Touching the ball to the ground.

treebuck · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 12:38pm

In Saturday's OSU game, the Penn State QB touched the ball to the ground to maintain his balance while being sacked. He was able to regain his balance long enough to throw the ball OB. Was he down when the ball touched? I thought that was the rule at one time. Thanks for a reply.

JasonTX · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 12:58pm

When any part of the runners body other than the hand or feet touch the ground the runner is down. The ball touching the ground is still live. Often you hear fans and coaches saying that the ground can't cause a fumble, but indeed it can. If that ball were to come loose there it would have been a fumble.

insatty · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 02:31pm

Jason's interpretation makes the ball part of the player's hand. Jason's interpretation may be correct, but I find no support in the NFHS rules or interpretations. If someone knows of the authority that answers this question, please reply.

MD Longhorn · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 02:48pm

Simply look at the rules stating when a player is considered down. Hand touching the ground and Ball touching the ground are not included there. If the player is not down by rule, the ball is live.

mikesears · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 02:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by insatty
Jason's interpretation makes the ball part of the player's hand. Jason's interpretation may be correct, but I find no support in the NFHS rules or interpretations.

I believe a firm understanding of when the ball is live and when it is dead are key to interpretting this play correctly.

Quote:

Originally posted by insatty
If someone knows of the authority that answers this question, please reply.

The ball is not dead unless a player in possession of the ball touches the ground with any part of his person other than hand or foot (unless I've gotten some rules cross-over here from another code).

A fumble is the loss of possession of a live ball ....

Therefore, a player who hasn't been downed (making the ball dead) can lose possession of the ball if it strikes the ground and comes loose.

MD Longhorn · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 02:59pm

You hear it in the pro's too - especially from Madden. "The ground cannot cause a fumble". However, a player that's not down can easily fall on the ball and have it squirt out. If he was not knocked down by an opponent, it's a live ball, and the ground can CERTAINLY cause a fumble.

The phrase originated as the NFL clarified that if a tackled player lands on the ball and it squirts out, it is NOT a fumble - thus leading to the common (although technically faulty) conclusion that the ground can't cause a fumble.

insatty · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 04:47pm

I tend to agree with Mike Sears's analysis, but the lawyer part of me is troubled. If the ball is part of the runner's hand, the the ball is live if the ball and nothing else touches the ground. But if the ball is part of the runner's "person" in Mike's analysis, then the ball is dead under NFHS rules. But Mike's analysis begs the question: Is the ball part of the runner's hand or "person"? Since my organization and my white hat considers the ball live, I consider the ball live in this circumstance, but I wonder academically.

For instance, a receiver that dives for and possesses the ball between his hands in the air but allows the ball to touch the ground as the receiver falls does not make a catch under that definition and the ball is dead. By parity of reasoning, if the ball were considered part of the receiver's hand as in Mike's analysis, this receiver would have made a legal catch. So Mike's analysis contains a fault.

I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what.

Patton · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 05:05pm

Quote:

Originally posted by insatty
but the lawyer part of me is troubled.

The lawyer part of you is troubling me also.(: I believe your reading way too much into this one. I agree with Mikesears analysis!

MD Longhorn · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Nov 03, 2003, 05:05pm

How is Mike's analysis flawed? I don't see where he says anything like "The ball is part of the hand". He says, "The ball is not dead unless a player in possession of the ball touches the ground with any part of his person other than hand or foot (unless I've gotten some rules cross-over here from another code)." The ball is not part of the hand or part of the receiver or runner. The ball is the ball.

Insatty does mention that Jason's interpretation makes the ball part of the hand, but that's simply not true either. The ball is the ball is the ball, nothing more.

In the case described, the PLAYER does not touch the ground with any part of his person other than his feet. Therefore, he is not down, and the ball is not dead.

There's no contradiction here, and the play is actually rather simple if you just read the rule and don't try to read anything into it.

jack015 · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 05, 2003, 06:18pm

Quote:

Originally posted by insatty
I tend to agree with Mike Sears's analysis, but the lawyer part of me is troubled. If the ball is part of the runner's hand, the the ball is live if the ball and nothing else touches the ground. But if the ball is part of the runner's "person" in Mike's analysis, then the ball is dead under NFHS rules. But Mike's analysis begs the question: Is the ball part of the runner's hand or "person"? Since my organization and my white hat considers the ball live, I consider the ball live in this circumstance, but I wonder academically.

For instance, a receiver that dives for and possesses the ball between his hands in the air but allows the ball to touch the ground as the receiver falls does not make a catch under that definition and the ball is dead. By parity of reasoning, if the ball were considered part of the receiver's hand as in Mike's analysis, this receiver would have made a legal catch. So Mike's analysis contains a fault.

I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what.

You are attempting to comingle what is required to cause a live ball in posession of a runner to become dead and what is required to complete a catch. In your 1st example (ball in hand touches ground) nothing caused the ball to become dead by rule. In your second example (airborn player controls ball with his hand or hands), but in order to complete the catch he must touch in bounds before the ball touches the ground. In your example, the ball touches the ground prior to the player touching the ground in bounds even though he has control of the ball. Control of the ball is only one element of completeing a catch.

BktBallRef · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 05, 2003, 06:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by insatty
I tend to agree with Mike Sears's analysis, but the lawyer part of me is troubled. If the ball is part of the runner's hand, the the ball is live if the ball and nothing else touches the ground.

You're the only one saying "the ball is part of the runner's hand." No one else has said that. It's not true. The runner is not down simply because he touches the ball to the ground.

insatty · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 05, 2003, 06:47pm

Basketball Referee says, "You're the only one saying "the ball is part of the runner's hand." No one else has said that. It's not true. The runner is not down simply because he touches the ball to the ground."

Fine! I believe you. But what's your authority?

Every other reply seems to infer this principle from certain rules, but no one thus far can cite an authoritative interpretation except to say in effect "everyone does it that way." If I wanted high-minded preaching, I'd stay on the baseball forum.

Patton · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 05, 2003, 07:12pm

SECTION 2 DEAD BALL AND END OF THE DOWN

ART. 2 . . . The ball becomes dead and the down is ended:... a. When a runner goes out of bounds, is held so his forward progress is stopped or allows any part of his person other than hand or foot to touch the ground.

Show me where it says the ball is part of the Person! You can't...that's the authority. What else can be said?

Warrenkicker · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 05, 2003, 07:48pm

The ball being part of your hand in another of these old sayings which keep being told but aren't true. Playing until the whistle sounds can still get you a dead ball foul because the ball becomes dead before the whistle. The ground can cause a fumble when the player wasn't down prior to the fumble. A ball in a players hand is nothing more than that. Touching a ball to the ground is nothing more than just that. The ball isn't your knee, your shoulder, or your head. Were those to touch the ground while the ball was in your possession then you are down.

These sayings were invented by someone who liked to make generalizations. But whenever you make a generalization there is some specific instance that makes it untrue.

BktBallRef · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Nov 05, 2003, 09:54pm

Quote:

Originally posted by insatty
Basketball Referee says, "You're the only one saying "the ball is part of the runner's hand." No one else has said that. It's not true. The runner is not down simply because he touches the ball to the ground."

Fine! I believe you. But what's your authority?

What's my authority? What are you talking about? I'm simply pointing out that you're the only one ranting about the ball being part of the hand.

Quote:

Every other reply seems to infer this principle from certain rules, but no one thus far can cite an authoritative interpretation except to say in effect "everyone does it that way."

The rule has been cited. A player is down when any part of his body, other than his hand or foot touches the ground. There is no rule that says the runner is down when he touches the ball to the ground. What more do you want?

Quote:

If I wanted high-minded preaching, I'd stay on the baseball forum.

Don't be so sensitive.

BTW, thanks Patton. Nice post.