Incomplete on Marken Michel explosion

[TecnoGenius]

Immediately after the bogus UR call Marken Michel "gets" a massive explosion completion (3Q5:44).  Problem is, he doesn't "survive the ground".  He's in a diving catch so by rule he must not cough it up until he's done his fall/roll.

Watch carefully the 2nd to last replay.  The one from the EZ camera.  On his second roll the ball is clearly coming out while he's facing down in the fetal position.  I can provide stills to prove this.

It was not him giving up the ball in celebration as he pretended.  It was incomplete as our defenders were indicating.

Sec 4 Art 5 (e) "pass is complete under the following conditions ... when a receiver... who is in the air... has [any part of body] hit the ground, the player must reatin possession for the pass to be ruled complete."

As TSN always labels it: "survive contact with the ground".  I don't think Michel did that in this case.  He lost the ball within 1s of hitting the turf.  The usual standard is you need to be mostly still on the turf holding the ball, or get back up holding the ball.  It usually needs to be clear that the play is "over", even after the whistle, before you can lose the ball.  They've certainly called this incomplete in the past.

MOS could have challenged this one.  But his head was probably still spinning from the last dumb flag, and it wasn't clear until around the 3rd replay what was really going on.  But that 3rd replay is clear and unobstructed and proves the case, IMHO.  CGY certainly didn't give him much time to react as they got the next play off very fast, without any substitutions that I noticed.

I think he could have won a challenge here.  I certainly believe it should never have been called on the field in the first place.  But the refs were clearly hostile at this point, so MOS holds on to keep them honest going into the 4th?

Addendum: Even the hostile Saskfans forum called it incomplete.  Lol.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It was a close one. Depends on when you view the play over. I don't think it gets overturned actually. He was contacted on the way to the ground. He hits the ground survives and then kinda gets up or is in the process of getting up and the ball comes out.

You're right, still would have been a good challenge in hindsight. Don't think it's as clear cut as you are making it out though.

[NewBlue]

I thought watching it happen that it could have been incomplete, even the DB was pleading the case.
For sure seemed to be a deliberate "celebration toss" by Michel, but if it was then heads up play by him.

[TBURGESS]

That was a real close call. I had to watch it 3 times before I realized that it was indeed a catch. He survives contact with the ground with the ball in his hand and loses it on the second roll over, by which time he is down.

[3rdand1.5]

It was close and could have been called either way but IMO it was not conclusive enough that it would have been overturned by the CC.

That UR call.....that was an chintzy call IMO

[Jesse]

It was close. No way it could be overturned, imo.

If that was Lawler making the catch, I wouldn't want the command centre to overturn it.

[bwiser]

It was a close one. Depends on when you view the play over. I don't think it gets overturned actually. He was contacted on the way to the ground. He hits the ground survives and then kinda gets up or is in the process of getting up and the ball comes out.

You're right, still would have been a good challenge in hindsight. Don't think it's as clear cut as you are making it out though.

You certainly can't depend on the command centre getting it right. I often wonder what they are looking at.

[dd]

He didn?t sustain control after hitting the ground. It was an incomplete pass and a complete gift to the Stamps.

[TecnoGenius]

That was a real close call. I had to watch it 3 times before I realized that it was indeed a catch. He survives contact with the ground with the ball in his hand and loses it on the second roll over, by which time he is down.

Is he?  I've never heard of the "he needs to survive one rollover but not two rollovers" rule 

DBC does not apply to this situation vis a vis the actual completion.  Forget DBC, it doesn't apply until they've recognized a completion for possession.  In fact, I would have loved to see him go untouched because if he wasn't touched and he let the ball go the way he did, it's either clearly a fumble (if you believe it was complete) or an incompletion and the CGY-happy refs would be in a bind.

Diving/falling catches are unique in that they're the only catches can be ruled a non-catch even after the receiver is DBC or touched OOB, which could also be after the whistle!  In these cases the only thing that matters is "the player must retain possession" part.

This situation cries for a clarification example that the rulebook often provides.  The whole "survives the ground" thing has always been a grey area in the CFL.  Maybe MOS can provide some insight on Monday.  In any event, I've never seen a "roll count" limit / non-limit on these before.

One thing I can promise you (and provide stills) is the ball was out when his head was right near the turf, facing down, in fetal position.  If he chucked it out in celebration then that's the strangest darndest celebration I've ever seen!!  He wasn't even getting up yet!

As for his cocky behaviour, either he was a master actor (possible) to cover for his whiff, or he has a different league standard in mind (maybe other leagues have this grey area fleshed out better than we do).

I still think a challenge would be worth it just to get clarification.  Since it wasn't a "celebration throwaway" command would have to decide if "surviving" means 1 roll or 2, or some sort of arbitrary time interval, or having the ball until you are mostly still/stopped (my opinion).  I think the rulebook is silent to this and thus someone needs to outline a de facto standard going forward.

He didn?t sustain control after hitting the ground. It was an incomplete pass and a complete gift to the Stamps.

Aye.

[DM83]

The ground  can?t cause a fumble.
The receiver hit the ground with possession, then it came out, after hitting the ground.

[TecnoGenius]

The ground  can?t cause a fumble.
The receiver hit the ground with possession, then it came out, after hitting the ground.

Sorry, but no no no.  100% different rules when you are diving/falling during the catch.  Straight from the rulebook: "the player must retain possession".  Go check.  Same as if he's falling OOB and gets a toe down: must not lose the ball when he hits the ground.

[TBURGESS]

Is he?  I've never heard of the "he needs to survive one rollover but not two rollovers" rule 

There is no rollover rule. There is surviving contact with the ground, which he did.

[dd]

He did not retain possession, no catch, and another brutal call

[DM83]

He had possession, secured the ball. That?s a catch