- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here is the NCAA Catch Rule...interpret it as you will...
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:38 pm to Purplehaze
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:38 pm to Purplehaze
quote:
Plain and simple, it is a judgement call.
Judgment only enters into the matter if the literal, objective application of the rule to the indisputable facts is inconclusive. Not the case here.
1
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:40 pm to SludgeFactory
Please explain to me how the SEC benefits by fricking over LSU? Especially in a week one feature matchup against an ACC school with SEC Officials working the game.
looking at the clip posted in the thread, it is not as clear a catch as I thought it was on saturday night. However I question whether it was indisputable proof to overturn the call on the field as required by rule.
we have seen so many times, when in doubt, no catch
looking at the clip posted in the thread, it is not as clear a catch as I thought it was on saturday night. However I question whether it was indisputable proof to overturn the call on the field as required by rule.
we have seen so many times, when in doubt, no catch
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:47 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
No, he wasn't inevitably going to the ground. He was going in standing up until he was pushed.
Looking at the video I think it's clear he was going to the ground, but if he were pushed that doesn't matter. The rule still applies.
quote:
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.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:51 pm to LSU316
Are you serious? He got one foot down in the process of falling. He didn’t run into the end zone. The person you are replying to is completely correct here. Take off your purple glasses.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:53 pm to magenta_bandit
quote:
I’m still not sure it was the right call, but this thread is full of morons. The rule is posted in its clearest form, and almost everybody is still ignoring it. One guy even thinks Brown took 3 steps after the catch, wtf.
IMO the issue is whether he fell on his own, or whether he was pushed. If he fell on his own, then the rule is clear. It’s incomplete. If he was pushed, then how could that be incomplete and Sharp’s catch a completion and a fumble?
Edit: Just reread the rule. It explicitly states “with or without contact by an opponent.” I think that’s pretty clear. Brown did not make any move other than trying to secure the ball, so it wasn't a completion since the ground clearly knocked it loose.
I agree with all of this. I am as big an LSU as anyone. I didn't grow up with this rule about "contacting the ground"...so my bias is, "once he crosses the plane of the goal with possession" the play is over. That's simply not the case according to the rule.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:54 pm to Chicken
Then why was #10’s ruled a fumble? That is why the logic breaks down. Same game, vastly different interpretations of any doubt not a catch clause
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:55 pm to AlaTiger
Like it has been stated many times in this thread. It doesn’t matter how much time has passed or how many steps are taken, if the receiver goes down in the process of making the catch he must maintain control through contact with the ground.
Also stop playing ignorant about coming back up with the ball, the ball moving in a receiver’s hands after contacting the ground has always been considered touching the ground outside of the receivers possession. In this case, that’s an incompletion.
Also stop playing ignorant about coming back up with the ball, the ball moving in a receiver’s hands after contacting the ground has always been considered touching the ground outside of the receivers possession. In this case, that’s an incompletion.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:57 pm to RonFNSwanson
quote:
The catch was already completed at that point
Wrong.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:58 pm to magenta_bandit
quote:
if the receiver goes down in the process of making the catch he must maintain control through contact with the ground.
But he didn't go down in the process of making the catch. He established possession by making a football move and crossed the goal line. Touchdown.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:58 pm to Rouge
quote:
Once the goal line is crossed, the play is over.
Simply not true.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:01 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
But he didn't go down in the process of making the catch. He established possession by making a football move and crossed the goal line. Touchdown.
Wrong. Watch the play again from a different angle.
Absolutely no “football move” is made and he’s going down the entire way.
There is no argument whatsoever under the rule. People are seeing what they want the rule and play to be not what they were.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:04 pm to Chicken
quote:
If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball, even if it touches the ground, will not be considered loss of possession; he must lose control of the ball in order for there to be a loss of possession.
This was my biggest problem with the call. I wasn’t as sure he had completed the catch before crossing the goal line, but he had his hand under the ball and pinned up against his face mask when the ball moved a little. That shouldn’t be considered losing the possession of the ball.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:04 pm to Chicken
Sorry but are huge holes in the objectivity of this rule. Thanks for posting it though.
The replay booth will decide whatever the hell it wants to deem the best visual evidence. Definitely not enough on the call against LSU to overturn a catch.
The replay booth will decide whatever the hell it wants to deem the best visual evidence. Definitely not enough on the call against LSU to overturn a catch.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:05 pm to Chicken
Okay, so then it’s a horrible editing and copy and paste job on the part of the NCAA. They are taking what looks like rules related to possession and copying them into the section on what constitutes a catch without rewording to establish the proper context. Paragraph c., for example, sets no parameters on the timing of when the player loses control while touching the ground. Without the context, you could interpret the rule to mean that if a player advances the ball 20 yards after catching a pass then loses the ball as he hits the ground that it is not a catch. That’s obviously not the intent of the rule. There is no way they mean for 3.a.3 AND 3.c to both be required for the completion of a catch. 3.a.3 and 3.a.4 absolutely appear to be alternative ways to complete (or not complete) the catch. The AND makes no sense. It should be an OR.
The only thing missing is the player losing control before he’s had the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game by a means not described in b., c., or d. Those really seem more like examples of ways in which a player can be deemed not to have controlled the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game than additional requirements after having established control for that length of time. They have to clean up that wording. As is, it leads to nonsensical interpretations like the one I suggested above and like the one in this particular instance.
The only thing missing is the player losing control before he’s had the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game by a means not described in b., c., or d. Those really seem more like examples of ways in which a player can be deemed not to have controlled the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game than additional requirements after having established control for that length of time. They have to clean up that wording. As is, it leads to nonsensical interpretations like the one I suggested above and like the one in this particular instance.
This post was edited on 9/1/25 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:05 pm to Kiawah Tiger
The judgement is about the movement of the ball while going to the ground. They saw movement and called it according to their judgement.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:05 pm to NorCali
quote:
Then why was #10’s ruled a fumble? That is why the logic breaks down. Same game, vastly different interpretations of any doubt not a catch clause
That's a good question that I have also. Too bad we will never get an explanation.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:08 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Brown was inevitably going to the ground.
Every receiver who catches a ball in the air is inevitably going to the ground (the whole, "what goes up must come down" thing, you know?). What the rule is talking about is players who are going to the ground -- not eventually, but "in the act of catching a pass" -- like those who lay out for a diving catch. Once you have completed the act of a catching a pass (i.e., by securing firm control with the hands or arms of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground and touch the ground yourself inbounds with any part of the body and then maintain control of the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game), then you are no longer "in the act of catching a pass".
The going to the ground rule is in place to account for the fact that it is impossible for receivers diving for a catch to satisfy the "football move" requirement they invented, but are still clearly making what has always been considered a valid catch (and they clearly wanted those to continue to be catches). So in lieu of the "football move", a diving catch -- where the receiver is going to ground "in the act of catching a pass" -- can be satisfied by maintaining control through contact with the ground. But if you're able to satisfy the requirements of a catch BEFORE getting to the ground, then it doesn't apply because you are no longer "IN the act of catching a pass"; you've already caught it, and are now a runner.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:10 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
There is no argument whatsoever under the rule.
I wouldn’t go that far. The ball moving a little at the end. It is up to interpretation whether he lost “control/possession” due to that movement. That is 100% a judgment call that could have gone the other way with a different review group making the decision.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:11 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Absolutely no “football move” is made and he’s going down the entire way.
The rule doesn’t say a player has to perform an act common to the game, only maintain control long enough to do so. That said taking 2 steps to advance the ball after controlling the ball would generally be interpreted as an act common to the game.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 2:12 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
The rule applies ONLY to the process of catching the ball.
Yes, exactly. And that process is clearly defined in 3.a.1-3, and was clearly completed by Brown well before he hit the ground. Thus, the immediate requirement of 3.b. -- "IF a player goes to the ground IN THE ACT of catching a pass" is not satisfied and none of the rest of that paragraph matters.
Are people just not noticing the "If" at the beginning of that paragraph? Is that the problem? I mean, it very clearly demonstrates that the paragraph does not always apply; you have to satisfy that "if" before any of the rest of it matters.
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News