Excellent pic of the "controversial" catch

[cbi1972]

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.

Your first argument is misguided. The catch is not yet complete with the knee down.
Your second argument is the correct one.

SECTION 4. Catch, Recovery, Possession :: NCAA Football Rules Online (rulebook.github.io)

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.
3. 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.

 

[IndyBison]

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.

He was going to the ground as part of completing the catch so he's not a runner yet. The fact he has control at that point is not relevant yet. If he was already considered a runner than the ball would be dead at the point of this photo.

 

[dayhiker]

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.

But that's not what I was replying to. I was replying to your statement about the ground not being able to cause a fumble.

 

[colbysullivan]

The ground can't cause a fumble.

But it can cause an incompletion. It happens literally every game.

 

[davefrat]

The "Clint Stoerner Rule?"

View attachment 39069

Does anyone wear shoulder pads that big anymore?

 

[RammerJammer14]

It sure as heck can cause an incomplete pass though.

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

As an aside. You still have one of the greatest profile pics in all of Tidefans and maybe internet history. That is all. 🫡

 

[2003TIDE]

As an aside. You still have one of the greatest profile pics in all of Tidefans and maybe internet history. That is all. 🫡

LOL. I feel like there are maybe 10 people left here that remember. I refuse to change it at this point.

 

[cbi1972]

LOL. I feel like there are maybe 10 people left here that remember. I refuse to change it at this point.

This is Rocky Block right?

 

[2003TIDE]

This is Rocky Block right?

Yes. From when the student photographer posted his high res originals online, had them copied, then threw tidefans.com under the bus when the university found out they were online. That was drawn in protest after UA threatened legal action against the site.

ADMIN NOTE: - EVERYONE READ THIS! PTB want no more UA photos on our site | TideFans.com

In case you want to take a trip down memory lane.

 

[jashleyren2]

The ground can't cause a fumble.

Well, not with that attitude it can't.

 

[REBELZED]

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

It just felt like word salad to me and at the end of it, I still had no idea what his opinion of the actual call was haha

 

[22Musso22]

View attachment 39057

Post of the year! You confirmed the catch. I truly missed the knee down. Great job!

 

[bamatex82]

LOL. I feel like there are maybe 10 people left here that remember. I refuse to change it at this point.

Please don't change it!

 

[Big Bama1966]

You do know if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts every time they hop...... Just sayin, the only controversy is from the two wing nuts in the booth. It was a catch and they looked at it upstairs and said nothing which means they saw no reason to overturn it.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I think we’re conflating what constitutes a completed catch vs. what causes a fumble.

As I understand the rule, a completed catch requires the receiver to control the ball through contact with the ground (or going out of bounds, or crossing the goal line).

A fumble assumes that an offensive player has control of the ball after the snap, then loses control before being downed by whatever means or crossing the goal line.

Now a question for someone who knows the rules better than I do: I’ve always understood that the runner is down whenever any part of the body other than hands or feet touch the ground.

Does it matter if the top of the hand or the top of the foot touch, but nothing else does?

It would be uncommon, but most likely to happen when there are defensive players under the runner preventing knees, hips, elbows, shoulders, etc. from touching. Or when a stumbling ballcarrier balances himself with a fist and the backs of his knuckles touch. Could happen with the back of the hand I guess, but that would be awkward and could potentially cause injury.

 

[BamaInCummingGA]

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 ball carrier is either a master contortionist or a master at defying physics for this scenario to play out.

 

[cbi1972]

The ball carrier is either a master contortionist or a master at defying physics for this scenario to play out.

 

[TideEngineer08]

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."

 

[IndyBison]

Now a question for someone who knows the rules better than I do: I’ve always understood that the runner is down whenever any part of the body other than hands or feet touch the ground.

Does it matter if the top of the hand or the top of the foot touch, but nothing else does?

It would be uncommon, but most likely to happen when there are defensive players under the runner preventing knees, hips, elbows, shoulders, etc. from touching. Or when a stumbling ballcarrier balances himself with a fist and the backs of his knuckles touch. Could happen with the back of the hand I guess, but that would be awkward and could potentially cause injury.

That is definitely when it can happen. It's not common but it does happen.

As for the first part of your post above, a runner is down when he's in possession of the ball and anything other than his hand or feet touches the ground. The wrist is considered part of the hand. And the top of the hand or top of foot does NOT make a runner down. But if the head or shoulder or elbow or shin hits the ground the runner is down.

 

[BamaInCummingGA]

Nice try but the poster stated that the players feet be on the ground and that is clearly not what is going on in your screen shot.