To me the Bundrage call was right because he was going down as he made the catch. I think they screwed up the Lazard one because I don't think he was going to the ground as he made the catch. He jumped, caught the ball, landed, then got hit and started falling to the ground. He landed on his side rolled over the defender, then the ball came out. In my opinion they didn't use the rule correctly at all.
Refs calling 2 incomplete passes
- Thread starter Sneed
- Start date
They got the calls right, but the ref who called the interception in the endzone is some kind of an idiot. The defender took the ball from Bundrage about 5 yards out of bounds. There is no possible way it could have been an interception.
IMO, it's more about the inordinate number of head-scratching calls/reviews on scoring plays, which can (and does) have a huge effect on the outcome of the game. And it goes all the way back to 2005 at Kansas.
We have some people who pretend every call that screws us is right as a coping mechanism. Both these plays happened exactly how you said and were clearly incorrectly reviewed. Knee obviously down after ball fully secured in both cases, in Lazard's case knee was down after secure steps, zero chance it is incomplete as the replay incorrectly ruled.
The Lazard call is a great test. Our fans who think that review was correct are the people who intentionally go into to denial as a coping mechanism. There is 0% chance the replay review decision was correct, it was 100% a catch, then down, then ball comes out. As conclusive as could ever be...still wrong.
This "completing the process" rule for receivers seems to be a player safety issue in some ways. If defenders know that a receiver on his way to the ground after a catch or even with a knee already down is fair game... you are going to have more late hits on receivers.
I don't like the rule. To me it doesn't seem like a strip of the ball after the receiver already has a knee down should negate a catch.
I don't like the rule. To me it doesn't seem like a strip of the ball after the receiver already has a knee down should negate a catch.
If he comes down with two steps and then is tackled down to his knee for a third point of contact and then is wrestled over top of somebody that certainly shouldn't be incomplete. Replay review yesterday...need a fourth step to be complete. Next time there's a TD he better get both feet down twice according to our crack crew of slow motion replay viewers.
I don't think it's that complicated, I mean I think the rules suck and are completely asinine, but if you go to the ground when you're catching the ball you have to keep control the entire time. Lazard went into the air to make the catch, came down on two feet and was immediately tackled to the ground at which point the ball came out.
Both were catches if they were TCU, Tech, Texas, Baylor. Officiating has been horrible for years. The Big Texas conference.
Obviosuly, the Bundrage call (after review) was correct according to the rule below. However, there is no way they could go from a fumble to an incompletion based on that review. There was no conclusive visual evidence that it was an incomplete pass, there was conclusive visual evidence, however, that he was down before fumbling.
Going to the ground-Rule 2-4-3-c:
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.
Determining a catch-Rule 2-4-3-a:
To catch a ball means that a player:
Secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before the ball touches the ground, and
Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
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
Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.
Going to the ground-Rule 2-4-3-c:
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.
Determining a catch-Rule 2-4-3-a:
To catch a ball means that a player:
Secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before the ball touches the ground, and
Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
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
Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.
Lazard was not in the act of catching the ball as he went to the ground, he already caught and possessed it and took steps before he was tackled to ground, then knee hits, then wrestled over a guy, then ball out. Wrong call by rules even with freaking obvious replay angles.
I can see Q's catch being incomplete per these rules, however that means take a TD off the board for TCU via the exact same reason. They reviewed both plays, both had decent but not great angles, opposite results.
The very best you can rate the replay officials on those 3 catches is two failures and one correct.
On TCU's touchdown I don't think there was an angle of the ball hitting the ground, and he showed to have control of it while he was still in bounds even though he had briefly lost it.
And I don't know what replay you watched but aside from landing on two feet Lazard didn't take any steps before he was tackled.
I dont understand how the bundrage play wasnt a catch. He caught the ball, tucked it in, knee and elbow touched down in bounds then he rolled out of bounds with possession. Then the defender strips the ball. Once your down and out of bounds the play should be over. That rule needs to be changed.
That much is very true, what should be a catch is no longer a catch, plain and simple.
TCU reciever was rolling over the ball while it was visibly on the ground on the replay, if Q's wasn't a catch neither was that.
Landing with two feet down, then going down to a knee after that is a catch and being down. It doesn't matter that the player wrestled him around and popped the ball out, it's a catch and he was down.
1/3 success ratio. Best possible rate of success for replay review on those 3 plays.
If you really saw a replay angle where the ball was visibly on the ground I'd love to see it and change my mind on the call. It doesn't exist so I wouldn't waste too much time though.
You just aren't understanding the rule. If you catch it, land with 2 feet and immediately go to the ground as he did you have to maintain possession the entire time. He was tackled to the ground, his knee touched down, he was rolled onto a TCU player and then the ball was popped out. As bad as the rule is that whole thing is the process of going to the ground.
Eventually this rule will lead to people getting hurt. If I was on defense I would be hitting the receiver well after they were tackled to knock the ball loose.
