Jarvis West Fumble
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
I think this thread is inappropriately hungup on "football move" here. Is catching the ball while falling out of bounds with one foot down in bounds a "football move"? If a receiver catches a low ball while facing the QB and, in that attempt, has his knee down, is he not immeadiately down?!?
A "football move" is not applied to hitting the ground, it is genearlly applied to if a catch was made when nearly instantaneous contact forces the ball loose. In this situation, Jarvis has full control with his knee down. He caught the ball, secured it, and in that process, his knee was down. Claiming a "Football move" was needed is a mis-application of the intent of that statement and a diversion from the real issue that it shouldn't have been an interception.
I was not able to see the game on TV, my question is if they had a similar angle as to what was captured by the DM Register.
A "football move" is not applied to hitting the ground, it is genearlly applied to if a catch was made when nearly instantaneous contact forces the ball loose. In this situation, Jarvis has full control with his knee down. He caught the ball, secured it, and in that process, his knee was down. Claiming a "Football move" was needed is a mis-application of the intent of that statement and a diversion from the real issue that it shouldn't have been an interception.
I was not able to see the game on TV, my question is if they had a similar angle as to what was captured by the DM Register.
Last edited:
Is mike pereira a troll because he and I are saying the exact same thing. Is the NCAA rule book a troll because this play is a textbook definition of the rule.
to "discuss the issue on your own" you mean create a fantasy that West got screwed and ignore those that posts facts to show otherwise.
I'm not the one that keeps bringing it up. In fact I've never brought it up because it isn't relevant in this case.
as stated 100 times in this thread, yes he is down if he maintains control of the ball. No it is not a catch if he loses possession of the ball. If a receiver is falling out of bounds, gets one foot in and then drops the ball when he lands out of bounds,by rule it is an incomplete catch. Nobody is hung up on "football move" because it is not involved with this play. West catches the ball while simultaneously going to the ground. In this case it is on him to control the ball. He didn't
I will take the heat for you as the "troll" but I am amazed at how so many people can't seem to get this.
There sometimes comes a point where it is best to just give up, right or wrong. I feel that you reached that point Sunday night. It's now Wednesday morning.
I am not the one keeping this thread going. I just respond to people who try to call me out even though they don't understand what they are talking about.
You're most definitely keeping this thread going. You refuse to give up until everyone agrees with you. I'm not saying you're wrong because I know you're not, but just give up. This is the internet...you're fighting a battle that you will never win.
But it is, in fact it is the only relevant point of discussion. Fact: he did not maintain possession to the ground. Hence, the only way that is a catch is if he completed the catch prior to "going down". It is close, for example a juke is considered a football play. The rules state you must have possession to make a football play therefor once you have made a football play or have clear possession long enough that you could make one possession has been established and at that point as soon as the knee touches it is down. This is the rule and I am 100% sure of it. People are arguing that he did have enough time to make a football play and the act of him turning forward was. While close after rewatched many times I agree with the call but frankly feel it would be hard to be upset either way that call went.
PT13, you continue to read more into the rule than the rule explicitly states. The rule only addresses losing control when the ball hits the ground and does not ever talk about another players trying to strip the ball. So, the entire question really revolves around did he have control when his knee touched the ground. If he did it's a catch. If he didn't, it's either an interception or an incomplete pass. But, never did the ground cause Jarvis to lose control of the ball. The rule is there to ensure the player continues to control the ball after he or the ball hits the ground. To interpret the rule any other way would say that a catch is never a catch until the player hits the ground with his entire body and we know that is not true.
Please see section 4, article 3 and the approved ruling Rule 7, section 3, article 6. If the officials are interrupting the rule as it's written, I have to believe the officials on the field felt Jarvis did not have control when his knee touched the ground and the booth did not have a camera angle that would allow them to override the official on the field. But in all cases, it's when his knee touched the ground and not any time after that, per the written rule.
Is there a particular part of "must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" that is confusing for you? If the ball is in the defender's hands I'm guessing that doesn't satisfy the complete and continuous control part of the rule.
3TrueFans, there is nothing in that statement that is confusing to me, as I stated and the rules state, the question is did he have complete and continuous control when his knee touched the ground? That completes that requirement of the rule. The rest of the rule discusses the ground causing the player to lose control, never does it talk about another player stripping the ball after the player contacts the ground. So, based on the rule as it was written, if he had control when he contacted the ground (i.e. his knee hit the ground) it's a catch.
Read the rule as it's worded, not as people think it was interpreted. I will also grant you that officials may interpret the rule differently than it's worded, I am only going by the exact wording of the rule.
That is most certainly not what the rule states. "Throughout the process of contacting the ground" does not mean just until his knee touches.
The rule talks about a player needing to maintain complete control through the process of contacting the ground, since he didn't and since he also didn't make a football move to demonstrate a completion it isn't a catch, however the defender that took the ball away did do that.
Per that thought process, a player that catches the ball on his knees would never complete the contact with the ground and therefore a catch would never be made. As I've stated, I'm reading exactly what was written nothing else. The rule states "must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" are you saying a knee on the ground is not contacting the ground? If so, that's a new one on me.
So let's take this to the limit, a receiver catches the ball on his knees, he has the ball in his possession, on his knees and on the ground for 5 seconds and for some reason the whistle has not blown. Then a defender jumps on his back knocking him to a prone position on the ground (his back is now on the ground) and strips the ball from him and the ball never touches the ground. According to your interpretation that would have to be called an interception because the player did not maintain complete control all the way to the ground. But, as we all know that would be ruled a catch as he clearly had possession all the way to the ground (when his knees touched and the ground did not magically cause him to lose possession).
Last edited:
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and this thread contains a lot of ridiculous ****.
"Throughout the entire process of contacting the ground." If a receiver catches a ball, immediately falls to his knees and drops the ball immediately after touching the ground that's still an incomplete catch. In this situation with Jarvis, if he would have dropped the ball immediately after his knee hit the ground instead of the ball being ripped away it would have been incomplete, I don't think anyone could realistically think otherwise.
3truefans, you misunderstood most of what I just got done saying. The question isn't as much about the rule as it is about did he have control when his knee hit the ground. From your post you are saying you don't believe he did. Everything I've been posting about the rule really have to do with him having control when he hit the ground and then losing control to the ground our stripping. The rule states that if the ground causes him to lose control, it's an incomplete pass if the ball touches the ground or a completion or interception if he or the opposing player gets control before the ball touches the ground. But, the rule explicitly states the ground causing the loss of control and does not discuss another player causing the loss of control.
What I believe you are stating is that in the split second that his knee touched the ground he did not have control. And that my friend is a judgement call and not a rules interpretation. And, for the record, I will accept your judgement, as it's yours and no one elses.
