quote:
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.

Your argument is incorrect. That said, on this particular play, I don't think there would have been enough evidence to overturn it. For better optics, it being a close call in a close game, they should have called for an on-field review.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by meansonny

ATL

Member since Sep 2012

25999 posts

Posted on 12/6/23 at 10:15 am to BhamTigah

The ball was pressed against his chest (not in both hands) and moved when in contact with the ground.

We can debate the term evidence all day.
But the above statement is true.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by coachcrisp

pensacola, fl

Member since Jun 2012

30609 posts

Posted on 12/6/23 at 10:22 am to BhamTigah

quote:
Your argument is incorrect. That said, on this particular play, I don't think there would have been enough evidence to overturn it. For better optics, it being a close call in a close game, they should have called for an on-field review.

I can agree with this. The problem is that with nearly all games, a number of plays are close, but not enough to allow a change of the call, and the SEC office did say that the play was relooked at, so.....