Slayton's catch in the 3rd quarter that was a non-catch

[gr82b4au 5,568]

I simply do not understand why we have replay if the people looking at it can't get it correct. 3rd quarter in the red zone Stid throws it to Slayton. That was a catch. He caught the ball, made a move to the inside, he went down, and then his elbow hit the ground causing the ball to come lose. Even the announcers said it would be overturned. It was obvious. Not that it matters this time but in a big game it would have mattered.. If they are going to take the time to stop the play, get it right. 

[meh130 1,043]

Here is why (From NCAA rulebook):

Catch, Interception, Recovery

ARTICLE 3. a. To catch a ball means that a player:

1. Secures control of a live ball in flight 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.

e. An interception is a catch of an opponent’s pass or fumble.

f. A catch by any kneeling or prone inbounds player is a completion or interception (Rules 7-3-6 and 7).

g. A player recovers a ball if he fulfills the criteria in paragraphs a, b, c, and d for catching a ball that is still alive after hitting the ground.

h. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.

b. above applies. Because the act of catching the pass was not considered complete, then the ground knocking it out makes it an incomplete pass. I think c. applies to balls caught in the air.

I recall a similar play during bowl season where this rule came up.

[gr82b4au 5,568]

Yep I know the rules. That is my point exactly. He had already caught the ball, landed, turned his body and made a move to the inside and then was hit... so it should not have been ruled "in the process of catching the ball". It should have been ruled "ground cannot cause a fumble". 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

While I get the rule, meh, if you look at the film, he obviously had control of the ball and was ready to go for YAC before he was tackled.  The rules you highlighted were primarily designed for diving catches and the like. When it happens like it did with Slayton, the refs should give the benefit to the receiver, but they never do, because the preference is not to overturn the call, and when the ball comes out, the call is always fumble.

[oracle79 3,569]

1 hour ago, gr82b4au said:

ground cannot cause a fumble

and would be a lot simpler to also add, "the ground cannot cause an incompletion".

[boomstick 1,315]

1 hour ago, gr82b4au said:

Yep I know the rules. That is my point exactly. He had already caught the ball, landed, turned his body and made a move to the inside and then was hit... so it should not have been ruled "in the process of catching the ball". It should have been ruled "ground cannot cause a fumble". 

I don't think he ever makes a "football" move. I know this has been the big debate about catch vs no catch in the NFL. JMO,  Slayton barely gets his feet on the ground and never gets his hips turned up field. So I think he's still in the process of the catch when he goes to the ground. Had he caught it and taken a step or two, I'd be right there with you, but I think this is the right call.

[1TexasTiger 55]

The running back was wide open

[AUMASTERS 555]

4 minutes ago, 1TexasTiger said:

The running back was wide open

He was, and if Stidham would have give him a couple seconds to get down field he would have walked into the endzone. 

[WarTiger 3,896]

2 hours ago, boomstick said:

I don't think he ever makes a "football" move. I know this has been the big debate about catch vs no catch in the NFL. JMO,  Slayton barely gets his feet on the ground and never gets his hips turned up field. So I think he's still in the process of the catch when he goes to the ground. Had he caught it and taken a step or two, I'd be right there with you, but I think this is the right call.

I absolutely agree.  There's no "football move" there in the least.  He lost it when he went to the ground and did not maintain possession to the ground.  Incomplete Pass and an easy call.     Oh and by the way, the ground CAN in fact cause a fumble.  I'm not sure where people come up with some of these things (mostly from announcers) but there are definitely situations where the ground can in fact cause a fumble. 

[boomstick 1,315]

18 minutes ago, 1TexasTiger said:

The running back was wide open

I think Slayton is open too, but the throw is behind him and maybe a little late. If the throw is accurate and on time, Slayton might be able to avoid the falling safety and turn that into a TD. 

[oracle79 3,569]

34 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Oh and by the way, the ground CAN in fact cause a fumble

Curious in NCAA version.  If a player is tackled and the impact of hitting the ground causes the ball to come out, is that a fumble?  If not, why should it be any different for a pass completion.

Also another question.  Is a play over when a person with control of the ball goes out of bounds?  If so, how can a pass be incomplete after a play is officially over?  Example, receiver catches ball cleanly and establishes control and gets one foot down inbounds.  Then steps on sideline with next step and right after is either stripped of the ball or hits the ground and the ball pops out?  Complete or incomplete?

Bottom line, stupid rule.

[mikeholiday 132]

55 minutes ago, 1TexasTiger said:

The running back was wide open

Yes, 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage. And as if the defense wouldn't close much of the distance while the ball was reaching him. 

Love Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest. 

[AURex 1,978]

I'm with WarTiger on this. We can argue till we are blue in the face, but you can line up 100 refs and I think they will all make the same call.

 

[DAG 33,949]

1 hour ago, mikeholiday said:

Yes, 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage. And as if the defense wouldn't close much of the distance while the ball was reaching him. 

Love Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest. 

I know right? Much easier to see that sitting at home on your couch, replaying it over and over.

[DAG 33,949]

2 hours ago, AUMASTERS said:

He was, and if Stidham would have give him a couple seconds to get down field he would have walked into the endzone. 

No, he wouldn't have as the CB is playing zone and there is an LB spying the middle of the field. As soon as the CB got done with his jam of Slayton, he would've released into the flats as soon as the ball was released, then you guys would be saying why didn't he throw it pass the sticks?

[mikeholiday 132]

27 minutes ago, DAG said:

No, he wouldn't have as the CB is playing zone and there is an LB spying the middle of the field. As soon as the CB got done with his jam of Slayton, he would've released into the flats as soon as the ball was released, then you guys would be saying why didn't he throw it pass the sticks?

He had the throw. Did the right thing going for the first down.

The throw seemed to be behind Slayton but that is another problem entirely. 

[1TexasTiger 55]

2 hours ago, mikeholiday said:

Yes, 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage. And as if the defense wouldn't close much of the distance while the ball was reaching him. 

Love Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest. 

Whether "Monday morning quarterbacking," or film analysis, it's something all players and coaches do to correct mistakes. The nearest defender is almost 10 yards away. You get the ball to your playmakers and let them do what they do. I'll bet on our Rb with 10 yards of open field can make at least one defender miss.  Tom Brady has made a living off of throws just like that.

[1TexasTiger 55]

Let's look closer. I believe you are correct, the corner is in a zone.  Notice however, he is playing outside and on top of the receiver. That says the zone is a deep 1/3 or it could be man with a single high safety.  The outside linebacker took the underneath crossing route which actually looks like a coverage bust. #32 of GSU should have taken the receiver coming underneath but he looked lost. If the pass went to the back he would have had a terrible angle to make the tackle. Slayton could have become a blocker leaving one man to beat for the end zone. Thats just my opinion.  

[boomstick 1,315]

8 minutes ago, 1TexasTiger said:

Let's look closer. I believe you are correct, the corner is in a zone.  Notice however, he is playing outside and on top of the receiver. That says the zone is a deep 1/3 or it could be man with a single high safety.  The outside linebacker took the underneath crossing route which actually looks like a coverage bust. #32 of GSU should have taken the receiver coming underneath but he looked lost. If the pass went to the back he would have had a terrible angle to make the tackle. Slayton could have become a blocker leaving one man to beat for the end zone. Thats just my opinion.  

It's also third down, and the throw Stidham makes is past the marker. Dumping off to the back means the back has to make a play to pick up a first down. Had the throw to Slayton been forced into coverage or looked like the wrong decision, I might agree with getting to the back. But I think Stidham makes the right decision but didn't execute the throw well enough. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

11 hours ago, boomstick said:

 Stidham makes the right decision but didn't execute the throw well enough. 

But Slaton caught the pass. Isn't that him doing his job? If Slayton could have held on when he hit the ground, we would have the first down (and I continue to argue that we should have been given the catch).

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,628]

41 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

But Slaton caught the pass. Isn't that him doing his job? If Slayton could have heald on when he hit the ground, we would have the first down (and I continue to argue that we should have been given the catch).

Think about it like this, would you rather give the lion's share of blame to the QB who threw it behind the receiver with several defenders bearing down or the receiver for not being able to maintain that catch? Just think about that statement in a general sense. 

[mustache eagle 2,388]

I've got another take on this play that had me irritated during the game.  If I recall, the ref on the far side is the one who called it incomplete.  IMO he could not have adequately seen the play.

first, he is running down the sideline as you can see his feet in the above clip.  Second, The play was 20 yards from him.  Third and most important, the tackler was between slayton and the ref.  I believe his line of sight was obstructed.

if I recall, the ref on top of the play didn't see it and looked to the far side for input.  Also if I recall, the ref coming from this side came in and called it a completion and was spotting the ball where slayton went down.

Assuming the play was called by the ref on the far side ... if he said he didn't have a clear view then I believe the near side ref would have called it complete and the replay would have been based on a completion which they may not have overturned.

what say y'all?

[Beaker 2,457]

You're tight the ref farthest away called it.....weird.  

I am going to disagree:  his "football move" was coming down with possession and turning his body upfield.   That is the natural direction a football player will go with the ball.  The defender hit him, causing him to go down to the ground.

Catch ball?  Done. Land with possession? Done, (football move begins)  Turn body to go upfield?  Done. Gets hit now; leg tries to go forward?  Yes. Elbow hits ground causing ball to squirt free.....

If an old guy like me sees this, I must not understand the rule or the refs blew it.  I am thinking if maybe he ran 10-15 yards they may have called it a catch.  

[gravejd 3,266]

I wasn't surprised to see it ruled incomplete. You can catch a ball have it firmly under control and take 2 steps failing down and if that ball comes out when you hit it is incomplete. I don't really agree with how they call it but that is currently the way it seems to go

[logan adams 333]

This shouldn't even be a debate. Slayton should have caught that ball and held on to it. Our receivers really need to step up this weekend and help Stidham.