Again. This is not true.having "possession" for a split second does not mean full possession. If that were true then 90% of broken up passes would be ruled as catch and fumbles.
Jarvis West Fumble
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
Agree... It's all a matter if he had possession or not... Pic makes it look like he did. He Jarvis catches this ball, turns and runs 9 yards and the same thing happens, the call is overturned (however, call on the field is a fumble)
Probably to see if the ball touched the ground. If so it would have been an incomplete. Or it could have been to watch Randall's magic show because I still don't know how he ripped away so clean so quick.
Not what you were saying. Yes what you are saying after mike pereira backed me up.
No, its exactly what I was saying. Maybe I didnt type my words well enough for you to comprehend my thoughts, or maybe your comprehension sucks.
You said once his knee touches the ground, the play is over. Are you still saying that?
I guess my comprehension sucks too. We all know this picture is from a situation where the receiver is in the act of catching a ball and you still said as soon as his knee was on the ground it was over.
See how I said that with the thought that Jarvis HAD possession, like I claimed all along I thought the picture showed he had. I backed off my stance once it was said that Pereira said he never had possession.
Right. So you changed (backed off) your position after mike pereira backed me up.
On the fact of possession, yes. However, if Jarvis had completed the process of the catch, and had possession, and his knee hit the ground, the play is dead, ISU ball, right? My argument all along was under the assumption of that being the case based on the picture. Again, the refs took many minutes to look this over, and Im assuming they were trying to figure out if possession had occurred or not.
Technically Jarvis had possession, he just didn't MAINTAIN possession all the way through the catch or "to the ground".
It's basically the good ol' Calvin Johnson rule with a change of possession thrown in...
It's basically the good ol' Calvin Johnson rule with a change of possession thrown in...
Do we have a rule in place to specify the amount of time a player must have the ball in his possession with a knee on the ground in order to be deemed a completed catch? If a defender walks up to a receiver who has caught a ball with his knee on the ground 1-2 seconds after the catch and rips the ball out of his hands before the whistle has blown....is that a completed catch? Shouldn't be a fumble because his knee is down.
A ridiculous rule that needs to be reviewed. Essentially it means if any defender is within arm's reach of a receiver during the process of a catch, he should just continue to wrestle with the receiver to try to pull the ball away for an undetermined amount of time until the receiver is able to break away from him to "complete the process of the catch," even if they both fall to the ground.
Even in real time it appeared to be a completed catch, down by knee contact with the turf, and then a defender rolling around the receiver trying to pry the ball out of his hands. Tough call with a huge impact on the game.
Javis has 2 hands on the ball and a knee on the ground. If the KSU guy had ripped the ball out before he hit his knee, or Jarvis only had a couple fingers on it, I could see the argument.
