the exact rules are

[shari91]

wow that is tough, Michigan backer here for full disclosure

The tip of the ball did definitely touch the ground, but did it "aid him in catching the ball"? hard to say but probably not

not sure what the exact rules are

I posted the rule above. Nothing about aiding him. It's all about a player having control of the ball.

Go here http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/FR12.pdf if you're prepared to download for a bit

[Glitch]

good idea on the full disclosure- here mine: va tech fan and homer BUT


theres no way to see if he was able to spin fast enough to keep the ball off the ground- even tho it was initially heading that direction and there is a way to see that both hands were under the ball (or wrists at the very least as deuce would like to differentiate)

[CarpeDime]

yes for full disclosure i had michigan -2.5 on a straight bet and -3 in 2 parlays

no fan affiliation involved

[letsgo]

He landed out of bounds anyways

Look at it again, his elbow and knee clearly hits before the rest of his body. Both are in bounds, that isn't even the discussion, it is about whether he maintained control.

[TheCentaur]

Look at it again, his elbow and knee clearly hits before the rest of his body. Both are in bounds, that isn't even the discussion, it is about whether he maintained control.

True, his left knee hits just before the elbow is out. The ref overturns it saying he did not maintain control, so any argument about out of bounds is irrelevant. Even when I have money on a game, when I see an instant replay I form an unbiased opinion of whether it will stand or be overturned. WHen I saw that I thought there is no way they can overturn that. If it had been initially ruled incomplete it should have stood that way also.

What is frustrating is the inconsistency. Too many times I and I am sure many others have been screwed by rulings standing because they weren't sure enough to overrule the call. Then this replay official is somehow indisputably sure he didn't maintain control? Just please, please NCAA do not issue an official apology, it will just make it worse. I'd rather just try to forget it.

[TheProdigy8199]

If you look at the catch, he doesn't catch it with his wrists, he actually tucks it in midair with his right arm securing the football, possesion and ball security was established at that moment. As a rule, the ball is allowed to touch the ground, but it can't be bobbled or aid in the securing of the catch. The ball did neither according to the video. The tip of the ball may have hit the ground but the ball was already secured at that point.
If it was ruled incomplete on the field I would have been fine with the call, but since it was ruled a TD, there is no way there was enough evidence to say it wasn't a catch. The right call was " The ruling on the field stands as called".

[RudyRuetigger]

Those announcers in that clip are shocking. Go to the f'n NCAAF rulebook and see the example they give. A chick in Oz can do it but these wankers can't???? He bobbles the ball at 0:48-0:49. It's not hard for these so called Pros to look up a bloody rule.

Airborne receiver A85 grasps a forward pass and in the process of going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot. Immediately upon A85 hitting the ground, the ball comes loose and touches the ground. RULING: Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver must maintain control of the ball while going to the ground in the process of completing a catch.

There is also another rule about if he lands out of bounds with a bobbled ball. Pass was incomplete.

i just dont see how this can be debated. it was an incomplete pass.

[Glitch]

If you look at the catch, he doesn't catch it with his wrists, he actually tucks it in midair with his right arm securing the football, possesion and ball security was established at that moment. As a rule, the ball is allowed to touch the ground, but it can't be bobbled or aid in the securing of the catch. The ball did neither according to the video. The tip of the ball may have hit the ground but the ball was already secured at that point.
If it was ruled incomplete on the field I would have been fine with the call, but since it was ruled a TD, there is no way there was enough evidence to say it wasn't a catch. The right call was " The ruling on the field stands as called".

this is what im saying (and it just looked like the tip was going to touch the ground, we cant really actually see it touching but possession was established before that...late bobble/control loss....maybe very very slightly but not enough) and bobbling relies too much on speculation/opinion.

[FishFace5]

^^
If he was in the middle of the field they would have ruled it a catch.
Above and beyond the matter of did the ball hit the ground is the issue of was he in bounds.
I know his elbow looks to touch inbounds miliseconds ahead of his shoulder touching out of bounds but I think the 2 factors together is what forced them to overturn the call.
It was unclear wether it was a clean catch and unclear wether he was in bounds

[TheCentaur]

^^

It was unclear wether it was a clean catch and unclear wether he was in bounds

= after further review the ruling on the field stands

[shari91]

Ok let's try again since a few are still hung up on the inbounds/out of bounds thing.

Next rule after what I posted above:

Airborne receiver A85 grasps a forward pass and in the process of going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot as he falls to the ground inbounds. Immediately upon A85 hitting the ground, the ball comes loose but never touches the ground before he regains control.
RULING: Catch. If the receiver is inbounds and is going to the ground and loses control, as long as the player remains inbounds and the ball never touches the ground, it is a completed pass.

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.

[DOMINATER]

steve his hand was on th bottom of the ball when it hit the ground thats a catch

[shari91]

So again... whether or not he was inbound or out of bounds... he bobbled the ball and it touched the ground. That's it. Look at 0:48-0:50 of this video. Debate over.

[oiler]

they shouldnt of reversed the call cause there is suppose to irrefuttable evidence and i didnt see that,hell of a way to lose a game

[oiler]

So again... whether or not he was inbound or out of bounds... he bobbled the ball and it touched the ground. That's it. Look at 0:48-0:50 of this video. Debate over.

still think it was not enough to change the call on field.nothing they showed was conclusive enough to change call

[RudyRuetigger]

shari is pointing out rules left and right and you guys are still trying to argue

[cankid]

no catch is my opinion but real tough to overturn the call on the field

[Ch Br]

did you buy 7.5 points in a parlay

thats one of the most homer comments ive seen in a while......




ahahahahah for those of us who look at the lines prior to a day before, or even hours before kickoffs, better odds CAN, and often do, happen on the day of or closer to the line release.....

[shari91]

shari is pointing out rules left and right and you guys are still trying to argue

I think the announcers have a big part of that, no?

Like, these commentators are supposed to know wtf is going on and they say "for sure it's a td" "for sure he caught it" "for sure he had control" so you think they'd have a clue. But it's like what I was saying in a tennis thread the other day...and why I gave baskets pts in here... I swear some of these guys are crackheads or just don't know. You shouldn't say something definitively when the entire NCAAF rulebook took me like 90 seconds to Google... be more responsible and tell the however many people watching the actual truth. Rules might suck and cost people money but you can find them in a second online just to be sure. No clue what these announcers were thinking.