Excellent pic of the "controversial" catch

[BloodyTusk]

 

[cbi1972]

A still frame before the end of the play doesn't mean anything. This was a catch but the image doesn't prove it.

 

[B1GTide]

Why do we care? I checked the game log, and it is still a catch. Alabama still won.

Shrug

 

[colbysullivan]

View attachment 39057

Tell me you don’t know the rule without telling me…

 

[GulfCoastTider]

The ground can't cause a fumble.

 

[JayBama_in_PCOLA]

Either way he controlled it and Bama controlled the game.

By the way, what a crazy play call on 4th and 4. This was a seven point (at minimum) swing.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

The ground can't cause a fumble.

I know that is supposed to be true but on the field it is sometimes not true and it makes me want to kick something.

 

[BamaMoon]

A still frame before the end of the play doesn't mean anything. This was a catch but the image doesn't prove it.

Agreed, but it does show something...he caught the ball and had it firmly within his arms before he hit the ground.

What it doesn't show is how the ball moved a little once he hit the ground, but that's allowable as long as the ground doesn't help him catch it OR cause him to lose control of it (surviving the ground). And neither of those happened so therefore it's a CATCH.

Not that we needed this "proof" because it doesn't matter NOW. We are SEC Champs!

 

[dayhiker]

The ground can't cause a fumble.

But that doesn't apply here. If he'd hit the ground and the ball came loose and rolled away, we wouldn't say it was a catch.

 

[2003TIDE]

The ground can't cause a fumble.

It sure as heck can cause an incomplete pass though.

Either way it was a catch. This picture doesn't prove or disprove anything.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

A still frame before the end of the play doesn't mean anything. This was a catch but the image doesn't prove it.

Seems like I'd always heard that the ground CAN'T cause a fumble. They must have changed that rule...

 

[dayhiker]

Seems like I'd always heard that the ground CAN'T cause a fumble. They must have changed that rule...

That applies once you have prossession.

 

[davefrat]

The SEC reviewed the call during the game.

It's a non-issue other than being a crying point for people who like to cry about stuff.

 

[IndyBison]

No such rule as "the ground can't cause a fumble". That's more announcer-speak. There is a basis of truth in the statement though. It assumes the runner already has possession of the ball. If anything on the runner other than hands or feet touch the ground the ball is dead. If that happens and the ball comes out, it's not a fumble because the ball is already dead. A fumble can only happen with a live ball. But let's say the runner is going down but still only touching the ground with this feet. He's holding the ball in his hand and the ball hits the grounds while still in his hand (still only feet touching). The ball comes out due to that contact, it would be a fumble. You could correctly say "the ground did cause the fumble."

 

[REBELZED]

No such rule as "the ground can't cause a fumble". That's more announcer-speak. There is a basis of truth in the statement though. It assumes the runner already has possession of the ball. If anything on the runner other than hands or feet touch the ground the ball is dead. If that happens and the ball comes out, it's not a fumble because the ball is already dead. A fumble can only happen with a live ball. But let's say the runner is going down but still only touching the ground with this feet. He's holding the ball in his hand and the ball hits the grounds while still in his hand (still only feet touching). The ball comes out due to that contact, it would be a fumble. You could correctly say "the ground did cause the fumble."

This is the most "referee" answer ever LOL

 

[dayhiker]

This is the most "referee" answer ever LOL

Considering the comments made in this thread, that level of answer was needed here.

 

[cbi1972]

No such rule as "the ground can't cause a fumble". That's more announcer-speak. There is a basis of truth in the statement though. It assumes the runner already has possession of the ball. If anything on the runner other than hands or feet touch the ground the ball is dead. If that happens and the ball comes out, it's not a fumble because the ball is already dead. A fumble can only happen with a live ball. But let's say the runner is going down but still only touching the ground with this feet. He's holding the ball in his hand and the ball hits the grounds while still in his hand (still only feet touching). The ball comes out due to that contact, it would be a fumble. You could correctly say "the ground did cause the fumble."

This is the most "referee" answer ever LOL

Considering the comments made in this thread, that level of answer was needed here.

This example sounds far fetched but does happen frequently when players stretch out with the ball while diving or with their legs wrapped up.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

No such rule as "the ground can't cause a fumble". That's more announcer-speak. There is a basis of truth in the statement though. It assumes the runner already has possession of the ball. If anything on the runner other than hands or feet touch the ground the ball is dead. If that happens and the ball comes out, it's not a fumble because the ball is already dead. A fumble can only happen with a live ball. But let's say the runner is going down but still only touching the ground with this feet. He's holding the ball in his hand and the ball hits the grounds while still in his hand (still only feet touching). The ball comes out due to that contact, it would be a fumble. You could correctly say "the ground did cause the fumble."

The "Clint Stoerner Rule?"

 

[GulfCoastTider]

But that doesn't apply here. If he'd hit the ground and the ball came loose and rolled away, we wouldn't say it was a catch.

I can argue this both ways and both result in the same conclusion: Completed reception.

The photo in the OP shows both possession and knee down. The play is dead right there and it's a completed reception.

Later photos and slo mo show that Bond maintains control and the ball rolls briefly over his hand, with the hand on the ground and then briefly touches the ground. Again, completed reception.

 

[rolltide7854]

The SEC reviewed the call during the game.

It's a non-issue other than being a crying point for people who like to cry about stuff.

Yes, Gary we are talking about you.