That catch/no catch was one of the toughest calls to make that I have ever seen. It looked to me like the nose of the ball hit the ground. That is why I assumed it was overruled and called no catch. However, if nees1212 is correct that it can still be ruled a catch if the ball hits the ground, then I would go with that being a catch. The receiver clearly had his hands/arms around the ball through the whole play. I would be interested in hearing the official explanation of why it was ruled no catch.

 

I'm a huge Michigan fan and it was a catch, IMO. He had clear control of the ball and the ground didn't help make the catch.

It's amazing we can all watch the same play and see it completely differently. I don't think he catches the ball if it doesn't hit the ground, which it clearly did.

I saw where Dernard Robinson recently announced he was returning for his Senior season. What is he projected to play at the next level? RB?

I didn't think it was a catch. My reasoning hasn't been mentioned, so I'll offer my opinion. It looked to me like the ball wasn't still and secure until he was already out of bounds. Whether it hit the ground or not, it did move some as he landed. I'm not sure what the college rules are, so I could be wrong, but that's what I thought when I saw the highlights this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG7Gt6C9rFM Here it is, make a case.

Sorry, it just doesn't look to me like he has completely secured the ball before touching out of bounds. That is my take. I guess, to state it technically, I don't believe he completed the catch prior to going out of bounds.

 

JMO

I'm a huge Michigan fan and it was a catch, IMO. He had clear control of the ball and the ground didn't help make the catch.

 

That was my thought as I watched it. I didn't see how they could overrule it because the ball appeared to be in his grasp throughout the entire play. I thought he would have caught the ball if it never touched the ground. But the ball did hit the ground. So what is the rule? Can the ball hit the ground and it still be a catch?

I think the bigger issue might be that he landed out of bounds.

Edit.

Maybe the biggest hit of the night was after the game when ESPN's Holly Rowe knocked another reporter out of the way to get to Hoke first:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld1bOkmDZsk&feature=player_embedded

The ball definitely touched the ground however if that is allowed in college as long as you have control I don't see how they overturned this one.

As long as the ball is not assisting in the catching of the ball, the ball can hit the ground and still be ruled as a catch. If the player has control of the ball but it hits the ground in the process, it should still be ruled as a completion.

I really did not care who won this game, but it sure appeared that Michigan got the benefit of the doubt on almost every call.

 

1. The overturning of the TD catch in OT(evidence was not conclusive to overturn)

2. Michigan had lineman illegally downfield on the fake FG, which led to 3 points.

3. The kicker should have been called for illgal motion.

4. The clock should have expired on last play before the FG before the half, the runner's knee clearly was down before he went out of bounds.

5. The pass interference call on the interception.

6. Virgina Tech runner did not seem to be down on a big 3rd or 4th down run, which they did not review.

 

I only wtched about half of the game, maybe the close calls evened up during the portions I missed.:idunno:

I think the bigger issue might be that he landed out of bounds.

 

As long as the ball is not assisting in the catching of the ball, the ball can hit the ground and still be ruled as a catch. If the player has control of the ball but it hits the ground in the process, it should still be ruled as a completion.

 

You two are on the right track. My guess is the official explanation will be that he was still bobbling the ball as he went out of bounds. He did not have control of the ball when he hit the ground. Therefore he did not have control of the ball in bounds and it is not a catch.

You two are on the right track. My guess is the official explanation will be that he was still bobbling the ball as he went out of bounds. He did not have control of the ball when he hit the ground. Therefore he did not have control of the ball in bounds and it is not a catch.

 

If you watch closely, I think his upper body land on the white stripe before his lower body lands inbounds. I'm going to guess that they ruled it a legal catch, but out of bounds. I'd like to hear an official explanation, though.