NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Well, now, see, that's the problem with writing a provision using language like "going to the ground" that doesn't distinguish between merely falling and deliberately lunging.

Why is this different than any other possession issue in the end zone? If he stepped a foot on the end line or sideline in the EZ, this would not be an issue. So now breaking the plane without any hit does not matter? Again, people want it both ways and that is the problem.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why is this different than any other possession issue in the end zone? If he stepped a foot on the end line or sideline in the EZ, this would not be an issue. So now breaking the plane without any hit does not matter? Again, people want it both ways and that is the problem. Peace

One reason/difference (in NFHS) might be NFHS 8-2-1 &1a; "Possession of a live ball in the opponents EZ is always a touchdown.

1a. "It is a TD when a runner advances from the field of play so that the ball penetrates the vertical plane of the opponent's goal line.".

2-32-13, provides: "A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

One reason/difference (in NFHS) might be NFHS 8-2-1 &1a; "Possession of a live ball in the opponents EZ is always a touchdown.

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD.

Originally Posted by ajmc

1a. "It is a TD when a runner advances from the field of play so that the ball penetrates the vertical plane of the opponent's goal line.".

2-32-13, provides: "A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball."

All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

Also, the NFL has the right to determine when you have possession. To the NFL you must complete the process of the catch which includes surviving the ground or surviving the hit. There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD.



All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

Also, the NFL has the right to determine when you have possession. To the NFL you must complete the process of the catch which includes surviving the ground or surviving the hit. There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.

Peace

What's your opinion on this one?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

What's your opinion on this one?

Did the ball hit the ground? Video did not support that it did.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did the ball hit the ground? Video did not support that it did.

Peace

It clearly hit the ground on the last angle.

[JRutledge]

This is also a call in an NF (High School State Finals)

No one said a word about this call.

BTW, this was in 2011.



Peace

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

It clearly hit the ground on the last angle.

I didn't see any loss of control whatsoever

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD.
All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.
Peace

That's why I specified NFHS, which also describes both a "Catch" (of a pass) and "possession", with definitions that have been constant for decades.

NFHS 2-34-1: "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it."

NFHS 2-4-1: "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (recently expanded to include) or having the forward progress of the player in possession stopped while the opponent is carrying the player who is in possession and inbounds.

NFL rules are designed for extraordinary talented and experienced professional athletes, who are grown men in a profit centered environment, with unique objectives, whereas NFHS rules cover Interscholastic and "sandlot" athletic development level programs. Each rule code is designed for it's specific participants.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

That's why I specified NFHS, which also describes both a "Catch" (of a pass) and "possession", with definitions that have been constant for decades.

NFHS 2-34-1: "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it."

NFHS 2-4-1: "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (recently expanded to include) or having the forward progress of the player in possession stopped while the opponent is carrying the player who is in possession and inbounds.

NFL rules are designed for extraordinary talented and experienced professional athletes, who are grown men in a profit centered environment, with unique objectives, whereas NFHS rules cover Interscholastic and "sandlot" athletic development level programs. Each rule code is designed for it's specific participants.

Great reference, if you do not survive the ground (or the hit) in my game, you do not get a catch in my game. That is my crew philosophy and we do not have replay to tell us otherwise. That simple. No cheap fumbles or catches, especially in the end zone.

Peace

[JRutledge]

This is an HS game. You calling this a TD?



Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is an HS game. You calling this a TD?



Peace

The BJ was a lot closer to the action than this camera, and had a much better view to assess possession. He didn't think it was a TD, why would I (or anyone) question his judgment? Neither you, or your crew, "give" anyone a catch, when a player completes a catch according to the rules under which the game is being played, you, or your crew, have the opportunity to confirm, or reject, whether a catch was completed. Either a peg fits the hole, or it doesn't, you don't get to adjust the hole as you see fit.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

NFL rules are designed for extraordinary talented and experienced professional athletes, who are grown men in a profit centered environment, with unique objectives, whereas NFHS rules cover Interscholastic and "sandlot" athletic development level programs. Each rule code is designed for it's specific participants.

But that has nothing to do with this distinction. It may, however, have to do with the relative skills of their respective officials.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But that has nothing to do with this distinction. It may, however, have to do with the relative skills of their respective officials.

You CANNOT dig yourself out of a hole, by digging downward. The existing rules determining "a catch" weren't absolutely perfect, but served really well for a long time.

Has this adjustment clarified anything, improved, or clarified, everyone's understanding and acceptance of what's necessary? If you scratch the smallest, most benign blemish, long enough or hard enough intending to remove it, you can make it bleed of infected.

Sometimes the most sensible way to eliminate a hole, is simply to put all the dirt back in, and accept it's a potential, but rarely problematic, hole.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You CANNOT dig yourself out of a hole, by digging downward. The existing rules determining "a catch" weren't absolutely perfect, but served really well for a long time.

Has this adjustment clarified anything, improved, or clarified, everyone's understanding and acceptance of what's necessary? If you scratch the smallest, most benign blemish, long enough or hard enough intending to remove it, you can make it bleed or infected.

Sometimes the most sensible way to eliminate a hole, is simply to put all the dirt back in, and accept it's a potential, but rarely problematic, hole.

I agree with all this...I think. There's no way to get away from the factual judgment of whether a player has a good enough grip on the ball (and the requisite body parts on the ground in bounds). You can put in various extra criteria in certain cases in an attempt to get rid of that judgment, but all you'll succeed in doing is transferring part or all of the judgment of one factual cirumstance to another, and complicating the whole procedure.

Some players falling while catching or recovering a ball hit the ground and lost it or caused it to touch the ground. In some cases the officials ruled that possession preceded the ball's popping out or the player's hitting the ground, and in other cases that there had been no possession, and they may have been correct or incorrect in either case. Other people looking at the same play frequently would disagree with their judgment, as is part and parcel of such determinations. But it looked like seeing whether the ball subsequently hit the ground or came loose might've been a good proxy in some cases for whether the player's grasp was good enough (so good that some people in this thread would use it as a way to rule in cases in Fed or NCAA), and in some cases easier to see, so the NFL adopted a provision holding the judgment of possession in abeyance until that determination could be made. But that turns out not to be an easier thing to see in many cases. The judgment has merely been shifted to a question of whether the player was "going to the ground" during the catch, or a catch occurred before the player started "going to the ground". Not to mention cases wherein under the new rule a player rolls over on the ball as part of a motion to the ground with the ball in hands, and you'd theoretically have to see whether the ball touched the ground while you're screened from seeing it by that player's body.

BTW, the previous wording as part of possession, "[enough] to perform any act common to the game", I had to laugh at. NCAA got rid of that language long ago because they realized it didn't make any judgment easier, while NFL kept it.