Agree with your first part. I think another problem with instant replay review is they slow it down too much so that anything can look like a bobble.

MisterNoodle;569006 said:

---

I'm going to sound like an old geezer but in the last 20-30 years it seems like it has gotten harder to make a diving "catch." Back in the day, if the receiver rolled over and he had the ball, it was almost always ruled a catch, unless a ref clearly saw a short hop before the catch. Nowadays, it's virtually impossible to make a diving catch - when the receiver dives, the ball is almost always going to hit the ground and when it does, of course the ball is going to "move." That doesn't mean the receiver lost control of the ball at any time. Yet time and again we see that pass ruled incomplete.

And in the same time period it has gotten a lot harder to fumble the ball. Back in the day, if the ball carrier hit the ground and the ball popped out, it was usually ruled a fumble. And with good reason IMO - the ball carrier needs to hold on to the ball. Plus it's a nice clear rule, meaning fewer disputes and fewer hard feelings about getting jobbed by the ref. Nowadays, it's just the opposite. It's usually ruled down by contact or at least overturned on replay.

I liked the way it was, on both counts.

---

Check out the 5:37 point of this PRD74's [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti-myKn8LrQ"][COLOR="Blue"]link[/COLOR][/URL].

pingpong2;569101 said:

---

I'd imagine that the metric used to determine if a receiver maintains control of a catch is the same used to determine if he subsequently fumbles. I'm not sure what the actual rule specifies, other than the "making a football move" cliche that every analyst and their mom uses.

---

The Edmond play is the first play here:



I'll grant there is some gray area as we can't see everything that happens as he rolls over, but that looks to me like he maintained control throughout. The ball does touch the ground, but it's in control when it does.

MisterNoodle;569006 said:

---

I'm going to sound like an old geezer but in the last 20-30 years it seems like it has gotten harder to make a diving "catch." Back in the day, if the receiver rolled over and he had the ball, it was almost always ruled a catch, unless a ref clearly saw a short hop before the catch. Nowadays, it's virtually impossible to make a diving catch - when the receiver dives, the ball is almost always going to hit the ground and when it does, of course the ball is going to "move." That doesn't mean the receiver lost control of the ball at any time. Yet time and again we see that pass ruled incomplete.

And in the same time period it has gotten a lot harder to fumble the ball. Back in the day, if the ball carrier hit the ground and the ball popped out, it was usually ruled a fumble. And with good reason IMO - the ball carrier needs to hold on to the ball. Plus it's a nice clear rule, meaning fewer disputes and fewer hard feelings about getting jobbed by the ref. Nowadays, it's just the opposite. It's usually ruled down by contact or at least overturned on replay.

I liked the way it was, on both counts.

---

Ironic that the ground can't cause a fumble (your second point) but apparently always causes an incompletion (your first point). I guess I don't mind the fumble rule, but I hate the incompletion rule.

Coleman took 2 or 3 steps after the catch, then was tackled, and then the ball touched the ground. It is ridiculous that the ruling was not that he made the catch (he caught it and then took at least two steps), then was tackled (which he was) and then the ball touched the ground. It's not a fumble, not so much because the ground can't cause a fumble, but because he had it in his arms the entire time.

If you are going to take such a ridiculous, severe interpretation of the rule, then you have to do it in all situations. On Colorado's first drive, 3rd down and long inside Cal's territory, they threw to a receiver on the sideline. He caught the pass just before the first-down marker and was pushed out of bounds. The officials reviewed the play to make sure he got his feet down; he did and the play was ruled a catch.

HOWEVER, it was clear from the replay that the ball hit the ground, out of bounds, after he got his feet down and was pushed out of bounds. This is subject to the same rule, yet the officials apparently did not even think to consider it as they were looking at his feet. If you're going to apply this ridiculous interpretation of the rule in one instance, you better apply it in all instances, especially since the receiver had the ball for fewer steps and it was much more obvious that the ball hit the ground.

Ironically, this blown call ended up helping Cal. The "catch" gave CU a 4th and 1, which they did not convert. Without that ruling, they certainly attempt a field goal instead on 4th and long, and given how awesome their kicker is, probably convert. Maybe they win in regulation (of course, that ignores the horrible calls that went against cal making it a close game, but ceteris paribus, thank you officials for "saving" us)