That was not a Catch

[CousCuse]

if your going to the ground before securing the catch you have to keep control after hitting the ground, the refs ruled he had already secured the ball before being tackled to the ground so it was a catch

He received the ball and upon coming down went directly to the ground which is all part of completing a reception, he had the ball cradled against his belt area and upon contact with the ground the ball was fumbled, and squirted out. No catch. I would post the play but don't possess that capability.

 

[hoopsupstate]

They are what the refs say they are. Be happy! We won the game.

 

[Chris02M]

anyone wanting another look at the fumble lateral play go to the 2.54 of this video

 

[Chris02M]

4.55 on the other play talked about here

 

[upperdeck]

Yeah I have a hard time saying he had full control before he started going to the ground and dropped it. he got 2-3 steps in but the ball was sliding down his body so the catch doesnt really start until he is just about going down and then he has to complete it thru the ground which he didnt.. now if he had caught it clean and done the same thing i could see saying he caught it.

 

[CousCuse]

Yeah I have a hard time saying he had full control before he started going to the ground and dropped it. he got 2-3 steps in but the ball was sliding down his body so the catch doesnt really start until he is just about going down and then he has to complete it thru the ground which he didnt.. now if he had caught it clean and done the same thing i could see saying he caught it.

That's exactly how I saw it. I can't accept everyone of these close calls going against Syracuse. If people get called out in public, it will often change their behavior.

 

[Red Holzman]

Thought he did not have control while going out of bounds. Ball on his thigh.

+1
As the receiver went down/rolled/turned from the camera, no good view to confirm he ever secured the ball.

From different perspective- if ruled incomplete I didn't think there was enough evidence to overturn.

 

[CousCuse]

+1
As the receiver went down/rolled/turned from the camera, no good view to confirm he ever secured the ball.

From different perspective- if ruled incomplete I didn't think there was enough evidence to overturn.

Wouldn't the evidence be that the ball came rolling out? That he never secured it?

 

[Red Holzman]

Wouldn't the evidence be that the ball came rolling out? That he never secured it?

We're on the same page: I don't think it was a catch.
If ruled INcomplete, the replay had nothing to overturn that.