What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The Paul Richardson "Non-Catch" call???

Rraalph 3000

Well-Known Member
Anyone have a replay of that play or can sum up what the refs saw that even put this call in jeopardy?? Still baffled about that play and wanted to re-watch, as from my vantage point it looked like he caught it, had 2 feet down, his butt then hits ground, he stands up and then flips the ball....

I've heard a few folks equating this to the "Calvin Johnson" rule from the Detroit game a few weeks back....but I don't see how that comes into play when you're down immediately upon hitting the ground in college.

Sorry if this has already been rehashed....
 
Ball came out when his arm hit the ground, he did not get up and flip it to the ref. Must've been they thought he didn't maintain control all the way through contact. I thought it was a ****ty call.
 
Ball came out when his arm hit the ground, he did not get up and flip it to the ref. Must've been they thought he didn't maintain control all the way through contact. I thought it was a ****ty call.

:yeahthat:
 
I thought it was catch, he was already down by that point but I could be wrong I guess. Maybe Im not updated on the possession rules, I think the Johnson play was a catch too but Im not a ref.
 
It was a catch.

Looked like the ground caused it. The ground can't cause a fumble on a run, but since it was a pass, perhaps that equates to an incompletion.
 
Supposedly the ground can't cause a fumble - but it can cause an incompletion. Because he didn't maintain control all the way down to the ground, they considered that an incomplete pass.

The officials from 1992 Stanford laugh at that call.
 
I think you now have to control the ball through the entire catch. Through my gold colored glasses, I thought it was a catch. But by rule I think that since he didn't establish control with a football move before going to the ground, that the ground knocking the ball out means he didn't complete the catch. I'm not totally sure, though. I could be mixing up the NFL rule with college.
 
I love football moves. Sometimes, I do them when no one is looking.

I think you now have to control the ball through the entire catch. Through my gold colored glasses, I thought it was a catch. But by rule I think that since he didn't establish control with a football move before going to the ground, that the ground knocking the ball out means he didn't complete the catch. I'm not totally sure, though. I could be mixing up the NFL rule with college.
 
He controlled it all the way up to having his feet down. I don't see how that can't be a catch. I saw the replay quite a few times. If it wasn't a catch then the rules are wrong.
 
IF the rule is the same as the NFL rule.... it is not a catch. He did have both feet down, but did not complete his football move by going to the ground retaining possession.

I did think the rule was different in college and I am working on finding that rule....
 
College rule is different from the pros.

The announcers thought it was a bad call, too. I thought it was a catch, I think if it had been originally called a catch and then reviewed, it would have been confirmed.
 
College rule is different from the pros.

The announcers thought it was a bad call, too. I thought it was a catch, I think if it had been originally called a catch and then reviewed, it would have been confirmed.

That is what I thought.... I thought it should have been a catch if the college rule was more liberally stated... there is no question he had both feet down with the ball....
 
IF the rule is the same as the NFL rule.... it is not a catch. He did have both feet down, but did not complete his football move by going to the ground retaining possession.

I did think the rule was different in college and I am working on finding that rule....

Ok what exactly is supposed to be the football move on that play? When hit feet hit and he landed on his ass or what? I know the NFL rule, eventho the Johnson call was crap because he has Dr. J size hands. I thought he was down and completed the catch.
 
Ok what exactly is supposed to be the football move on that play? When hit feet hit and he landed on his ass or what? I know the NFL rule, eventho the Johnson call was crap because he has Dr. J size hands. I thought he was down and completed the catch.

football move is defined as completing the motion..... Richardson never stopped his motion... he had 2 feet down and was falling... so under the NFL rule (which I think is different than the college rule) he never was able to stop his motion and fell down... the ball came out as he hit the ground...

If you compare Calvin Johnsons no catch to Richardsons... I say Richardsons would be incomplete under the NFL rule with MUCH LESS DEBATE than CJ's.
 
football move is defined as completing the motion..... Richardson never stopped his motion... he had 2 feet down and was falling... so under the NFL rule (which I think is different than the college rule) he never was able to stop his motion and fell down... the ball came out as he hit the ground...

If you compare Calvin Johnsons no catch to Richardsons... I say Richardsons would be incomplete under the NFL rule with MUCH LESS DEBATE than CJ's.

I know the rule, its just he was already down by contact. NFL, no catch. College, I dont really know.
 
A player gains possession when he secures the ball firmly by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds. The ball is then in player possession.

Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 7. a. To catch a ball means that a player: 1. Gains possession of a live ball in flight; or
2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or
3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV).
If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and control of the ball, it is a catch even though a subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds (A.R. 7-3-6-XVII). A player who satisfies any of these three conditions is said to have completed a catch.
b. An interception is a catch of an opponent’s pass or fumble.
c. A catch by any kneeling or prone inbounds player is a completion or interception (Rules 7-3-6 and 7).
d. A player recovers a ball if he fulfills any of the three criteria for catching a ball that is still alive after hitting the ground.
e. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch, interception or recovery.
f. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.

http://www.oficiales.org/A_2009/ncaa/NCAAINGLES/2009-10%20NCAA%20Footbal%20Rule%20Book.pdf
 
e. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch, interception or recovery.
This would seem to be the pertinent legalese...
But I've looked at the replay again and again, he has two feet down, then his butt down, then his elbow hits. I think the refs missed it, but tough call either way.
 
He jumped, caught and controlled the ball while falling backwards, was hit by a defender, and then hit the ground and ball came loose. I'm still not clear on why this wasn't a catch.
 
The best part of all of that... is even though they got ****ed over.. they battled back and capitalized on georgias **** up and punished them for 7 points...
 
Cie la vie. Karma repaid us with a roughing-the-kicker call. Seriously, how often does THAT happen? Most of the time roughing calls are on the punter, not kicker.
 
Cie la vie. Karma repaid us with a roughing-the-kicker call. Seriously, how often does THAT happen? Most of the time roughing calls are on the punter, not kicker.

It happens because you are taught to take the ball off his foot, I missed that play so didnt see it.
 
I agree with all who are saying it should have been a catch. The only thing I can think of that would justify the call on the replay is if the officials felt like they could not see it clearly enough all the way through to overrule the call on the field. I think that there is a hesitancy on the part of officials to overrule the call of a fellow official on the field, especially if that official feels strongly about his call. This kind of defeats the purpose of replay but officials do things like this (kind of like make-up calls in basketball.)
 
Back
Top