What is a catch now? Harbor took 2 steps fell down and ball wiggled. What if he took 3 steps and fell down and ball wiggled? 4? 5? How many steps before it doesn’t matter?
The catch ruled incomplete???
- Thread starter Jonesz2
- Start date
That was a fix to a rule that wasn’t broken, making it waaaay more nonsensical than necessary. Needs to be corrected; play football instead of rulings.
I watched this several times. Nyck Harbor was ROBBED!
Full possession of ball in endzone. The only reason it “wiggled” was due to defender AFTER he established possession.
Once you control the ball with a foot down in the endzone that should be it! Touchdown! Play over!
Why does it matter what happens when you hit the ground?
Why does it matter what happens when you hit the ground?
Last edited:
What I hear is "the catch has to survive the ground". What I saw: It appears the ball came loose right before he hit the ground and his hip landed on it and he was able to re-collect it. That being said, I've seen similar stuff called a catch.
Unfortunately the rule is that you have to go to the ground without the ball moving if it touches the ground - no matter how many steps you take in bounds with control of the ball. Definitely makes no sense because an RB can jump over the top of a pile and as soon as one RCH of the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD and the play is dead. The RB does not need to touch the ground and can, in fact, fumble the ball after the ball crosses. Change the rule either way - make the RB/runner get downed in the endzone OR once you establish control and have a foot down, it's a TD. Play over.
That's what I'm talking about - makes no sense.
Once the ball is controlled with one foot down in the endzone it should be play dead - TD, regardless of what happens after that.
Rules Committee really overthinking this thing!
Nope. Only the ground can do that. Weird fetish with the ground and fumbles in football.
We all know what the rule says, but it’s a rule that simply makes no sense in the end zone. In any other situation, the instant the ball is possessed across the goal line the play is dead. Logically, if you possess the ball in the end zone, the play should be dead.
The rule was properly applied as written. It is the same rule for the NCAA and the NFL, and that same rule has been in place for decades, at least. I remember the first time I found out about the rule was when the Cowboys' Dez Bryant had a pass called incomplete after replay vs the Packers, a very long time ago.
The fact that it doesn't apply to a running back crossing the goal line and losing control of the ball is the inconsistency that makes this rule non-sensical.
Running back breaks the plane with the ball - play dead and TD even if he loses the ball; receiver controls the ball with one foot down in the end zone - and is not a TD is totally inconsistent.
The running back has possession prior to breaking the goal line though. It's a very different conversation.
I don't think anyone would argue Harbor had possession of the ball in the endzone. He clearly did. He just didn't "maintain possession" all the way to the ground as the defender managed to dislodge the ball as Harbor was going to the ground. But he'd already secured the ball with two hands and had both feet down in-bounds.
To Prestonyte's point, once he had possession in the endzone, the play should be dead, just as for any ball carrier who possesses the ball across the goal line.
It's a logical inconsistency.
Except for the fact that a running back crossing the goal line has already established ball possession. A receiver in the act of catching the ball has not.
Except the rule in that situation has always been the receiver has to maintain possession through the fall to the ground since he has not, by rule, established possession. This is not some new rule. It has been the rule forever.
Possession in the end zone is possession in the end zone, whether you came in with it or acquired it once there. What happens afterward should not matter.
But by rule, it does. It always has mattered. Both in the NFL and NCAA. This has been the rule forever.
Not saying it's not a rule. Just a stupid rule.
The rule is not applied equally to a runner and a receiver. If a runner fumbles after hitting the ground crossing the goal line, it should be a fumble and not a dead ball to be equal. If the rule is applied equally, he must retain possession until he hits the ground with control of the ball.
The receiver's task is much more difficult and should not have stricter rules.
lol, so there are two separate arguments running parallel here:
Argument #1: The rule doesn't make sense
Argument #2: But it's the rule
I think the announcer pretty much assessed it accurately: your eyes tell you everything about it is a catch.
The issue with that argument is that a runner has already, by rule, established possession of the ball. A receiver who is in the process of making a catch has not, by rule, established possession.
This rule exposes the weakness of replay. Both us and LSU were victimized with the same call.
They were both plays you could watch 1,000 in live speed and conclude 1,000 times that they were catches. It's only when you watch it in ultra slow motion, pausing and rewinding pausing and rewinding, that you can say it didn't meet the rule book definition. On both plays you have to watch them in the slowest of slow motions to come to the "incomplete" conclusion.
I say it every year and this year is no different: replay sucks.
I agree with David Pollack, refs have to start using some common sense.
They were both plays you could watch 1,000 in live speed and conclude 1,000 times that they were catches. It's only when you watch it in ultra slow motion, pausing and rewinding pausing and rewinding, that you can say it didn't meet the rule book definition. On both plays you have to watch them in the slowest of slow motions to come to the "incomplete" conclusion.
I say it every year and this year is no different: replay sucks.
I agree with David Pollack, refs have to start using some common sense.
Nyck Harbor TD erased on controversial call, South Carolina fans erupt
South Carolina thought it scored a late touchdown vs. Virginia Tech, only for replay to wipe it away. Gamecock fans were none too pleased.
www.saturdaydownsouth.com
Last edited:
It looks to me as if the defender dislodged the ball out of bounds which is what caused the bobble of the ball as Harbor fell to the ground. So I guess it is ok for the defender to play the ball out of bounds.....something for future DBs to realize and act upon.
At the very least there needs to be a differentiation between catches in the endzone and catches elsewhere. A ball secured with 2 feet down in the endzone should be a touchdown, no matter what happens afterward.
I know common sense and college football parted company long ago, but this is the ideal situation to use it. Your eyes tell you it's a catch. Common sense tells you it's a catch. Everything tells you it's a catch until you read the rule book.
Last edited:
This has been stated numerous times in this thread and makes total sense. Why is this not the rule? Is the rules committee intentionally punishing receivers?
I agree, If the play was at midfield, it would probably be called a reception (two steps with control) and subsequent fumble when defender broke the ball free.
True, it moved. Then the ground dislodged it. What would the call be if it were at midfield? Incomplete pass or reception and forced fumble?
If he has to go to the ground the same rules apply. We all think it's a stupid rule and we all hate it. But it's the rule. What more needs to be said?
If that's how they're going to call it then somebody needs to pay attention to replay and throw a challenge. Two can play that game.
When you get two feet down TD and play over. Plus, like LSU, when a receiver, catches a ball and falls backwards on his back with the ball cradle under his arm like a baby, the sheer impact is going to make the ball move a little. The question is do you have the ball secured. Also, the ball touching the ground if you’ve got it secured doesn’t mean squat.
The question is simply did the ground help you make the catch. The answer in both situations is no. LSU was even more egregious. Now mind you, if they have been playing anyone, but Clemson, I would not have cared because the referees hosed us three times last year Versus them.
The question is simply did the ground help you make the catch. The answer in both situations is no. LSU was even more egregious. Now mind you, if they have been playing anyone, but Clemson, I would not have cared because the referees hosed us three times last year Versus them.
I don’t agree by the way the rule is written makes it incomplete.
It’s close that his 4th step with possession took place before the defender hit it. He clearly at least got 2 feet down inbounds, a third hit OB while he was tucking the ball.
By definition of the rule that should have been a catch
It’s close that his 4th step with possession took place before the defender hit it. He clearly at least got 2 feet down inbounds, a third hit OB while he was tucking the ball.
By definition of the rule that should have been a catch
Y'all gotta let this go. We won the game. The play didn't matter. Time to move on. Damn, someone reading this who hasn't seen the score would think we lost the game over this call.
Hey that call could have easily cost us the game. Take away the punt return and who knows? Just like the calll that went against LSU.