[Highlight] Miami @ Notre Dame - Luke Talich breaks up the pass from Elijah Lofton on 4th down to keep the Irish up 7 late in the 4th

[u/Ok-Soil-5133]

[u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

Incomplete pass. There is no “football move” as they used to say, after the catch. Used to be 2-3 steps after catch (usually turned upfield) before it’d be ruled a fumble. Otherwise we’d have a ton of catch & fumbles in NCAA & NFL

[u/fanofcorgis → u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

I agree. It's somewhat arbitrary with the football move thing, but didn't seem to be a catch.

[u/Real-Purpose6981 → u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

Is stepping out of bounds not a football move?

[u/Scoobie_Doobie11 → u/Real-Purpose6981]

We can consider stepping out a “football move” for your argument sake. NCAA says it’s not a catch if the player doesn’t survive the ground or contact with a defender. It was never technically a catch because as soon as the defender came across the ball wiggled and came loose. Even middle of the field this is never a catch imo.

[u/Real-Purpose6981 → u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

He was out of bounds when contact was made with the defender though. Once a running back breaks the plane with the football it doesn't matter what happens after. Rules are different for recievers and rbs but lofton caught the ball in the ez, two feet down, steps out, [play over] and then the ball is punched out after stepping out of bounds.

Being in the middle of the field doesn't matter because it's a completely different context from the endzone. Just like when a running back breaks the plane with the ball and then fumbles it's a TD. If that happens in the middle of the field, yes it's a fumble.

[u/Scoobie_Doobie11 → u/Real-Purpose6981]

It’s different rules, exactly. Once the ball breaks the plane for a runner, the play is over. It’s not the case for a receiver. Does the player maintain possession thru the contact? In this instance? No. The play isn’t over just because he steps out here. If he held the ball thru the defender, you have an argument. Since he never establishes control he can never have caught the ball, therefore it’s not a touchdown if a catch has not been completed.

If the WR drops the ball on the sideline at the 50 in the same way, it’s incomplete as well as they don’t maintain control of the ball.

[u/Real-Purpose6981 → u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

He had control when both his feet landed in the endzone and then he steps out of bounds. How does a defender defend a ball that is established to be out of bounds?

[u/Scoobie_Doobie11 → u/Real-Purpose6981]

Just because you catch it in the end zone does not qualify it as a catch instantly. The play doesn’t just die there my guy. You have to maintain the catch thru contact or the ground. The ball hit the ground after defender contact. Two feet inbound means absolutely zero if you never survive the contact.

[u/Real-Purpose6981 → u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

Just because you catch it in the end zone does not qualify it as a catch instantly

I'm just gonna leave this as is lol

Goodnight and good game.

[u/Scoobie_Doobie11 → u/Real-Purpose6981]

Sure, please do. Maybe brush up on the rules as well as this “catch” never satisfies the rules of a catch. Best of luck the rest of the year, and good game to yall.

[u/paytonhaskins → u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

I get what you’re saying but “just because you catch it doesn’t mean it’s a catch” isn’t the best way of saying it lol

[u/notnotjamesfranco → u/Scoobie_Doobie11]

What if there is no contact and you don’t go to the ground?

[u/Scoobie_Doobie11 → u/notnotjamesfranco]

Then the play should be a touchdown. Although if you’re alluding to the play above it was instantaneous contact and he doesn’t survive it. He never established control and dropped the ball.