Jarvis West Fumble
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
How many times do you need to be told that this picture proves nothing?
You MUST complete the catch all the way down to the ground. Your entire body hitting the ground while maintaining control of the ball. His knees being down don't mean a thing in this case.
I know it's strange, but that's the rule on pass catches. It's different when running with the ball.
I totally agree on that one. I was actually talking about that other Lockett catch down the sideline later in the game.
Exactly. In real football when your knee hits the ground you're down. I don't go along with the current rule and their, if and buts and exceptions and special cases, etc.
So the refs got it wrong because they didn't go with what you thought the rule should be, and instead wen't with the rule book? Alright.
It's consistent with defenders being able to break up a pass and it being incomplete/interception and not a fumble. The knee has nothing to do with it. The same amount of control is required for making a catch whether the player is down or not. You can't just have two hands on the football for a moment or two, you have to have completed the catch and started to make your next move before it's a completion and fumble.
Just because you're clueless doesn't mean the guys wearing stripes yesterday were.
I know and I don't like it one bit. It's ridiculous and so to me the rule is wrong, the NCAA was wrong. The rule made for unintended consequences, like what happened to Jarvis.
Rationally I agree with the call that it's an int despite this one frame looking like it's down. For the exact same reasons it's clear ISU beat Texas las year when George stripped the ball. Unless you think George has 5 foot arms or the ball can teleport. It's completely irrational to make a freeze frame necessary for one control of the ball situation but ignore it for another.
It eliminated 100 instances of receiver has the ball for 1/4 step on a slant and it gets jarred loose for a fumble for one instance of this. That's a good rule.
There's also this little exception to that rule:
Yet, don't get too happy, football fans. There's also Rule 2, Section 4, Article 3, paragraph h, which says, "When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed".
Thanks. This is exactly what I saw on TV.
Can some techie upload these PHOTOS to YouTube Video? -
Last edited:
Jarred loose after he has possession and after his knee hits the ground? The NCAA rule people have gotten themselves into a "rule loop" and of course we're the ones that get caught in it.
Yet, don't get too happy, football fans. There's also Rule 2, Section 4, Article 3, paragraph h, which says, "When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed".
But on control of a ball in fumble situations officials are to ignore all reality on only seek an all important freeze frame. That's where it's incomprehensible to someone looking at it in terms of consistency.
Actually whether freeze frame matters is highly dependent on the situation. On an out of bounds call a freeze frame tells you exactly the information you need, same with a touchdown when you are determining if the ball crossed the plane. On something like that interception, a freeze frame doesn't give the information you need because what you need to know is whether he had completed the catch, and a freeze frame doesn't tell you that.
If a player who had the ball is not down, but another player who ends up with the ball is 3-4 feet away moving the other direction lack of a freeze frame of the ball is meaningless, yet they say it's absolutely essential. Truth = int on this play. Truth = game winning fumble recovery vs Texas. Replay interpretation seems to value inconsistent protocol more than truth. That or simply covering up incompetitance will lead any organization toward irrational positions.
Dude, You are an idiot. If that ruling is correct, ISU's plan for next week is to hit every receiver that hits the ground after the catch and take the ball from them. They aren't down evidently and it doesn't matter that they aren't juggling the ball and were tackled.
It's laughable you are trying to justify that call. Hit them on the ground. LOL
And the rest of you dont understand the rule. The rule is about falling to the ground and maintaining control. I agree the fox guy said the wrong call on the field should be upheld. That doesn't mean it is the right call!
West never lost control of the ball. You do not have to have your entire body on the ground to make a catch. Once your knee hits you are down.... there are plenty of receptions where the receiver never hits the ground but hits his knee. So, no, that is not correct that you have to wait till your body is on the ground.
The key here is that west at no time was juggling this ball. Had taken a step after the catch and was being tackled. His knees are down. The offensive player is given the ball when two players make the reception! That's just an add on because it's obvious the defensive player did not have the ball at all.
Last edited: