Jarvis West Fumble

CyDude16

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2008
22,485
11,753
113
Heads in the sky
Im still waiting for someone to point to the rule that says a player has to put more than his knees on the ground to complete a catch.

Fact:there is no such rule.. as matter if fact receivers deop to their knees all the time and complete a catch without ever dropping to their stomach. The officials screwed up and made the wrong call on the field.

And the booth idiot who has now been suspended is a buffoon.

Catch, Interception, Recovery
Article 3.
a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before the balltouches the ground, and
2. touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and
4. satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.

b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.


c. If the player loses control of the ball while simultaneously touching the ground with any part of his body, or if there is doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch. If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession; he must lose control of the ball in order for there to be a loss of possession.



Do you read?
 

PKT13

Member
Jun 18, 2014
108
0
16
Im still waiting for someone to point to the rule that says a player has to put more than his knees on the ground to complete a catch.

Fact:there is no such rule.. as matter if fact receivers deop to their knees all the time and complete a catch without ever dropping to their stomach. The officials screwed up and made the wrong call on the field.

And the booth idiot who has now been suspended is a buffoon.
b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.
 

D UP Clones

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,447
48
48
Catch, Interception, Recovery
Article 3.
a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before the balltouches the ground, and
2. touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and
4. satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.

b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.


c. If the player loses control of the ball while simultaneously touching the ground with any part of his body, or if there is doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch. If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession; he must lose control of the ball in order for there to be a loss of possession.



Do you read?

Perfect.. i read very well and that proves the point. The player has to lose control simultaneously while cintacting the ground. Just what i thought. West contacted the ground with his knees in full control of the ball.

Thanks for posting. It says nothing about the whole body going to the ground... perfect.

Catch.
 

CyDude16

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2008
22,485
11,753
113
Heads in the sky
Perfect.. i read very well and that proves the point. The player has to lose control simultaneously while cintacting the ground. Just what i thought. West contacted the ground with his knees in full control of the ball.

Thanks for posting. It says nothing about the whole body going to the ground... perfect.

Catch.

oh my.
 

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,241
61,911
113
Ames
Think of it this way, if West would have just dropped the ball at that moment instead of having it stripped away would it have been a catch? Of course not, everyone knows, or should know, that you have to complete the entire process of the catch.
 

D UP Clones

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,447
48
48
Perfect.. i read very well and that proves the point. The player has to lose control simultaneously while cintacting the ground. Just what i thought. West contacted the ground with his knees in full control of the ball.

Thanks for posting. It says nothing about the whole body going to the ground... perfect.

Catch.


Im still waiting for anyone to cite any other interception in the history of football where the receiver did not bobble the ball at all... contacted the ground not falling forward with his knees....the defender had zero possession of the ball and defender strips the ball from the down defender and gets an interception...


Ill wait patiently or someone to do that. Thats how you know you guys dont have a clue. Ive never seen this ruled an interception. Always a catch.

I think its funny all of you backed off the body hitting the ground part now.
 

PKT13

Member
Jun 18, 2014
108
0
16
Im still waiting for anyone to cite any other interception in the history of football where the receiver did not bobble the ball at all... contacted the ground not falling forward with his knees....the defender had zero possession of the ball and defender strips the ball from the down defender and gets an interception...


Ill wait patiently or someone to do that. Thats how you know you guys dont have a clue. Ive never seen this ruled an interception. Always a catch.

I think its funny all of you backed off the body hitting the ground part now.
Oh my again.
 

D UP Clones

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,447
48
48
Perfect.. i read very well and that proves the point. The player has to lose control simultaneously while cintacting the ground. Just what i thought. West contacted the ground with his knees in full control of the ball.

Thanks for posting. It says nothing about the whole body going to the ground... perfect.

Catch.

Oh my again.


LOL. YEP..ILL KEEP WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE ME THOSE EXAMPLES... OH MY... TOO FUNNY.

BUT WAIT HIS BODY WASNT ON THE GROUND. CARE TO CITE THAT AGAIN. Lol
 

cyfanatic13

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
11,464
10,628
113
LOL. YEP..ILL KEEP WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE ME THOSE EXAMPLES... OH MY... TOO FUNNY.

BUT WAIT HIS BODY WASNT ON THE GROUND. CARE TO CITE THAT AGAIN. Lol

LOL YOU TYPE LIKE AN IDIOT LOL.. I really hope you are 12 years old otherwise you're making a complete fool of yourself. Yet that might be an insult to 12 year olds.

Reply to 3truefans post. Jarvis has to complete the catch process all the way through the ground. If he had dropped that ball after his knee hit the ground than it would've been incomplete. In this case the other guy ended up with the ball so that's how the play has to be called as an interception.
 

ManBearClone

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2010
2,385
935
113
For those who think the continuation rule is stupid it has been used in the NFL for years and was put in place to eliminate a lot of the gray area where someone hits the ground and the ball pops out and was called a catch. I can only recall a couple of plays where there has been any real controversy on this rule. The Calvin Johnson play being one of them and this was in the very gray area of the rule. If the rule is abolished you open up that huge gray area that was there before again.

As for the pylon play Pierra was wrong. The pylon plays no part in determining out of bounds only whether the plane of the endzone was crossed. If the pylon wasn't there or had been blown over prior or if he was one yard further up field in would of been a good catch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyDude16

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,241
61,911
113
Ames
Reply to 3truefans post. Jarvis has to complete the catch process all the way through the ground. If he had dropped that ball after his knee hit the ground than it would've been incomplete. In this case the other guy ended up with the ball so that's how the play has to be called as an interception.
Exactly, that's what I'm saying. This call and the review of it was done correctly according to the rules.
 

D UP Clones

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,447
48
48
Perfect.. i read very well and that proves the point. The player has to lose control simultaneously while cintacting the ground. Just what i thought. West contacted the ground with his knees in full control of the ball.

Thanks for posting. It says nothing about the whole body going to the ground... perfect.

Catch.

LOL YOU TYPE LIKE AN IDIOT LOL.. I really hope you are 12 years old otherwise you're making a complete fool of yourself. Yet that might be an insult to 12 year olds.

Reply to 3truefans post. Jarvis has to complete the catch process all the way through the ground. If he had dropped that ball after his knee hit the ground than it would've been incomplete. In this case the other guy ended up with the ball so that's how the play has to be called as an interception.

Lol so does that mean you dont have any examples. Call me surprised.

I always find it funny when people state things that arent true and then back pedal like you guys are. At no time does a receiver have to go to the ground with his body to secure a catch. Everyone who stated that is completely utterly wrong.

West secured the catch while contacting the ground. That is not questionable either. He has both hands on the ball while dropping to his knees. He wasnt diving... he wasnt jumping... he wasnt even leaning forward.

Once he drops to the ground in full control kf the ball its a catch. Again.. show me evidence of this happening any other time.

Im still waiting. Btw you cant take away a catch once it is made and the receiver is down.

Care to make that full body argument again.
 

cyfanatic13

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
11,464
10,628
113
Exactly, that's what I'm saying. This call and the review of it was done correctly according to the rules.

Just so we're clear I agree with you, I was telling D UP CLONES LOL to reply to your post
 

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,241
61,911
113
Ames
Once he drops to the ground in full control kf the ball its a catch. Again.. show me evidence of this happening any other time.
It's probably only happened like a thousand times, literally every weekend of college football will have a call like this where a player loses the ball after catching the ball and hitting the ground. You have to complete the entire process which means that just because your knee may have hit the ground it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a completed catch.
 

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,241
61,911
113
Ames
For those who think the continuation rule is stupid it has been used in the NFL for years and was put in place to eliminate a lot of the gray area where someone hits the ground and the ball pops out and was called a catch. I can only recall a couple of plays where there has been any real controversy on this rule. The Calvin Johnson play being one of them and this was in the very gray area of the rule. If the rule is abolished you open up that huge gray area that was there before again.

As for the pylon play Pierra was wrong. The pylon plays no part in determining out of bounds only whether the plane of the endzone was crossed. If the pylon wasn't there or had been blown over prior or if he was one yard further up field in would of been a good catch.
NCAA Rulebook said:
c. A player who touches a pylon is out of bounds.
 

D UP Clones

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,447
48
48
Perfect.. i read very well and that proves the point. The player has to lose control simultaneously while ciuntacting the ground. Just what i thought. West contacted the ground with his knees in full control of the ball.

Thanks for posting. It says nothing about the whole body going to the ground... perfect.

Catch.

It's probably only happened like a thousand times, literally every weekend of college football will have a call like this where a player loses the ball after catching the ball and hitting the ground. You have to complete the entire process which means that just because your knee may have hit the ground it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a completed catch.

Uh no... he didnt lose control of the ball...it was securely in his arms...it didnt move after contacting the ground... see the rule.....it wasnt bobbled at any time.

The defender pulled the ball from the receiver after the receiver contacted the ground in complete control of the ball. You are correct in that defenders have tried this many times and it never is ruled an interception.... never

Please cite one example of an interception after the receiver has control and is contacting the ground...all irrefutable facts in this case.

Unlike what you just stated. This never happens. Thats why you cant list an example.
 
Last edited:

Help Support Us

Become a patron