Jarvis West Fumble
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
This is exactly right. The rule was put in place to eliminate a huge gray area. Before this rule there were numerous replays trying to determine in a receiver had possession when he hit the ground because the ball squirted away when he was hit or he hit the ground. Because of this rule the grey area has been significantly reduced. The closest grey area call I can remember is the Calvin Johnson catch against the Bears. As he was going down his hand with the ball hit the ground after he had taken a couple steps and the ball popped out. Since he was going to the ground in the process of making the catch and lost the ball it was ruled incomplete. Watching it it was definitely right on the gray area line thus all the controversy. Some would say he flipped the ball away but by rule it was correct. All he had to do was demonstrate he had possession. There has been little controversy since this rule was enacted except for those who don't understand the rule. The alternative is to go back to the old way which was way worse.
I actually had a chance to talk to Clete Blakeman, a Head NFL Referee, soon after the Johnson play. Being a Bears fan I was interested to hear his take on the play. He said the call was correct and that the rule makes their job of determining catches a lot easier.
Sorry for the name drop but this is getting ridiculous. The call was correct. As someone stated earlier if no ksu defender was around and Jarvis lost the ball as his arms hit the ground it would of been ruled incomplete. Even if a still showed his knees on the ground prior. Basically the receiver has to demonstrate control after the process of going to the ground in order for it to be complete.
I don't know the rule, and I'm not going to rehash it, but look back thru his posts. EVERY SINGLE ONE is anti-ISU. Well, I shouldn't say that, he'll come in and argue with me that there was one completely inane one in there somewhere. He's got 3 pages of posts, going backwards, you get into the 3rd one just to get out of this thread. Then he is in the 'selling hope' thread to bash Jamie and CPR. Then he loves on Captain Kirk, bashes ISU fans, something about Fran/Rhoads (VeteranCY, another reason your thread was dumb), more bashing ISU fans over ref arguing, bash Mangino a few times, then I guess the one inane movie quote.
Can we get a
Look dude. You can have meaningful discussion about the sky being red, but dont get mad at someone for telling you it is actually blue.
I don't know the rule, and I'm not going to rehash it, but look back thru his posts. EVERY SINGLE ONE is anti-ISU. Well, I shouldn't say that, he'll come in and argue with me that there was one completely inane one in there somewhere. He's got 3 pages of posts, going backwards, you get into the 3rd one just to get out of this thread. Then he is in the 'selling hope' thread to bash Jamie and CPR. Then he loves on Captain Kirk, bashes ISU fans, something about Fran/Rhoads (VeteranCY, another reason your thread was dumb), more bashing ISU fans over ref arguing, bash Mangino a few times, then I guess the one inane movie quote.
Can we get a
Really? Understanding rules is anti ISU? Does that mean you have to not understand rules to be pro ISU? I know this place considers different opinions as trolling, but are rules trolling now too?
doesn't matter. He is right about the general rule but his insistence their is no gray area is asinine and his approach is what I have a problem with. A player that catches a ball standing still does NOT have to take two steps. He has to have control long enough to make a football play and if he completes the pass going to the ground he has to maintain contact through contact with the ground. This is undisputable. He caught the ball, went down to his knee was struck from behind and a hand went in and momentum of the other player pulled him down first and then pulled the ball out. The gray area question I have is what point does him dropping to his knees is the play over? He had clear control. The reason I pose this question is it seems the new problem this rule creates with this interpretation is that if a player catches a short out and drops to his knees becomes a sitting duck until the whistle is blown. To me the rule makes sense for a diving catch or a catch truly made while falling. He secured the ball and had it wrapped with both hands prior to going to the ground and then dropped to his knees on his own. I think that should be down and I do not think the rule as written is clear or sane. Given that the rule says that if questionable or unclear it is incomplete I think they made the right call. But that doesn't make the assertion that any debate is stupid a valid one. There is a line and a gray area imo for situations like this and I would like to discuss that butt this jerk has made that impossible. That's not right In my book.
Last edited:
I agree with all of this except I don't think it is clear he was going to the ground beyond his knees. He caught it standing still and dropped to his knees so while I agree the rule is a good one it kind of puts guys with no forward momentum that make a catch in a wierd spot. I don't know the right answer but I think maybe it should be if a player secures the ball to his body with both hands prior to going down or catches with knees already to ground then his knee is down. Why force a player to down the ball on the ground when in certain situations it is hard and or could invite unnecessary injury?
I guess if ISU fans want to complain more about getting screwed (when we really didn't) then have at it. When the review official, the announcers, the referee guru Mike Pereira all agree with the call, and the NCAA rule book all agree with the call, I'm going to believe them over disgruntled ISU fans.
I think this is key. Think of the following very common situation: Third down and somewhere between 5-9 yards to go. Defense in zone coverage. The receivers job is to find a "soft spot" in the zone beyond the first down marker and "sit down" The QB throws the ball low to be safe, and to protect his receiver from the big hit. Receiver drops to his knees to catch the ball.
This play is very common.
My question for the "call was absolutely correct, and if you question it you dont understand the rule crowd" is: How long does the receiver have to be on his knees clearly in control of the ball before the play is dead? If it is not based on time, how do you determine when the play is dead?
I don't think the ruling was absolute, it was a close play. I think there is a chance that if the ruling on the field was a catch, there is a chance it would have stood up too. I, along with many others, just don't think we got screwed.
But to answer your question, the receiver needs to control and possess the ball as he goes to the ground. If the photo is of Jarvis on his side with possession, then we could have a gripe. Again, review the Calvin Johnson play that really highlights the rule. Johnson caught the ball, had his knees down, and then used the ball to push himself up. The ball came loose and was ruled an incomplete pass because he did not complete the process of the catch. The rule is the same in college.
In your example, if the receiver drops to his knees, catches the ball with both knees down, and then the defender hits him and knocks the ball loose, it is an incomplete pass. Same exact situation here except the ball ends up in the K-State players arms for an INT.
How long can the player be on his knees holding the ball before the defender hitting him becomes guilty of a late hit? 5 seconds? 3 seconds? 1 second?
Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.
Any time up until the officials rule the play dead is a-ok, any time after is a late hit.
Exactly my point. It is a judgement call. It is not an issue of "understanding the rule" or not. This is not a simple "by rule" situation. The rule as written created a new "gray area" as stated earlier in the thread that I responded to.
Many of us believe first the on field official, then the replay official, erred in their judgement and called the play incorrectly. In our judgement, Jarvis fully possessed the ball with his knees on the ground long enough for the play to be ruled dead at that point.
Reasonable people can disagree on that judgement, but many of us do get offended when we are told we dont understand the rule.
You're completely misunderstanding the idea of completing the process of the catch if you feel that way.
