re: if Baron brown situation happened at midfield, would it have been a fumble or incomplete?

If you have control before you cross the goal line, then the play is over once you cross the goal. You don't have to survive the ground.
If there is no goal line and it's just a regular catch, then even if you do establish control you must survive the ground.
They used that second interpretation for the goal line, which was incorrect.

Edit-the only argument would be in a non-goal line scenario, and did the ball move enough to say he didn't survive the ground, or did he keep control and survive the ground with his hand underneath it. Obviously they thought the ball did move enough in the b. Brown play, so in a non-goal line scenario this would not be a catch according to that referee.

Down by contact. Ground can’t cause fumble. Was def a touch down we got hosed

quote:

---

Yep, and in this case once he crossed the plane with control, the play should've been over

---

Exactly...

Let me try and explain how it should be called.

A player should have to survive the ground when its a bang bang play, meaning they are stretching out to keep a foot inbounds while making the catch, actually thy could take a step but they are basically catching the ball while trying to maintain a foot inbounds, then they hit the ground immediately. That type of bang bang play, they should keep possession all the way to the ground or its an incomplete pass. However, if the ball slightly moves when hitting the ground, but it is still in their grip (hands or secured in the forearm) then it is still a catch.

The other way is not a bang bang play, like the Baron Brown catch, where he caught it, took 2-3 steps, crossed the plane with the ball totally secure and on the inside of the orange cone, took another step and fell out of bounds, with the ball slightly moving after him hitting the ground, but he still maintained possession. That play should have been over when he crossed the plane with possession!

I wanted to add that last year Kyren Lacy (May he RIP) had a catch like that where he took about 2-3 steps then went out of bounds and lost the ball when he hit the ground. The refs reviewed it and said he already had possession while making a football move or a move after the catch. Ruled a completion. That was the South Carolina game when we were making a comeback for the win. It was just under 2 minutes left and Lacy caught the ball around the 3 yard line took 2 steps in bounds, then 1-2 steps out of bounds where he was hit, then the ball came out when he hit the ground. The ref called it incomplete but the replay booth changed it to a catch.

quote:

---

Also why I think Sharp's fumble wasn't a catch. He caught the ball and turned to take a step and was hit. No possession established thus no fumble. Should have been incomplete pass.

---

I'm gald I'm not the only one. Somehow they say Barion Brown didn't make a football move, but Sharp did? I didn't see a damn football move from Sharp.