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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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?!??
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!
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.
