Jarvis West Fumble
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
No, you don't understand the rule. If a receiver catches the ball and just drops to his knee like west, and the ball is secure he is down. Receivers catch the ball all the time and never drop entirely to the ground. Some catch the ball and just graze their knee. They are called down. Defenders are not allowed to then go strip the ball from them.
You guys simply don't understand the rule or the context of it. West would have never gone to the ground at all if the player wasn't pulling him down. See his arm extended holding himself up after being pulled over by the player. West dropped straight to his knees ending the catch. He was not falling forward until the player pulled him that way tearing at the ball.
My goodness, all those receivers that just fall to their knees like west better look out. LOL
You guys simply don't understand the rule or the context of it. West would have never gone to the ground at all if the player wasn't pulling him down. See his arm extended holding himself up after being pulled over by the player. West dropped straight to his knees ending the catch. He was not falling forward until the player pulled him that way tearing at the ball.
My goodness, all those receivers that just fall to their knees like west better look out. LOL
Last edited:
Look at the picture. Evans arm isn't even on the ball when West's knee is on the ground.
I disagree with the rule - but if a receiver rolls a couple of yards and possession is not clear they usually mark the receiver back where he initially came down and that seems wrong to me.
So apparently the refs, the replay official, AND Mike Pereira don't understand the rule either...
Jarvis had not completed the act of the catch plain and simple...if had taken two steps then the catch would've been complete and he could've gone to the ground with his knee down and he would be down by contact with no fumble and no INT.
Problem is he was going down as he caught the ball and the defender stripped it away so he was not down and it was an INT.
It's the Calvin Johnson rule with a change of possession...Jarvis did not complete the catch. As someone mentioned earlier, if Jarvis had touched his knee and then his upper body hit the ground and he dropped the ball it would not have been catch because he didn't go to the ground with possession.
And touching a knee is fine if you complete the catch through the action of the play...that did not happen in this case.
Last edited:
I think what PKT13 is means when he says, "all the way to the ground" is Jarvis' body, not just his knee.
On that type of play Jarvis has to maintain possession "all the way to the ground" because he hasn't made a football move after the catch and his knee hit as the rest of the body was going to the ground.
Does anyone have a video of the play? I'm curious because its extremely hard to debate something when you can't watch it.
That being said yes some people don't understand the rule/misinterpret the rule including some such as Mike Pereira and others in football. Like you said it is the Calvin Johnson rule with a change of possession. The rule is meant to force a receiver to catch the ball and keep possession of it while going down. It isn't meant to overturn a touchdown like in Calvin Johnson's case because he put the ball down while getting up, and it isn't meant to allow a defender to come in after a catch and take the ball away.
I am fairly certain most people can see that the catch was made and then after it was made and the play was over the defender took it from him. Other than the fact that some like to misinterpret the rule to come up with some bs reason they screwed up a call. I would really like to be able to go back and others go back and watch it because this is a if you see a catch you know a catch but you can't really describe it type of situation.
Interesting play just now in the 49ers/Cowboys game. Jason Witten made a catch while being pulled down. He had the ball only in his right hand, low down toward his legs. He's pulled down and loses the ball after his knee hits the turf. They rule it a completed catch, no fumble as his knee was down. Why didn't he have to "complete the process of the catch" by securing the ball with both hands up near his body?
Because he took 2 steps before being drug down which secures possession.
That and a fumble and interception aren't the same thing.
Last edited:
I disagree on the interpretation of the rule. As an example, at the 5:40 mark in the 1st Qtr of the Dallas/SF game, a VERY SIMILAR situation happened. Whitten caught the ball, went to the ground, and then it was stripped and returened for a touchdown. They not only overrulled, but also gave possession at the point of touching the ground. I realize that pro rules aren't always the same as college, but think this is a relevant comparison.
No, I have seen so many officials who absolutely cant interpret anything and didn't play the game that your comments about them mean absolutely nothing to me. I have seen officials that cant tell when the play clock expires. How can that be? I have seen officials call a texas player down that fumbled the ball standing up!!!!!!! Replay officials did not overule this call. I have seen officials give a kansas quarterback a touchdown when the ruling on the field was he didnt score and it didnt look like he scored and you could not see any part of the ball!!!!!!
So forget the how can these officials get it wrong bs!!!! OH and many of them have been caught taking money!
You are completely wrong. For example, if a player catches a ball and falls out of bounds three yards and drops the ball it's an incompletion. Are you telling me a defensive player could take the ball away from him out of bounds and have it be an interception??? LOL Are you serious?
Again, you don't understand the rule and clearly didnt address any point I made.
1. he is not bobbling the ball
2. He has clear possession of the ball with his knees down.
3. Defensive player does not have any possession of the ball.
4. West dropped to his knees.
5. He absolutely does not have to go to the ground to complete a catch. Mike the idiot Periera was wrong here too. At no time is a receiver required to put his entire body on the ground to complete a catch. Please point me to the rule that says you have to go completely to the ground to complete a catch. Good luck!
6. West would have never hit his entire body on the ground. He dropped to his knees intentionally just like thousands of receivers have done in the history of football! None were required to fall to their belly to complete a catch. The catch is complete when he has control and is down. You somehow don't get that.
7. The offensive player by rule gets possession when both players possess the ball. Of course, they didn't so its Isu's ball anyway.
8. Taking a literal interpretation of a rule and applying it to situations it is not intended for means you don't understand the rule.
Oh and I am still laughing at your go by what the officials say comment. Get real. It's laughable.
Last edited:
I just slowed it down and watched it again. You guys are so wrong it's unbelievable. West after catching the ball drops to his knees not falling forward. Only have the ksu player hits him on his knees does he fall forward. The catch was completed end of story. Nowhere in any rule book does it state a player has to go to the ground completely to make a catch. Thousands of receivers have just dropped to their knees. If only they had known! LOL
The point that you are missing is that he didn't "complete a football move" prior to losing the ball. Look at it this way... Say a receiver runs a slant route... gets hit square in the chest with the ball (having both hands on it and in control) but a split second later gets nailed by the DB in the back, thus knocking the ball to the turf before he could turn up field. Is that a fumble? No it's an incomplete pass.
In the case with Jarvis... pretend there is no defender there at all. Despite having both hands on the ball and a knee down, if the ball squirts free when the rest of his body hits the ground, it's still an incomplete pass. The only reason it was an interception is because the ball never actually hit the ground and the KSU guy came up with the ball. No different than any other deflected pass.
The defender was in contact with him the entire time, he was being pulled down during both of those steps and he never really seemed to have full control of the ball with both hands on it. Fumble vs. interception is irrelevant right now, I'm talking about securing the ball and being down. If the ball wasn't secured before it popped loose, it should have been an incomplete pass.
"and I just listened to periears explanation LOL i think, uh, i think maybe, never mentions his knees being down. not once. they could call it down by contact as well. "
Yeah, he clearly was sure about that call.
Yeah, he clearly was sure about that call.
This is a gray area, the knee down does not necessarily mean he has possession. Its a screwy rule, but he has to have possession to the ground which I guess includes arms.
The knee touching the pylon before the catch was a much bigger miss call. And for some unknown reason it was not reviewed.
Last edited:
Uh, no. You are not required at any time to drop your entire body on the ground to complete a catch. You have to have control of the ball. Receivers drop to their knees immediately after catching the ball all the time. These receivers are down. Defenders are not allowed to strip the ball from them if they control the ball and drop to their knees themselves. West dropped to his knees. He has control of the ball. HE iS not required to put his entire body on the ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At no time in football are you required to do this. none. end of story. you are suggesting he was still trying to possess the ball falling forward to the ground. That is absolutley not what happened. It's about control. You don't get that.
If you can prove that receivers have to put their entire body on the ground to complete a catch then I will believe you. Good luck with that.
And here is how people dont get rules. Going to the ground does not I repeat does not mean you have to fall to the ground with your entire body to complete the catch. No where in the rules does it state that. Again, another situation where people just don't understand the rule.
Last edited:
I'm not saying you need to have your whole body on the ground to complete a catch. What I am saying is that you need to complete a "football move" after grabbing the ball for it to be a catch. One could argue that dropping to your knees on purpose after securing the ball is a football move. I get that. That is a valid catch.
Answer me this... to go along with your line of thinking.
Say a receiver lays out for a ball and is parallel to the ground... snags it cleanly with both hands... first thing to hit the ground is his knee... but when the rest of him flops on the ground and the ball comes out, why is that called incomplete then? After all, his knee hit first?
As long as we're talking about the catch in the 4th quarter on the sideline, then he had a foot down just inside the sideline when he caught the ball. If it's the one at the end of the first half, then it's debateable on if he was in bounds or not.
