re: Seems to me by NFL rules Colston scored.

quote:

---

Because anytime a player is going to the ground he must maintain posession of the ball after hitting the ground. Same thing on a catch along the sidelines. Two feet in bounds and posession after hitting the ground

---

The ball hit the ground and came out, not Colston. Ground cannot cause fumble after possession.

quote:

---

Colston did not have complete control of that ball while in the air

---

Did the refs say he didn't have control in the air? This is what I am trying to understand. If so then I do understand the rule. BUT if they did think he had control in the air and the ground knocked it out when he came down they would have said TD? This is what I really am trying to find out.

quote:

---

The player must have control ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND!

---

Most of us are understanding the rule but not understanding the logic of the rule. Do you understand?

First off, by rule it's not a catch. Ask Oakland from their first game against SD. What sucks is you'll occasionally see it called a catch.

Now, I thought the rule isn't just going to the ground, but if you're contacted while going to the ground making the catch, you have to maintain possession throughout. It looked like Colston had full possession and feet down before he was contacted (after seeing it again, only 1 foot was down before contact). But, I don't know the exact rule.

Even with the ball hitting the ground first in full possession, he can't lose the ball and keep the catch. It's a shame, it's a rule I would like to see them alter because there have been a good bit of cases this year where a clear touchdown catch was negated because the player was slammed to the ground afterwards and the ball jiggled a bit. Many of those that when you see it you know it's a full possession 2-feet-down catch, but the technicality overrules it.

quote:

---

becuase he did not hold onto it through contact with the ground.

---

And how soon does this take place because if he were to catch it and take a few steps, the ground cannot cause a fumble. I guess it cannot be a fumble if it is never considered a catch though?

Quote:
But, what I understand from your post is that, according to the rule, Colston was never considered to be in possession of the ball in the endzone becuase he did not hold onto it through contact with the ground. Is that the interpretation?


Covington, that is my understanding. I have since talked to another ref who confirms the same. The ref on the field made the call and the booth confirmed. As previously noted, though I know NFL refs make some mistakes, these are not SEC refs!