Continuation rule question

[ISU_Clone_28]

Having a discussion with a couple buddies and seeing if we can get some perspective from some that may be more familiar with the continuation rule. Last week Jarvis West had that play where the knee was down but the continuation rule helped the KState defender take possession and resulted in a turn over.

In the second half of the Iowa game the ISU defender came away with the ball on the way to the ground with the Iowa receiver showing possession and a knee down but ended up losing it on the way down but the Iowa offense retained possession with the officials stating the player was down. Again I'm not sure what the difference between the two were and how the play in the Iowa game was different from the play in the ISU/KSU game.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Iowa State player didn't establish possession by making a football move (falling to the ground doesn't count) when he fumbled the ball.

Iowa player had long established possession by running upfield with the ball and was down when he fumbled.

 

[KidSilverhair]

It's simple, really. There's a difference between going to the ground in the act of the catch (West) and getting tackled after making the catch and running with the ball (T. Smith). They are completely different circumstances.

Hope this helps.

 

[3TrueFans]

Jarvis never caught the pass since he didn't maintain control throughout contact with the ground, the Iowa player had already established possession so he was down as soon as his knee hit. Thread over.

 

[ISU_Clone_28]

Gotcha, Thanks for the explanation guys. The Evan Williams isn't helping rational thought. seems rather obvious once stated. lol

 

[khardbored]

I have a friend who is a DIII official. He told me that this year they explained it like this: "Can the receiver stand up and hand you [the official] the ball? If not, it probably wasn't a completed/ "finished" catch."