Catch?

[yankeesfan]

Under NFHS, when a receiver catches a ball along sidelines in the air and is pushed out of bounds before getting one foot down even though he would of landed in bounds is still no catch correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan

Under NFHS, when a receiver catches a ball along sidelines in the air and is pushed out of bounds before getting one foot down even though he would have landed in bounds is still no catch correct?

Correct.

If he's carried out then it's a catch.

[Robert Goodman]

Looks like the criterion in terms of forces is whether the opponent puts upward force on the player with the ball to retard his return to the ground. Any other deflection of him to out of bounds can be ignored for this purpose. At least that's how I interpret "carry".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Looks like the criterion in terms of forces is whether the opponent puts upward force on the player with the ball to retard his return to the ground. Any other deflection of him to out of bounds can be ignored for this purpose. At least that's how I interpret "carry".

Carry means that I "catch you" and then take you out of bounds. If I hit you and you fall out of bounds first, then that is not a catch. It does not matter the direction you are pushed.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Carry means that I "catch you" and then take you out of bounds. If I hit you and you fall out of bounds first, then that is not a catch. It does not matter the direction you are pushed.

Interesting. So if you get under the player who caught the ball and "volleyball" him upward to where he lands out of bounds, that's not a carry-out. But if he catches the ball while moving toward the sideline, and you catch him before he comes down, and his momentum takes him out of bounds, that is a carry-out even if you didn't exert any upward force on him?

[HLin NC]

"Carry" essentially indicates that you have wrapped up or grabbed ahold of the receiver and ended his forward progress in bounds.

No need to complicate it with a bunch of physics. That's the NFL's job.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

"Carry" essentially indicates that you have wrapped up or grabbed ahold of the receiver and ended his forward progress in bounds.

No need to complicate it with a bunch of physics. That's the NFL's job.

A philosophy I've heard is he better catch the receiver, throw him over his shoulder, run 5-10 yards and then drop him out of bounds. In other words, most of us will never see a "carry". I haven't seen anything close since the new rule came out.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Interesting. So if you get under the player who caught the ball and "volleyball" him upward to where he lands out of bounds, that's not a carry-out.

No.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But if he catches the ball while moving toward the sideline, and you catch him before he comes down, and his momentum takes him out of bounds, that is a carry-out even if you didn't exert any upward force on him?

I really do not know what this means. I just know I would have to "catch" you for your forward progress to be stopped. Just hitting someone and them going out of bounds is not enough.

Again, do not over complicate this.

Peace

[ajmc]

For what it may be worth (which isn't very much at all)

As per Funk & Wagnalls, "Carry 1. To bear from one place to another; transport, convey". For the linguists among us, there are 21 examples of how the word may be used.

"Bear - 1. To support; hold up, 2. to carry; convey" (there are 22 additional examples)

"convey - 1. to carry from one poit to another, transport"(only 5 examples)

[Welpe]

What does Funk and Wagnall have to say about the phrase "is touching"?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just know I would have to "catch" you for your forward progress to be stopped.

I don't think that's either sufficient or necessary. You can catch something without stopping its progress in any direction. You can also stop something's progress in a direction w/o catching it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't think that's either sufficient or necessary. You can catch something without stopping its progress in any direction. You can also stop something's progress in a direction w/o catching it.

Well the overall point is the rule was changed to take away leeway to decide if they would have come down in-bounds, instead of actually coming in-bounds. It is basically that simple to me.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

What does Funk and Wagnall have to say about the phrase "is touching"?

I'm not sure Funk & Wagnall covers that, but we find helpful guidance in The NFHS "Game Official's Manual" advises (bottom, page 5); "Game Officials must have a football sense which supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly. Game Officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules." It goes on to suggest, "The protection and welfare of the player is paramount and with this there can be no compromise."

Of course, no advice applies to every situation equally, or is absolute.