I disagree, it is not vague and every rules expert has clearly described this rule over and over in both the NFL and NCAA. It was the correct call per rules.
The TD catch that wasn't....
- Thread starter sdjwm001
- Start date
There are dozens of ways to make a catch, so, yes, "act of catching a pass" is very vague, and necessarily so.
I get what you're saying, but the play is not over according to the rules. The play is over when a receiver "survives contact with the ground".
We may disagree with it, but that is the way the rule is written. A receiver catching a ball is not treated the same as a RB who already has posesion in the endzone.
Edit: subsequent posts actually posted the rule. The call was correct, but we should be discussing if we like the rule, not the call now.
Exactly, I do not get how someone could think it is vague. It is clearly stated that the receiver must maintain control of the ball through fall to the ground. There is no grey area to it.
Stupid rule. The receiver is competing with two defenders. After a clear catch with possession defeating the DB, the ground becomes a second defender who can dislodge the ball and take away the catch.
Overall, I have to say, the refs were pretty generous to us, even if they obviously blew this call.
They overturned the one catch by Clemson, saying the receiver's was out of bounds. It was extremely close and I really don't think there was indisputable evidence to overturn the initial call. Not saying he wasn't out of bounds, but it was very close, and this is not the kind of call that has typically gone in our favor.
The fumble call against Clemson late in the game. Close one as well. I thought they couldn't go back to review a potential fumble if the player was ruled down, but I guess that rule has changed. It was odd, though, to go back and review that one to give us possession, as Mafah was ruled down and the play whistled dead so Clemson players didn't jump on the ball like they might have otherwise.
Was that also the review that ensuing play was blown dead when Clemson had completed another decent pass?
Can't recall when we've gotten the benefit of two very big reviews like that in a single game.
They overturned the one catch by Clemson, saying the receiver's was out of bounds. It was extremely close and I really don't think there was indisputable evidence to overturn the initial call. Not saying he wasn't out of bounds, but it was very close, and this is not the kind of call that has typically gone in our favor.
The fumble call against Clemson late in the game. Close one as well. I thought they couldn't go back to review a potential fumble if the player was ruled down, but I guess that rule has changed. It was odd, though, to go back and review that one to give us possession, as Mafah was ruled down and the play whistled dead so Clemson players didn't jump on the ball like they might have otherwise.
Was that also the review that ensuing play was blown dead when Clemson had completed another decent pass?
Can't recall when we've gotten the benefit of two very big reviews like that in a single game.
Agreed. We should argue the merits of the rule, but it was called correctly on the field.
It would have become a much bigger deal had we lost the game.
Was not a blown call. It was the correct pall per the rules.
Yes, if that had been a 4th down play, I imagine the opinion of many here on the interpretation of the rule would be quite different.
What is a catch in college football in 2024-25? How the NCAA differs from the NFL
Do you know what constitutes a catch in college football? Do the refs? It can be confusing sometimes, and it's even become a recurring joke among college football fans that no one really knows what a catch is. But there are a lot of factors that can come into play or…
ftw.usatoday.com
What is a catch in college football in 2024-25? How the NCAA differs from the NFL
Do you know what constitutes a catch in college football? Do the refs?It can be confusing sometimes, and it’s even become a recurring joke among college football fans that no one really knows what a catch is.
But there are a lot of factors that can come into play or create confusion, like one or two feet in bounds, did the receiver bobble it or did they have control?
Thankfully we do know how a catch is as defined in the NCAA’s official rulebook. And given that college football’s biggest games are just around the corner, it’s probably a good idea to brush up on how completing a college football catch works in the NCAA.
Though officials on the field may rule catches on a subjective matter, here’s now making a catch is defined in the NCAA online rulebook.
What is a catch in college football, as defined by the NCAA?
As per the NCAA rulebook, there are three main parts to defining a catch. For a catch to occur, the player:Pretty simple, right?
The act of securing the ball and making a “football move” are the key elements here. And in the NCAA, a player only needs to have one foot down and in bounds to secure the catch, unlike the NFL which requires both feet.
That being said, there are three stipulations to the above rules which must be satisfied in order for a pass to be ruled a catch. They are as follows:
All that basically means that a loss of control that is not recovered before the ball touches the ground does not count as a catch. But, if the player does regain control of the ball inbounds before touching the ground, that counts as a catch.
And, perhaps most importantly, when it’s in question, the catch is not complete.
Well my opinion is backed up by the fact it is the actual rule.
I commend you sticking with it, but its a pretty cut and dry interpretation of the rules.
I also understand this will never be agreed to.
I'm pretty sure if it had been ruled a catch, nobody would be here arguing that it wasn't a catch.
They'd all be saying what I'm saying.
And if it was a clemson player who dropped it when he hit the ground, we'd all be saying it was the right call.
Biased posts aside, the rule is pretty darn clear.
Depends -- If your question is about a player where the ball was handed off to him - he is a running back - and when his knee goes down, yes, the play is dead at that point.
If you question is about a player that catches a pass, he is a WR, and if he's in the process of "catching" the ball and his knee hits the ground, no, the play is not dead quite yet......he has to finish the process of the "catch" , including surviving the ground.
This should be the rule, but it's not. "Surviving contact with the ground" is the rule... even after you've made the catch and you're down. It wouldn't have been a catch if it had been done in the field of play either.
I guess it's this way because you "haven't made a 'football' move." Either that or they love the extra commercial time they get for extensive reviews.
Can we talk about all the missed holding calls? And the OPI Clemson receivers were gifted instead? Why can't those calls/non-calls be reviewable?
I would say it was not a catch and they got it wrong if it had been ruled a catch. There was a reason there was really no reaction from our coaches on wanting it reviewed. They realized it was not a catch also because they knew the rule. Surviving the ground is not over until after your whole body has hit the ground. And he lost control of it and actually fell on top of it and the ball knocked the breath out of him. That is why he was on the ground for so long.
Yep. That is exactly how the rule is. Nothing vague about it. Clearly written rule.
I agree with this. I did think Clemson was hosed on the Mafah pitch. His knee was clearly on the ground.
Sorry, you do not understand the rule. A receiver must survive the ground in both college and NFL in order for it to be a reception. A receiver that makes two step AND is not going to the ground has probably made a "football move" and has posession and at that point the ground cannot cause a fumble. Any steps our guy was making was in the process of going to the ground, which is not a football move and therefore he must survive the ground. He did not.
By rule, Campbell never possessed the ball. He had common sense possession of the ball. Yes everyone could see Campbell ove the ball and secure it in the air. Unfortunately by rule, his process of catching the ball he was going to the ground. By rule he never has possession until he survives the ground. He did not.
Read the rule again and forget about the play in question and think about what the rule describes.
There is no way it could have been ruled a catch as it was not. If it had been a clemson receiver catching a winning pass over us and the officials ruled it a catch, then I would say fetch up the pitchforks and torches.
The same rule applies to a backwards pass. Mafah never controlled the pitch. He had it by the nose of the ball in the palm of his hand and was sort of pushing it towards the receiver coming around. It can be argued Mafah did not survive the ground and since it backwards, it is a fumble rather than incomplete.
Why does a receiver have to ''survive contact with the ground'' but a runner does not?
Surviving the ground is like having an extra defender on every play but only on pass plays.
Ridiculous rule!
Surviving the ground is like having an extra defender on every play but only on pass plays.
Ridiculous rule!
It is not that difficult of a concept. A runner already has possession. A receiver, diving for a reception does not have possession until hitting the ground and maintaining possession. Just because a receiver can dive for a pass and get both hands on it, drag his feet and knees going to the ground, does not make it a completed pass. He has to be able to hang on to the ball. Think of the ground stripping the ball just like a defender might do.
If a runner's knee is down a millisecond before the ball pops out, it doesn't matter. The play is dead and nothing that happens after the knee touches matters.
Campbell's knee was down. Play was dead. The act of making the catch was completed. And, in fact, this fits the criteria of surviving contact with the ground.
Now, if he he laid out for the catch, hit the ground and the ball popped out, that's a different story.
Because a receiver, and I use that term loosely because it could be a player of any position that is eligible to catch a pass, when he is in the act of catching a pass and at the same time falling toward the ground, he has not by rule established himself as a runner yet. So when he hits the ground he must maintain control of the ball. On the other hand, a runner already has possession of the ball and is by rule already established as a runner so if he falls to the ground he does not have to maintain possession of the ball after hitting the ground.
It is baffling why this is difficult for some to understand. The rule on this is very clear.
When Campbell's knee hit the ground, by rule he was not established as a runner so it is a different rule and he must also maintain possession through the fall. The rule is very clear on that.
