Simultaneously catch

[Baxter48]

Can someone explain to me why if both the receiver and the defender go for the ball the receiver has possession and crosses the goal line with both feet then is tackled and the defender wrestles it away, compared that to a running back or quarterback leaps in the end zone and a soon as the ball crosses the plane it’s a td even if the runner hits the ground and the ball comes out. Why are there two different standards?

 

[schuele]

Still?

 

[InMotion]

The difference is if Nebraska and B10 refs are involved. Whenever it is a negative for Nebraska, that's the correct call.

 

[BugsAreQualityProtein]

Good question. And another question is why is Neyor’s reception an INT in college but touchdown in the NFL?

 

[Champs 70-71-94-95-97]

The technical excuse is that the receiver has to “complete the catch” vs a runner who already has possession and breaks the plane

 

[Big bo fan]

Good question. And another question is why is Neyor’s reception an INT in college but touchdown in the NFL?

Neyors would not have been a TD in the NFL. You have to complete the catch in the NFL just like college.

 

[Baxter48]

The technical excuse is that the receiver has to “complete the catch” vs a runner who already has possession and breaks the plane

I understand that but to me it’s a double standard the runner then should have to hold on to the football or not just putting the ball over the goal line and then getting pushed back the ball must stay over the line

 

[oldjar07]

The technical excuse is that the receiver has to “complete the catch” vs a runner who already has possession and breaks the plane

That's the exact reason actually. You have to complete the process of the catch, which in the two cases this year, our receivers didn't accomplish.

 

[Big bo fan]

That's the exact reason actually. You have to complete the process of the catch, which in the two cases this year, our receivers didn't accomplish.

And those are DR only INTs the receivers not holding onto the ball.

 

[c3o]

I understand that but to me it’s a double standard the runner then should have to hold on to the football or not just putting the ball over the goal line and then getting pushed back the ball must stay over the line

The WR never gained possession in either INT.

 

[huskerfan66]

I understand that but to me it’s a double standard the runner then should have to hold on to the football or not just putting the ball over the goal line and then getting pushed back the ball must stay over the line

It is but until the rule is changed it probably was not the wrong call of no td. I thought would be incomplete pass

 

[BleedRed78]

The WR never gained possession in either INT.

That's what's crazy to me though - neither did the dbs. Not before they were down whether it was a hip or elbow. Should've been incomplete passes dead ball... 🧐

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

if memory serves, it was ruled a TD on the field, never should have been over turned, and that goes for if it had called an int. if i'm wrong i claim i was drunk, but thats how i member it

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

Can someone explain to me why if both the receiver and the defender go for the ball the receiver has possession and crosses the goal line with both feet then is tackled and the defender wrestles it away, compared that to a running back or quarterback leaps in the end zone and a soon as the ball crosses the plane it’s a td even if the runner hits the ground and the ball comes out. Why are there two different standards?

If we had a better camera angle I'm pretty sure you would see that the ball was on the ground and it was an incompletion.

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

if memory serves, it was ruled a TD on the field, never should have been over turned, and that goes for if it had called an int. if i'm wrong i claim i was drunk, but thats how i member it

Half the problem is one called it an interception, then it was overruled as a TD. Not even sure which call to revert to.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

Half the problem is one called it an interception, then it was overruled as a TD. Not even sure which call to revert to.

But what was the official call on the field? I think it was a TD. Whatever the official call was, should have stood. IMO

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

But what was the official call on the field? I think it was a TD. Whatever the official call was, should have stood. IMO

I agree.

I also think our WR's or players in general need to play stronger and get that ball tucked right away. Most teams don't see it happen once in 10 years and it happened in 3 games straight if you count our defense in the Purdue game not pulling one in.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

As far as the OP question goes, it is as simple as already having possession of the ball.

 

[c3o]

That's what's crazy to me though - neither did the dbs. Not before they were down whether it was a hip or elbow. Should've been incomplete passes dead ball... 🧐

I think the DB had possession at the end of each. But I can be mistaken. Someone post some video

 

[TruHusker]

If we had a better camera angle I'm pretty sure you would see that the ball was on the ground and it was an incompletion.

What? So you assume this or did you see this “better camera angle” the officials did not? Wow

 

[BleedRed78]

I think the DB had possession at the end of each. But I can be mistaken. Someone post some video

Yeah but feel like I recall seeing the dbs knee already down which I figured it'd be dead ball incomplete pass.

Def a rule that could be better defined and processed.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Yeah but feel like I recall seeing the dbs knee already down which I figured it'd be dead ball incomplete pass.

Def a rule that could be better defined and processed.

A knee on the ground means nothing in that situation. A player has to have possession of the ball. A player can obtain possession laying on their back, that doesn't mean the ball is dead, they just can't advance the ball in college ball.

Maybe I am not understanding your interpretation of the situation.

 

[schuele]

A knee on the ground means nothing in that situation. A player has to have possession of the ball. A player can obtain possession laying on their back, that doesn't mean the ball is dead, they just can't advance the ball in college ball.

Maybe I am not understanding your interpretation of the situation.

Exactly. Being on the ground only matters if a body part is out of bounds when you gain possession.

 

[cavalot]

Can someone explain to me why if both the receiver and the defender go for the ball the receiver has possession and crosses the goal line with both feet then is tackled and the defender wrestles it away, compared that to a running back or quarterback leaps in the end zone and a soon as the ball crosses the plane it’s a td even if the runner hits the ground and the ball comes out. Why are there two different standards?

By rule a receiver has to finish the catch. That means through contact with the ground or another player. It doesn't matter whether it crosses the plane of the goal line as possession doesn't start until the catch is completed.

A running back or QB in the situation that you described has possession after the ball is handed off or take as a snap. Therefor breaking the plane with the ball is awarded as a TD