This play was brought up at our college conference meeting today. Give me your ruling. Later I'll tell you what was told to us, and what I thought.

A80 leaps and possesses the ball 1 yard deep in the EZ and while still in the air is driven backwards by B22 where he contacts the ground at the 1 yard line.
1. A80 lands on his feet and falls to the ground.
2. A80 lands on his feet and continues to try to run and gets tackled at the 1 yard line.

If you were at the GPAC meeting today, please refrain from answering.

I'd have sworn that these play situations were in the old NCAA comic book, but alas I they were not.

I suspect you are posting this because at your meeting someone provided an interpertation that contradicts the NCAA ARs. (see AR chapter 5 as you can't miss them).

Do you agree with the AR or not?

Is there a difference between NFHS and NCAA ruling?

Yes, a big difference!

Theisey, I am waiting for a little more input, then I'll answer your question.

Canadian Ruling
 

1. Touchdown
2. Touchdown

At the instant a live ball in player possession crosses the plane of the goal line, it is a touchdown.

Well, my first thought was to apply the usual rule of thumb for catch/no catch calls in the EZ: <i>What would be the call on the same play at the 50?</i>

In case #1, we'd give the receiver forward progress where possession was obtained. Thus, we'll do the same here: TD.

In case #2, he would NOT get forward progress at the point of possession since he started running again. Thus, down at the 1.

Now to check the book...

I don't see anything that contradicts those rulings. However, I can guess how some folks might interpret the rules differently.

In case #1, someone could argue that because the receiver landed on his feet, he won't get the forward progress at the point of possession. My counterargument would be that A.R. 5-1-3I covers that situation and awards the TD.

In case #2, someone could argue that because the ball became dead at the 1, which is the spot of the catch, we should be award forward progress and the TD. This is supported by an excruciatingly literal reading of 5-1-3a Exception. My counterargument would be: same play, but after the catch receiver runs back to the 5 to try to get around the pile, runs into a wall, cuts back, and ends up tackled at the exact same spot the catch was completed. I really hope no one's awarding a TD in this case.

Incidentally, I believe the ruling would be the same under Fed rules, based on 2-15-2 and the related case book play.

Well I have no clue why the difference as I don't officiate NCAA, but I'm definitely interested in the ruling. Any hint?

For me Case 1 is a touchdown if he secured possesion over the EZ and would have come down inbounds had he not been contacted by the defense (i.e. he was not all ready coming back to the ball towards the sideline; I guess that would be a judgement issue about if he had been left untouched he would have come down inbounds)

Case 2 (Assuming the without contact the receiver would have landed inbounds) would depend on if he ever evaded the defender, being the defender lost control of him and was not going to for sure tackle him. I.e. the reciever spun away, danced, and most importantly made an effort to run and was not down instantly or right after landing on the ground after leaving the EZ I would rule down at the one. If the defender always had him tackled and the reciever made no attempt or could not advance the ball after he had been pushed out of the EZ by the Defense I would rule TD.

I am curious for the two different interpretations, I do HS only and am not familiar with college.

Dale
Trout Creek, Mi.

Here is the deal.

In NF, both are a TD as it is a TD if a loose ball is caught while the ball is over or behind the opponents goal line. In NCAA, if a runner advances from the field of play and penatrates the goal line, TD, but if the ball is caught in the EZ-he is contacted and comes down in the field of play-it depends if the ball becomes dead at that spot, or not. If it is an airborn RECEIVER, he must be downed by the initial contact that drove him back even though the ball was over the goal line. If he was airborn and over the goal line, but stayed on his feet after the initial contact, it is NOT a TD. So braking the plane is different if it is a runner from an airborn receiver in NCAA, but not in NF.

This is a big difference when you are looking at the $$$ line and 6 points!

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. NF casebook play 2.15.1a gives an example of a play in which a receiver collects a ball while over the end zone, but ends up outside of it, and no TD is awarded. Unfortunately, it does not have an example of the second original situation that you posted.

NF 8-2-1 begins with "Possession of a live ball in the opponent's end zone is always a touchdown." But 2-32-1 defines possession in this case as requiring a catch, and 2-4-1 requires the player to touch the ground (inbounds, unless forced out) before completing a catch. Thus that first line of 8-2-1 does not actually apply.

In fact, given that 2-15-2 reads "When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a defender," I could make a case that you wouldn't get a TD even in the first of the original situations. I won't, since this is clearly a case of the NF's sloppy use of terminology, and because casebook 2.15.1b is this exact play, and they rule TD on that one.

Bottom line, though, is the NF and NCAA are actually in agreement on this one.

While I agree that my statement should have stated, "if he is contacted above the EZ, NCAA and NF are different in that if he is contacted in both cases, as my original question was stated, there would be a difference.

Good catch on 2-15-1.

I believe what you're missing here is that in casebook play 2.15(a), it clearly states that the receiver's own momentum carries him out of the endzone. In MJT's play, the defender drives the receiver out of the endzone. The casebook ruling for 2.15(b) even states "it is a touchdown if the covering official judges the contact by B1 is the cause of A1 coming down at the 2-yard line, instead of in the endzone." All you really need to ask yourself is "would the receiver have come down in the endzone if B didn't hit him". If the answer is yes, then we have a TD.

NF

I remember discussing a play like this last year and I thought was outcome was TD in 1) and down at A1 in 2). If I recall correctly it was because in both situations the receiver didn't possess the ball until he contacted the ground. In situation 1) he falls to the ground after contact by B so you rule forward progress in the end zone but in situation 2) there is no forward progress because the receiver kept his feet and was tackled at the 1 yard line.

I think the example cited was forward progress near the line to gain.

The NF rules support TD in both cases. Obvious in case number 1, but also in case #2 if you look at
8-2-1-b "it is a TD when a loose ball is caught while the ball is on or behind the opponents EZ."
2-4-1 "catch is establishing player possession of a live ball in flight...
2-32-1 "a ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after he has caught it...
2-15-2 "when an airborn player makes a catch, FP is the furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a defender."

Put all of these together, and we have a TD if he is contacted while possessing the ball above the goal line and driven back.
Not the same as NCAA, or in NF if he is NOT contacted.

This is basically along the same lines. A22 runs into the end zone, runs a "button hook" leaps, catches the ball over the end zone and is then driven back into the field of play we all agree is a td.

Now A22 runs and out pattern, leaps and catches the ball over inbounds territory but is driven out of bounds by B25. They way I am reading the rule book the sideline official has to determine if the receiver would have landed inbounds if he had not been pushed, to determine if it would be a catch or not. I have been told this is an incomplete pass reguardless because the push does not change the direction of the receiver (like in the td play). I am ruling what I am reading in the rule/case book but am I missing something here?