Knight's Interception

[jkjsooner]

I imagine this was discussed but I don't see it here. What do you guys think of the ruling on the interception by Knight?

I understand the ruling. The catch was not completed unless the receiver maintains possession after going to the ground. Since the catch was not completed and the ball never hit the ground, it was awarded as an interception.

The problem is that the receiver (Metoyer?) took two steps before falling to the ground. Obviously at some point you've gained possession so the "maintain possession while going to the ground" no longer applies. I would think two steps would be enough and if that's the case Metoyer would have been down when his elbow touched the ground. (If not it would be a fumble and not an interception.)

Did the officials rule that Metoyer was in the process of going down when he took those two steps?


One reason I ask is because we had a similar play in the RRS a few years ago. If I remember correctly our receiver caught the ball, took two full steps, and was blasted by the Texas defender and dropped the ball. As far as I was concerned he had secured the catch and that play should have been a TD and a late hit on Texas.

[Boomer.....]

He had possession and his forearm hit the ground before the ball popped out. I don't understand how this is a fumble. The ground can't cause a fumble.

[olevetonahill]

He had possession and his forearm hit the ground before the ball popped out. I don't understand how this is a fumble. The ground can't cause a fumble.

He was down IMHO, the defender took the ball when he rolled on his back.

[yermom]

had he secured the ball when he took the two steps? i didn't see that part on the replay

[BermudaSooner]

He had possession and his forearm hit the ground before the ball popped out. I don't understand how this is a fumble. The ground can't cause a fumble.

I don't want to get off topic, but nowhere in the rule book is there the rule that a ground can't cause a fumble. I know this seems to be common knowledge, but there is no such rule.

[BermudaSooner]

BTW, the interception was Knight's best pass of the game. He threaded that ball into Metoyer's arms perfectly.

[EatLeadCommie]

I understand the call because the rules of a catch are a bit different than the rules of a guy running with the football. I guess the real question here is how many steps does a guy with the football have to take before a catch becomes a catch and he effectively becomes a runner.

The play where this was really bothersome was Colt's INT in the endzone in the 2008 RRS that was ruled an incompletion.

[EatLeadCommie]

I don't want to get off topic, but nowhere in the rule book is there the rule that a ground can't cause a fumble. I know this seems to be common knowledge, but there is no such rule.

In fairness, the relevant part of his post was that the forearm hit the ground, which is in the rule book.

[SoonerLB]

I was and am under the impression that when an offensive player with the ball is taken down by an opposing player, he is down upon contact with the ground. To me anyway, the play was dead when he hit the ground, since when can an opposing player rip the ball away from a player when he is down and the play is over? If both players were still running and he stole the ball, then I would have understood the call, but I still question the call.

[EatLeadCommie]

The way I understand it, the act of catching the ball is a process. If you are tackled in the process of making that catch, you must hold onto the ball through the tackle. Again, the question for me is what constitutes being tackled in the process? if the tackle begins before you have taken a couple steps to establish possession?

[jkjsooner]

had he secured the ball when he took the two steps? i didn't see that part on the replay

I'm not saying that is the case. That's why I'm asking.

[cherokeebrewer]

BTW, the interception was Knight's best pass of the game. He threaded that ball into Metoyer's arms perfectly.

Yep, goes as an interception for TK, but that one's on Metoyer...

[jkjsooner]

I don't want to get off topic, but nowhere in the rule book is there the rule that a ground can't cause a fumble. I know this seems to be common knowledge, but there is no such rule.

I don't know the full history. I believe this was at one point an interpretation/clarification of the rules. Basically, if the ground causes a fumble then there is a simultaneous condition (down by contact and fumble) and they needed to standardize the rulings in these cases. Plus it can be argued that the loss of possession would inevitably be slightly after contacting the ground since the contact is what caused the loss of possession.

In either case, this doesn't mean that the ground can't cause a fumble if the football is all that contacts the ground since the football itself if not down.

And, of course, this doesn't apply if the catch had not been previously completed as there is no fumble on an incompletion/interception and the ground can cause an incompletion.

[Therealsouthsider]

...pretend it wasn't a pass...if it were a running play/fumble dispute there would be no dispute, the play was dead when his knee then elbow hit the ground. End of saga

ss

[Soonerjeepman]

yeah...was really perplexed...

IF he had possession...elbow, forearm, butt...all hit the ground..so he'd be down.

[jkjsooner]

He had possession and his forearm hit the ground before the ball popped out. I don't understand how this is a fumble. The ground can't cause a fumble.

That is true and that is why this could not have been called a fumble. Either Metoyer possessed the ball before being tackled and it was down by contact or he was still in the process of possessing the ball as he was going down which means it was an interception (incompletion in most similar cases).

I just don't understand exactly what is required prior to falling down to complete the catch. Obviously had Metoyer run 20 yards before going down he would not have had to maintain possession when he hit the ground...

[David Earl]

On the playback show, Stoops said the call was correct. I don't understand it, but I figure Stoops ought to know.

[Therealsouthsider]

...that was public Stoops, he can have no excuses...private Stoops would probably say different

ss

[yermom]

...pretend it wasn't a pass...if it were a running play/fumble dispute there would be no dispute, the play was dead when his knee then elbow hit the ground. End of saga

ss

that's the issue. it was a pass. if he never completed the catch, it was a pick

[Therealsouthsider]

that's the issue. it was a pass. if he never completed the catch, it was a pick

...if it were on the sideline going out of bounds it was a catch, the ball didn't move till he was on his back

ss

ss

[sooner_born_1960]

...if it were on the sideline going out of bounds it was a catch, the ball didn't move till he was on his back

ss

ss
Not if the official ruled correctly.

[Therealsouthsider]

...ultimately it doesn't matter, bottom line is it was a fine pass, unfortunate that plays like this reflect negatively on the qb

ss

[David Earl]

...that was public Stoops, he can have no excuses...private Stoops would probably say different

ss

The way he said it was not the "no excuses" demeanor. He was very clear the interception call was "justly so" and said it was the receiver's fault for not securing the catch.

I'm like a lot of people, stuck on this whole "ground can't cause a fumble" deal, but apparently the rules for a catch are totally different.

[achiro]

It wasnt a fumble and there is no relevant conversation regarding a fumble. It is only whether or not he had controlled the reception and had control of the ball before he went down. The only way this call is legit is that if he didn't have possession before the ball came out. The ball never hit the ground and so it was called an interception. I am in the camp that says he had possession and therefore was down and that should have been the end of the play. Two steps with the ball tucked in is possession in my book.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

College football has some weird rules regarding a reception.

1. You only have to have 1 foot inbounds on the sideline EXCEPT if the ref feels you would have landed in bounds without getting hit
2. If you don't go out of bounds, it is not a catch unless you make a move "natural" to the game of football - typically defined as tucking and making a step. I've seen guys take one step and it be called a fumble and I've seen guys take 3 steps and it be called incomplete.
3. If you go to the ground, you only have to have possession until your body hits the ground. We saw a similar call a couple of years ago when a receiver windmilled in the air after the possession and he came down on his forearm and the ball squirted out. It was ruled incomplete.

As you can see the college rules are full of judgement calls. What the NFL did was to take the judgement out of it by saying "if you go to the ground, you'd better have the ball the entire time".

As for Metoyer's play, the more I thought about it, the more I think that this was the process the replay went through

1. Call on the field is an incomplete pass
2. Not enough evidence to say if it was a catch on the replay
3. The ball never touched the ground so it was an interception (since no catch)

[Widescreen]

The closest official called it a reception.

[jkjsooner]

...if it were on the sideline going out of bounds it was a catch, the ball didn't move till he was on his back

ss

ss

I've seen plenty of cases recently where a guy controls the ball inbounds and loses control as he hits the ground out-of-bounds. In all cases it has been ruled incomplete.

But I think you have a point. When does the play stop? Obviously if you're falling as you gain control of the ball and if you lose it immediately on contacting the ground it's not a completion but if you roll on the ground for a few seconds and a guy strips it at what point have you completed the pass?

So there are two questions:

1. When you've caught the ball and you are not going to the ground immediately, at what point have you gained possession of the ball. How many steps are required?

2. When you've gone to the ground and have control upon initial contact with the ground, how long must you wait until you call the play done?

The problem I have is that I've seen conflicting cases. I've seen guys catch the ball and take a step and get hit and it gets called a fumble. If that's a fumble then I think Metoyer's catch was completed before he started going to the ground.



What I'd really like to see is someone discuss these in detail during these plays. Even the Fox official rarely goes into this level of detail. He'll say the ground can cause an incompletion but he doesn't usually go into the detail of #1 and #2 I list above.

[Ruf/Nek7]

He had possession and his forearm hit the ground before the ball popped out. I don't understand how this is a fumble. The ground can't cause a fumble.

That is why it was ruled an INT and not a fumble.

[BoulderSooner79]

Looked correct to me given the "the catch is a process" definition. In the old days, that would have been completion and then the player would be down from contact. Of course, in the old days it would have depended on how the ref saw it since there was no replay rules. Bummer for TK since it was such a pretty pass. I think Metoyer was trusting his hand strength too much and not trying to cradle it to his body as he hit the ground.

[VA Sooner]

I disagree with the call... I thought it was a catch, and then the ground caused the fumble and so should have been OUr ball.

[FirstandGoal]

My first thought when that call was made was "that's bull****!" I still honestly think WTF when I think about that call, but now I'm just mostly thankful that we played well enough where it wasn't the kind of call that made a difference in the outcome of the game. All in all, I can live with it.

[bluedogok]

Looked correct to me given the "the catch is a process" definition. In the old days, that would have been completion and then the player would be down from contact. Of course, in the old days it would have depended on how the ref saw it since there was no replay rules. Bummer for TK since it was such a pretty pass. I think Metoyer was trusting his hand strength too much and not trying to cradle it to his body as he hit the ground.
Seems to me it is the extreme interpretation of the NFL pass reception rules creeping into the college games. In just the past few years there have been passes called receptions without the ball being held onto as long as Metoyer held onto it. Evidently the NFL interpretation is the norm now, after all I saw a Big 12 ref from last season working a NFL preseason game this year and I think a former NFL official (Walt Anderson) is now the head of Big 12 officials.

[BoulderSooner79]

I disagree with the call... I thought it was a catch, and then the ground caused the fumble and so should have been OUr ball.

The ground causing the fumble just doesn't apply to a receiver falling as he secures the catch. He would have to catch to ball and secure it long enough to be considered a runner; I thought it was pretty clear that wasn't the case. I think what was close was Metoyer actually keeping possession until the fall to the ground was over and the play should have been already whistled dead. But it was close and the replay angle was very good, so I have to defer to refs on knowing the intricate details.

[David Earl]

I disagree with the call... I thought it was a catch, and then the ground caused the fumble and so should have been OUr ball.

Like I said earlier, Stoops insisted the call was correct. However, I still agree with you in spirit.

Maybe we should say we disagree with the RULE. Apparently the rules for a catch are so convoluted that a person can lose possession after hitting the ground and being down. That's wrong, IMHO.

[5noubus]

It looked like he caught it. I think he did but the ulm guy got the ball from him before our guy hit the ground..
The guy next to me said it was the right call too.
Either way I think the booing and calls to the ref mad him mad and they called EVERY SINGLE THING on us from then on out.

[jkjsooner]

As you can see the college rules are full of judgement calls. What the NFL did was to take the judgement out of it by saying "if you go to the ground, you'd better have the ball the entire time".

That doesn't remove the judgement. Clearly if you catch the ball, run 20 yards down field, get tackled and lose possession when you go to the ground that is a completion and no fumble. Somewhere between that and taking two steps and falling down there has to be a line where a judgement call has to be made.

[jkjsooner]

Seems to me it is the extreme interpretation of the NFL pass reception rules creeping into the college games.

I've had a problem with this. It seems when the NFL comes out with an interpretation you start seeing calls in college going with that interpretation. I'm obviously not in the officials meetings but I get the impression that officials are using what they learn on Sundays to call the games on Saturday and that's not how it's supposed to work.

I could be totally wrong on that though. Just an impression I've gotten over the last few years.

I swear the horse collar rule is an example. Before college made that rule you started seeing it called in college games once it became an NFL rule.

[David Earl]

I've had a problem with this. It seems when the NFL comes out with an interpretation you start seeing calls in college going with that interpretation. I'm obviously not in the officials meetings but I get the impression that officials are using what they learn on Sundays to call the games on Saturday and that's not how it's supposed to work.

I could be totally wrong on that though. Just an impression I've gotten over the last few years.

I swear the horse collar rule is an example. Before college made that rule you started seeing it called in college games once it became an NFL rule.

I think the powers that be in the NCAA want things like this in place to help players prepare for the NFL. Not saying I agree, since clearly most players don't advance to the NFL. But I think that's what they're doing.

[stoopified]

The play where this was really bothersome was Colt's INT in the endzone in the 2008 RRS that was ruled an incompletion. That was exactly the play I thought of when this play occurred.

[StatesEye]

I looked at the NCAA 2013-2014 rule book. It's available for download as a PDF at http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4309-2013-and-2014-ncaa-football-rules-and-interpretations.aspx.

Below, I have copied unaltered (except for my underlines) sections of the pertinent rules (as I see them).

Page FR-27
Section 2, Article 3a

Loose Ball
ARTICLE 3. a. A loose ball is a live ball not in player possession during:
1. A running play.
2. A scrimmage or free kick before possession is gained or regained or the
ball is dead by rule.
3. The interval after a legal forward pass is touched and before it becomes
complete, incomplete or intercepted. This interval is during a forward
pass play, and any player eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any
direction.

Page FR-29
Section 4, Article 3a

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.


From what I remember, the "spirit" of this rule was introduced nearly a decade ago. Apparently, though, these section underwent "major editorial changes" this year.

[OU_Sooners75]

The call was all sorts of messed up.

The WR had possession and his knee and elbow hit the ground. The only time he lost control of the ball was after ground contact and the defender stripped it.

Should have been ruled a completion. And never ruled incomplete or an interception.

[daysgoneby]

That's what I saw too. Completion.

[jkjsooner]

I looked at the NCAA 2013-2014 rule book. It's available for download as a PDF at http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4309-2013-and-2014-ncaa-football-rules-and-interpretations.aspx.

Below, I have copied unaltered (except for my underlines) sections of the pertinent rules (as I see them).

Page FR-27
Section 2, Article 3a

Loose Ball
ARTICLE 3. a. A loose ball is a live ball not in player possession during:
1. A running play.
2. A scrimmage or free kick before possession is gained or regained or the
ball is dead by rule.
3. The interval after a legal forward pass is touched and before it becomes
complete, incomplete or intercepted. This interval is during a forward
pass play, and any player eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any
direction.

Page FR-29
Section 4, Article 3a

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.


From what I remember, the "spirit" of this rule was introduced nearly a decade ago. Apparently, though, these section underwent "major editorial changes" this year.


I think the relevant points are:

1. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform
an act common to the game. Were the two steps enough to meet this criteria? I thought so but I am biased.

2. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass Did Metoyer go to the ground in the act of catching the pass? I didn't think so but again I'm biased.

3. 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. I may not remember it correctly but I don't remember the loss of possession being simultaneous to Metoyer hitting the ground. His elbow hit and then later as he was rolling he lost possession. If I remember right then this should have been a completion.

This part of the rule clearly differs from the NFL rule which does require possession throughout the full process. It appears here that it only requires possession at some discernible moment after contacting the ground.


I'm guessing that if a player goes to the ground after catching a pass, if #1 does not apply (receiver did not perform an act common to the game while upright) then #2 is assumed to apply (receiver goes to ground while catching a pass).

[BoulderSooner79]

I think the relevant points are:

1. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform
an act common to the game. Were the two steps enough to meet this criteria? I thought so but I am biased.

2. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass Did Metoyer go to the ground in the act of catching the pass? I didn't think so but again I'm biased.

3. 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. I may not remember it correctly but I don't remember the loss of possession being simultaneous to Metoyer hitting the ground. His elbow hit and then later as he was rolling he lost possession. If I remember right then this should have been a completion.

This part of the rule clearly differs from the NFL rule which does require possession throughout the full process. It appears here that it only requires possession at some discernible moment after contacting the ground.


I'm guessing that if a player goes to the ground after catching a pass, if #1 does not apply (receiver did not perform an act common to the game while upright) then #2 is assumed to apply (receiver goes to ground while catching a pass).

1) I didn't think so, and I am biased too.

2) I thought so (i.e. the rule applied), and I am biased too.

3) I think the "if there is doubt" clause is what tipped the decision. It was obviously close because they reviewed it for a long time and the video was clear.

The college rule differs from the NFL a bit by necessity in this case since a receiver is not down unless touched in the NFL, but I don't think that made a difference here. It's replay that makes something that should be simple like a catch so complicated. A different issue, but I personally like replay overall.

What *was* clear is that this was on Metoyer. The pass was perfect and he should have hung on until he got up, and tossed the ball to the ref leaving no doubt. Good lesson for him at a time it didn't cost anything but stats. Also a good lesson for our DBs to always try to strip the ball until the whistle blows.

[jkjsooner]

I just watched the interception again in slow motion. Here's what I think.

1. Metoyer did take two steps but he was not under full control but instead was losing his balance during these steps. So I think it's fair to say he did go to the ground while making the catch.

2. The loss of possession was nowhere near simultaneous to Metoyer hitting the ground. Metoyer's knee hit first and the ball was clearly in his possession at this moment and immediately following this moment. Then Metoyer's elbow went down and it appears that he had possession at that point as well. It wasn't until the defender tugged at the ball that Metoyer lost possession.

I guess I don't understand the following:


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 ..... 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.

What does "throughout the process of contacting the ground" mean? What does "while simultaneously touching the ground" mean?

One interpretation would be that Metoyer just needed to maintain possession throughout the initial contact with the ground. If that is the case it should have been a catch.

Another interpretation would be that Metoyer had to maintain possession while any part of his body first hit the ground. In that case it's still a catch because his elbow hitting the ground did not jar the ball loose.

Another interpretation would be that he has to maintain possession until he comes to some sort of stop on the ground with possession. This could be considered the "process of contacting the ground." This would be more like the NFL interpretation. If this is the case then it's not a catch and is an interception.

Yet another interpretation is that he has to maintain possession until he is no longer contacting the ground since he is "simultaneously touching the ground" the entire time he is on the ground. That would be an odd interpretation as he could lie on the ground for 10 seconds and then throw the ball to the official and that would be considered an incomplete pass.

[BoulderSooner79]

I think all your questions about definitions show exactly why the replay guys pondered this one for so long. The one thing I saw that you didn't mention is that it appeared Metoyers other hand (without the ball) may have jarred the ball loose for a moment as his body hit the ground. If it were so judged, then the knee/elbow hitting the ground prior may have been discounted and he needed to re-acquire control which didn't happen because the DB swiped the ball at that point. I could have understood the ruling going either way, so didn't seem controversial to me - just a flukey play.

[birddog]

Worked out just fine. Our d bowed up and held on for the shutout.

[MyT Oklahoma]

Worked out just fine. Our d bowed up and held on for the shutout.

Amen.

[CobraKai]

Worked out just fine. Our d bowed up and held on for the shutout.

True, but 150 yards passing, 3TDs, no INTs would have looked better on TK's stats. :)

[jkjsooner]

Worked out just fine. Our d bowed up and held on for the shutout.

Worked out this time. I'd still like to know the interpretation of the rule before next time. The wording is clearly ambiguous. I just hope the actual officials' understanding is less ambiguous.

And I don't trust the Fox guy. He does NFL games as well and on things like this he's very likely to give you the NFL interpretation.

[JLEW1818]

On a side note. The fact that receivers have to maintain possession throughout the TD catch is so stupid. As soon as both feet touch the ground in the end zone the play should be over. A running back could literally run in a TD and then kick it into the stands.

If a WR catches a TD and immediately kicks the ball in the stands... Is that a catch?!??

[stoops the eternal pimp]

My only thought through all of it was hold on to the ball and the officials do not get involved.

[sooner_born_1960]

On a side note. The fact that receivers have to maintain possession throughout the TD catch is so stupid. As soon as both feet touch the ground in the end zone the play should be over. A running back could literally run in a TD and then kick it into the stands.

If a WR catches a TD and immediately kicks the ball in the stands... Is that a catch?!??
Why is it so hard to comprehend that there has to be a catch before it can be a touchdown catch?

[BoulderSooner79]

On a side note. The fact that receivers have to maintain possession throughout the TD catch is so stupid. As soon as both feet touch the ground in the end zone the play should be over. A running back could literally run in a TD and then kick it into the stands.

If a WR catches a TD and immediately kicks the ball in the stands... Is that a catch?!??

Only if he was falling while catching and was able to kick it during the fall.

[BoulderSooner79]

My only thought through all of it was hold on to the ball and the officials do not get involved.

My thoughts precisely. There was nothing special about the catch/fall that made it difficult and the DB didn't do anything heroic to dislodge the ball. Hang on the the ball, Metoyer and life will be good!

[KantoSooner]

What was the old saying? Baseball's the sport for accountants and football's the sport for lawyers. It's an absurd rule, but that's what the rule is for now.