Jarvis West Fumble
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
2 different rules. Obviously a play in college is ruled dead if the whistle blows or a runner with possession of the ball is ruled down. The problem is that the rules of a catch make it clear that West did not have possession so knees or whistle are irrelevant. In this case the rule doesnt say he has to make a football play, it says he has to maintain control all the way through contact with the ground. Since the KSU player had the ball, it is safe to say he didn't do that.
If a player dove, caught a ball, touched both feet, butt, and back but the ball popped into the air and a defender grabbed it without it ever touching the ground, it would clearly be an interception. This is similar.
Last edited:
From watching a lot of football. The rule has not changed how defenders play. It is still a bang bang play. The onus is on the receiver to demonstrate control whether it is clutching the ball to his chest or handing it to the official. A late hit is still a late hit. This rule has been around for quite a while now and your concerns just haven't been an issue. Yes there are still gray areas just not the huge gray area there was before. That's why the rule is in place.
Again this is not true. If he made a football play prior to going to the ground then possession was established. Did he make one? Probably not but that is the question. You are wrong in saying he has to maintain possession if possession has already been made. That only applies if a player has not established possession before going to the ground (which is what the call was). The ground doesn't matter if a football play is made.
After watching the slow mo version I don't see any football play or time for one. As someone said earlier it was close but the right call. But that does not make your rudimentary knowledge and interpretation any less wrong.
Last edited:
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. The question should be whether or not he made a "football play" at all after he "caught" the ball. I don't think he did. I can see where other people might see otherwise though.
Tough call... but we didn't get screwed by the refs on this one.
Are you making this up as you go? Oh well. The refs, the replay booth, Mike pereira, the rule book, and me think one way, but you probably refed a flag football game once so you know we are all wrong.
Let's face it, say we were playing Texas and we took the ball away. How much do you want to bet that it would be called down..
Actually they dont. Did you read what I said? MIke Pereira said exactly what I just said. Go watch it. If he had established possession would be the only way the replay booth would overturn that call and he didn't think their was enough there. Hence, the ground would then not be a factor as I and numerous others have said and you are hung up on the ground. The question and only question was whether he made a football play before going down and I agree with Pereira that their really wasn't enough time or evidence of one occurring to establish that.
Last edited:
So are we talking about hypotheticals or what actually happened? I thought we were talking about what actually happened. You have talked in circles so long I dont think even you know what you are talking about.
I just rewatched it and pereira says NOTHING about a football play. He pretty much says the rule that I and others have posted word for word about going to the ground and completing the process of the catch.
Last edited:
Right. The guy who knows why the call went the way that it did, and accepts it even though it went against his team is a ******. Not the multitude of homers who have been picking on him the whole time, even though they continue to show a shocking lack of understanding that there are rules in football and the officials call the game by those rules. Nope, those other people aren't douchebags, just the guy who has maintained all along that the correct call was a correct call and not the league out to screw us.
Wait, no. That's not right at all. That's ******* stupid.
I think the real issue is to understand if he had control of the ball when he touched the ground. By rule if he held the ball long enough to make a football move then he has possession, it doesn't say he has to make the move, but has to have control that long. So that's the first question, did he have control that long?
The second point by rule is if he has control of the ball when he goes down, it's a completed catch as long as the ground does not dislodge the ball The ball can touch the ground and even move and it's still a catch as long as he still controls the ball. There are no provisions for a defender dislodging the ball after the receiver contacts the ground.
So, I would conclude that if was determined that Jarvis had control of the ball when he contacted the ground, the play is over and it's a completed pass and the defender stripped the ball after the paly was over. If he did not have control when he touched the ground then if the defender catches the ball before it touches the ground, then it's an interception.
Personally, I believe he had control of the ball when he touched the ground and the ground did not dislodge the ball, therefore it should have been a catch. But, if you argue that he did not have control, since the KSU play came up with the ball in the other hand, I'm not sure how he could have done that without the ball touching the ground. I'd also like to say that I have not seen a replay and would reserve to change my opinion after having viewed a replay. I also believe the replay official probably did not have a video from the same angle the stills were taken from.
The second point by rule is if he has control of the ball when he goes down, it's a completed catch as long as the ground does not dislodge the ball The ball can touch the ground and even move and it's still a catch as long as he still controls the ball. There are no provisions for a defender dislodging the ball after the receiver contacts the ground.
So, I would conclude that if was determined that Jarvis had control of the ball when he contacted the ground, the play is over and it's a completed pass and the defender stripped the ball after the paly was over. If he did not have control when he touched the ground then if the defender catches the ball before it touches the ground, then it's an interception.
Personally, I believe he had control of the ball when he touched the ground and the ground did not dislodge the ball, therefore it should have been a catch. But, if you argue that he did not have control, since the KSU play came up with the ball in the other hand, I'm not sure how he could have done that without the ball touching the ground. I'd also like to say that I have not seen a replay and would reserve to change my opinion after having viewed a replay. I also believe the replay official probably did not have a video from the same angle the stills were taken from.
There is nothing in the rule that indicates it's purpose is to give the defense more time to strip the ball. The purpose is to take away confusion over was there possession before the ball came out when hitting the ground. My view at the game said he turned toward the line of scrimmage while catching the ball. All the views in this thread show he has turned back toward the sideline, a football move, then went down in possession of the ball. After making a football move and being downed the ball was stripped.
Okay, now I really feel mad about the call. Clearly, West was down having made the catch.
One thing that I haven't seen discussed on the thread is the way that the refs made the call. They didn't make a quick call and it seemed like they might have been affected by the K-State reaction to the play.
Last edited:
The Ignore feature does wonders for threads like this. Now, if people would just stop replying to trolls. We can discuss this issue on our own without dozens of posts by a troll that don't really add anything by annoyance.
