Jarvis West Fumble

[wonkadog]

Post the rule...

Here it is again...

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 ball touches 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, even if it touches the ground, will not be considered loss of possession; he must lose control of the ball in order for there to be a loss of possession.
d. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control and continues to maintain control, and the elements above are satisfied, it is a catch.

 

[Beyerball]

I'm tired of this. Look...what happened is the replay official didn't have enough evidence to see if Jarvis had full possesion before getting it stripped as he rolled over. The replay official obviously didn't pause it like a picture and zoom in like we are seeing. I'm as ****** as anyone about the call. However, if West catches a screen pass on his knees and has full possesion he is down, period..end of play. This isn't the NFL.

Now WTS, I'm quite sure based on the idiots who were in the replay booth probably didn't even look at the play and just told the official it's kstate ball.

 

[PKT13]

I'm tired of this. Look...what happened is the replay official didn't have enough evidence to see if Jarvis had full possesion before getting it stripped as he rolled over. The replay official obviously didn't pause it like a picture and zoom in like we are seeing. I'm as ****** as anyone about the call. However, if West catches a screen pass on his knees and has full possesion he is down, period..end of play. This isn't the NFL.

Now WTS, I'm quite sure based on the idiots who were in the replay booth probably didn't even look at the play and just told the official it's kstate ball.

I am amazed at how many people fail to comprehend such a simple rule.

Gripe about the other calls/non-calls or reviews all you want. The bottom line is that if you still think this particular play should have been ruled a catch, you don't understand football much at all.

 

[cycloneworld]

If a player catches a screen pass on his knees, he is considered down,correct? If the player catches the ball on knees but the defender standing next to him rips the ball out, he is not down, correct?

He is considered down, yes. But that does not mean he has completed the process of the catch. If he catches the ball on his knees and the opponent rips the ball away while the player's body is falling to the ground, it is an interception. Again, the discussion is not "was he down by contact" it was "did he complete the process of the catch". And the answer is no, he didn't.

 

[klamath632]

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.

 

[klamath632]

So what is considered down after a catch? If Jarvis catches the ball falls to his knees, is he down or can he get back up and run?

If Jarvis catches the ball and falls to his knees, he is down. He cannot advance the ball further.

That's not what's in question here though. The question is did he complete the catch? The ruling is that he didn't complete the catch.

Since the ball never hit the ground and the KSU player ended up with it, it's an interception. We benefitted from a similar play in the famous 9-7 Nebby game.

 

[VeloClone]

If Jarvis catches the ball and falls to his knees, he is down. He cannot advance the ball further.

That's not what's in question here though. The question is did he complete the catch? The ruling is that he didn't complete the catch.

Since the ball never hit the ground and the KSU player ended up with it, it's an interception. We benefitted from a similar play in the famous 9-7 Nebby game.

Thanks for giving me another opportunity to post this:

[video=youtube;VyzCw6y1yYU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyzCw6y1yYU[/video]

 

[jkclone]

Thanks for giving me another opportunity to post this:

[video=youtube;VyzCw6y1yYU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyzCw6y1yYU[/video]

Thats really not that similar as the Nebraska player wasn't on the the ground or even close to completing the catch.

By the way my spellcheck doesn't capitalize nebraska HAHA.

 

[mike4cy]

Hey Dude - Your trailer is on fire.

 

[jkclone]

Just saw the play again on the coaches show or whatever it is. I stand by that it was a bad call when watching it again. It appears that West is down then the defensive player comes in and lifts him up and takes the ball. I understand what others are trying to say that you have to complete the process of the catch, but he does and then after that is when he has the ball taken from him.

 

[CyCloned]

Just saw the play again on the coaches show or whatever it is. I stand by that it was a bad call when watching it again. It appears that West is down then the defensive player comes in and lifts him up and takes the ball. I understand what others are trying to say that you have to complete the process of the catch, but he does and then after that is when he has the ball taken from him.

Exactly right. I understand what the other guys are saying about the special rule, but from the still shots that have been posting it is very clear that JW has both hands on the ball and a knee down before the ball in taken away. The rule talks about losing the ball at the same time as he was down, which is clearly not the case. Also, he took one step before being dragged down, so he did complete a "football move". This is just another case of an official on the field blowing a call, and the review guy not wanting to overturn a close call.

 

[jkclone]

Exactly right. I understand what the other guys are saying about the special rule, but from the still shots that have been posting it is very clear that JW has both hands on the ball and a knee down before the ball in taken away. The rule talks about losing the ball at the same time as he was down, which is clearly not the case. Also, he took one step before being dragged down, so he did complete a "football move". This is just another case of an official on the field blowing a call, and the review guy not wanting to overturn a close call.

I don't remember if the replay official said it was confirmed or if the call stood but I can understand why they wouldn't want to overturn that. It was a lot closer than what I remembered but I think it was still clear enough that the correct call should have been made.

 

[PKT13]

I love when people say "I understand" when clearly they dont.

 

[cyclonedcm]

It was a completion to Jarvis West. Jarvis handled that adversity very well. The referee missed the call. Plain and simple.

 

[cyclonedcm]

Jarvis had possession of the ball and his knee hit the ground. The ball is dead. The right call is Iowa State ball, not an interception.

 

[cygrads]

If I was coaching the DBs I would use this as a teachable moment - keep digging and ripping at the ball even if the offensive guy is on the ground on every down.

 

[jkclone]

If I was coaching the DBs I would use this as a teachable moment - keep digging and ripping at the ball even if the offensive guy is on the ground on every down.

Yeah but since we are Iowa State we would get called for a late hit.

 

[IAStubborn]

I am amazed at how many people fail to comprehend such a simple rule.

Gripe about the other calls/non-calls or reviews all you want. The bottom line is that if you still think this particular play should have been ruled a catch, you don't understand football much at all.

I love the rule snob that sides with the commentator and acts like he knows something. Curt played college football, I played college football. This rule was meant to eliminate gray area which it did but it created a new one. However, ironically you are in fact misunderstanding the rule. He did not have to go to the "ground with the ball" as you keep stating he had to have tight possession long enough after hitting the ground (with any part of his body) or a moment after hitting the ground to make a football play. Based on that it was close and you couldnt really tell based on the replay becausr you couldn't see when exactly it came out. The only thing the ground matters for in regards to the ball touching it is then it cannot be intercepted and it no longer is a judgement call. Based on the replay I agreed with refs. However , based on the still shot he likely had it wrong as he had possession solidly until the last split second. The replay official made the right call though based on what they had to work with. You however, shouldn't act like you know what you are talking about when you really don't.

 

[PKT13]

I love the rule snob that sides with the commentator and acts like he knows something. Curt played college football, I played college football, this is a new rule with different interpretation of what constitutes ground or possession. It was meant to eliminate gray area which it did but it created a new one. However, ironically you are in fact misunderstanding the rule. He did not have to go to the "ground with the ball" as you keep stating he had to have tight possession long enough after hitting the ground (with any part of his body) or a moment after hitting the ground to make a football play. Based on that it was close and you couldnt really tell based on the replay becausr you couldn't see when exactly it came out. The only thing the ground matters for in regards to the ball touching it is then it cannot be intercepted and it no longer is a judgement call. Based on the replay I agreed with refs. However , based on the still shot he likely had it wrong as he had possession solidly until the last split second. The replay official made the right call though based on what they had to work with. You however, shouldn't act like you know what you are talking about when you really don't.

Pretend all you want, what you posted isn't accurate. If he is going to the ground in the process of the catch, which he was, he ABSOLUTELY has to maintain possession through the contact with the ground, which he didn't, since Randle has the ball before he even hits the ground as the picture I posted clearly shows. If I see one more person pretend that the play ends the second his knee touches, I will just make the assumption that they are posting from a leapfrog.

 

[CyCloned]

I love when people say "I understand" when clearly they dont.

There is only one person here that doesn't get it. Yes, I understand the rule, I read it, it was just a bad call. It happens. It just seems to happen to ISU way more often than anyone else.