Question for the board

[Warrenkicker]

The argument to not stop the clock has to do with forward progress. In the example play the forward progress of the receiver was stopped and he was driven backward so that he came down OOB. Now we have two spots, one forward progress spot and one OOB spot. These aren't the same spot. Thus if forward progress is to be used then its spot must be used and since that is ahead of the OOB then the ball must have become dead prior to going OOB.

However if we look at the definition of a catch then the player must come down with possession of the ball. If he does not finalize his possession of the ball until touching the ground that means in this situation that the ball became dead OOB as you can't catch a dead ball. The ball had to remain live until the catch was completed. That would seem to say that we should stop the clock.

Now I don't think the Rule Book really comes out and says directly if we are to stop the clock or not on this play. I think that 3.4.3 C does specify that the receiver was driven backward and we have a spot of forward progress though that may be argued.

3.4.3 SITUATION C Receiver A1 controls a pass while airborne near A’s sideline. B1 contacts A1 who then lands out of bounds in possession of the ball. The covering official rules a completed pass because B1’s contact caused A1 to land out of bounds. RULING: The clock is stopped because of the receiver being out of bounds, not due to his forward progress being stopped in-bounds; therefore, the clock will start with the snap.

So maybe I have changed my own mind. I did realize now that I misread one of these plays earlier and must edit a previous post.

[Mike L]

ok then, where are you going to spot the ball? Because if you are not going to kill the ball due to forward progress, then I think you are going to have to spot the ball at the OOB spot. Is that what happens? I don't think so.
What appears to be happening here is for some reason, the casebook is attempting to trump rule 4-2-2 with rule 3-4-3 and I'm not at all convinced it should do so. You are ruling a catch because you find the receiver would have come down in bounds barring the action of B which has stopped progress and drove him OOB prior to being able to complete the catch by touching the ground. So, you have ruled a catch under an exception that also involves stopped progress. Rule 4-2-2 rules with stopped progress the ball is dead right at that spot. Clock stoppage at that point comes under the various 3-4 rules. At best you should only have a stopped clock that is going to start on the ready, you may have a running clock. But I still can't see, despite what the casebook says (because I think it is wrong) how you can give the receiver his progress spot and then also rule you have a live ball out of bounds.

[ODJ]

The key is where the ball will be spotted for the next play.

Is the spot where receiver A went OOB? Or, is the spot where his progress was stopped inbounds?

If OOB, clock stops. If at progress spot, clock runs.

If the contact causes A to move laterally or backwards [think a forward vs. backwards pass] : clock runs, even if the contact forces A OOB.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

3.4.3 SITUATION C Receiver A1 controls a pass while airborne near A’s sideline. B1 contacts A1 who then lands out of bounds in possession of the ball. The covering official rules a completed pass because B1’s contact caused A1 to land out of bounds. RULING: The clock is stopped because of the receiver being out of bounds, not due to his forward progress being stopped in-bounds; therefore, the clock will start with the snap.

So maybe I have changed my own mind. I did realize now that I misread one of these plays earlier and must edit a previous post.

Warren et al.,

IMO, this play means that the player was driven out laterally or forward and not backwards. If he was driven out backwards, then the clock would run since his forward progress was stopped inbounds. In the case book play above, if you are ruling the play down OOB due to B's contact, the change in direction caused by B's force was in an opposite direction A was heading (see my previous post) and was either forward or lateral thus the player being OOB and necessitating the stopage of the clock.

[Warrenkicker]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

Warren et al.,

IMO, this play means that the player was driven out laterally or forward and not backwards. If he was driven out backwards, then the clock would run since his forward progress was stopped inbounds. In the case book play above, if you are ruling the play down OOB due to B's contact, the change in direction caused by B's force was in an opposite direction A was heading (see my previous post) and was either forward or lateral thus the player being OOB and necessitating the stopage of the clock.

The Case Book play I posted was from the 2008 book. The only point I can see about this situation is that it might not be exactly the play we are discussing. However it does mention forward progress being stopped in-bounds in the ruling. Even though I still think the better call is to keep the clock running I think that the rules and rules interpretation better support stopping the clock on this.