Football (and rules always start with the NFL, and lower levels decide whether or not to follow or create their own variation of said rule) needs to decide whether or not the ground plays defense. If the ground can't cause a fumble, the ground shouldn't be able to break up a pass.
Felt like that was a catch all day long. Felt like the ground didn’t sufficiently break up and defend the pass. Felt like the ball was moving, but the receiver kept his hands under it and controlled it enough to say that he “survived the ground”. Felt like had that been BAMA in that play, the call would have at least stood even if not confirmed. If we want to say that it wasn’t a catch, then the rule has to be revisited at the college level again.
So let's compare that play to the Duram TD. Duram has the ball, breaks the plane and then hits the ground and the ball comes free. TD! 6 has the ball firmly in his hand, takes a step or two, breaks the plane and then goes down and loses grip. Should be TD as the same criteria have been met. Possession and break the plane. Anything else is irrelevant or should be.
Watching the USCe vs VT game. There was an almost identical play and the replay officials again overturned the call on the field. Both games have SEC vs ACC teams. I do not know which conference officials were used used for each of the games.
My point exactly, especially the part about breaking the plane of the goal. In any other circumstance, breaking the plane ends the play with a TD. If he had possession when he broke the plane, losing it after hitting the ground is irrelevant. Or should be. Its the inconsistency of the rule that is the problem. That's the point that people need to start screaming at the rule makers. Either the ground can play defense or it can't. Sometimes? That's what needs fixing.
