Question for the board
 

This came up in our local clinic last night:

Airborne receiver catches a pass and the defender forces him OOB where he first touches the ground OOB. I think we'll all agree that, by rule, if the WR would have come down inbounds without the contact, this a catch.

The question is about forward progress and clock status. The case book addresses the clock under 3.4.3 sit C, which is that the clock shall be stopped in this situation. However, it is unclear whether this would be the case if the airborne WR is driven backwards OOB. Do we give the receiver both forward progress AND a stopped clock?

I'm leaning toward him getting both. There is a case play addressing forward progress of an airborne receiver (somewhere in Rule 2) as it pertains to the end zone. The ruling is that is airborne above the endzone and a defender forces back to the field of play, it is a TD. So obviously an airborne WR forced backward is entitled to forward progress.

Some dissension in our group on this, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

The rulings depend on a few things, as outlined in the bullets below:

• Before the 3-minute warning
  • Pushed OOB further than the spot of catch
    • Forward progress is the spot where the ball crosses the plane of the sideline
    • Clock is stopped when the ball carrier lands OOB
    • Clock on the RFP
  • Pushed OOB behind the spot of catch
    • Forward progress is the spot of catch
    • Clock is not stopped
    • Clock on the RFP
• After the 3-minute warning
  • Pushed OOB further than the spot of catch
    • Forward progress is the spot where the ball crosses the plane of the sideline
    • Clock is stopped when the ball carrier lands OOB
    • Clock on the snap
  • Pushed OOB behind the spot of catch
    • Forward progress is the spot of catch
    • Clock is stopped when the official rules that forward progress was stopped
    • Clock on the RFP

Why would you not give forward progress? What caused the clock to be stopped? (answer that and you have your answer as to when it should be started) You mention there is dissension among your group over how this would be ruled. I'd love to hear the arguements over why the player shouldn't be given forward progress and why the clock shouldn't be stopped.

The way I see it if you are giving forward progress then you are ruling he didn't go OOB prior to making the catch. And if you have forward progress then he didn't go OOB on his own. Say this play happened a yard further in-bounds and after he caught the ball he was driven back and OOB. Would you stop the clock just because he was pushed OOB? If you would then you should stop it in the force-out play. But I say that if you are marking forward progress then you can't also say that the ball became dead OOB.

You always give forward progress, period. There is no rule that makes an exception. Forward progress and OOB have no interactive relationship. Ruling one, does not cause the other. Your example of a player being stopped IB and then pushed OOB makes no sense in regard to the clock. The play is over when forward momentum (progress) is stopped. Let's say a player is running toward his opponent's goal line, he reaches forward, extending the ball OOB over the goal line extended, but is knocked OOB at the 1 yard line. Do you not have a TD? Did you not award forward progress? Did you not rule that he was knocked OOB?

REPLY: When the receiver is driven backwards and OOB, of course you give him his forward progress. But remember that his forward progress was awarded inbounds and therefore there is no reason to stop the clock for a runner being OOB. Keep it running. If however there was a foul during the play, or if that forward progress was beyond the line to gain, you will be stopping the clock, but for a different reason. And that reason will cause the clock to next start on the RFP.

I agree with Bob. His forward progress was stopped inbounds and that means the clock keeps running.

Now something I am sure you guys all know and talked about at your meeting, but if the force from B forces A in the same direction he is heading and lands OOB, you have no catch. The force by B has to change the direction of A in order to award a catch when A lands OOB.

So am I to interpret case play 3.4.3 C to mean the clock will be stopped only if the receiver was NOT driven backward OOB?

The clock will be stopped even if contact by B1 causes A1 to land out of bounds backwards. A catch by definition occurs when control is established in flight (NFHS 2-4-1) and the pass ends when it is caught (2-31-4). His forward progress was stopped when the pass ended and he became a runner (4-2-2a). The ball ended out of bounds as caused by B1's contact, therefore, the clock is stopped (3-4-4e).

His forward progress is determined by where he caught the ball. B1's contact caused the ball to be placed out of bounds. Consider, if B1 wanted the clock to keep running he should have let A1 touch the ground then stopped his progress. Also, take a look at Case Book 2.15.1.

Have to say this was tricky as it took four different rules to come to the conclusion in the Case Book.

REPLY: Ed...I must disagree. Take a good look at the definition of 'catch.' The receiver can complete a catch in one of two ways: (1) touching the ground inbounds (he didn't), or (2) being contacted by an opponent so that he's prevented from returning to the ground inbounds. This guy satisfied the second condition, so that he completed the catch inbounds, and the clock should continue to run. It's the full definition of catch that leads to the correct ruling.

Bob, I agreed with you until I tried to determine the logic used for the Case Book and frankly if I saw this play, the might still clock would still be running.

The action of B1 kept A1 from landing inbounds. If you look at 3.4.3 Ruling it supports stopping the clock because A1 landed out of bounds. When you add being pushed backwards out of bounds the only change is where A1 lands. Then look at 2.15.1(b) which agrees in principle with 3.4.3 that action by the opponent will affect the result of the play as it pertains to boundaries.

Futhermore, if A1 came down inbounds and then was pushed out of bounds by B1 the clock would be stopped.

When did the down end? The act of catching the ball would not end the down. The only time a catch would end the down is if A1 and B1 jointly possessed the ball. That would end the down and keep the clock moving as the ball would become dead inbounds.

If B1 managed to tackle A1 inbounds that would end the down and keep the clock moving.

I think the point of 3.4.3 is the play remains alive until the ball is out of bounds. The catch is just a part of the live ball play.

Bob, I agree with you.

I don't know how you can possibly give someone a forward progress spot and then rule he is also out of bounds. The ball is dead as soon as you rule progress stopped. A ball that is already dead in bounds can't also then be ruled dead out of bounds.
I see that CB 3.4.3C says the clock is stopped because of the out of bounds and not due to foward progress. If that is true, then are they saying the spot becomes where the ball crosses the sideline and not where the hit was made? Because if you are not giving him forward progress then the OOB spot is where you'll have to spot it. What if it's a hit that drives the A player back 2 or 3 or 5 yards? And what if that "loss" causes the line to gain to be missed? Yeah, I'd like to be in on that conversation with the coach.

This topic is brought up as a case play in the 2008 High School Football Book
"Rules by Topic" Rules, Caseplays, Rationales Linked. For those of you that have the book, look on page 133 3.4.3 Situation C describes the following case play.

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 inbounds; therefore, the clock will start with the snap.

You can make a point either way but I suggest looking at Rule 2-15-2...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.

A1 is airborne and is contacted by B1. Therefore, his forward progress would be where the initial contact is made. B1 also caused A1 to go out of bounds as he was pushed. Case Book 2.15.1b supports spotting the ball at the point of forward progress.

The question of stopping the clock still remains.

Unlike the NFL, an airborne player who has caught the ball is pushed out of bounds in possession of the ball is treated just like any other player that is pushed out. Therefore, the clock starts on the snap.

GT, I don't see anything in this example that states whether B1's contact drove A1 backward, laterally, or forward before going out of bounds. Unless there's more information to add I don't see anything that contradicts Bob M's interpretation.

Guys, check out case play 4.3.3 (B)

(I misread a rule listing and must delete a statement)

I still say you can't rule forward progress stopped in-bounds as well as having the runner causing the ball to become dead OOB. If you stop the clock then you must mark the ball where it crossed the side line. 2-41-3 says the dead-ball spot is where the ball becomes dead by rule. 2-41-5 says the OOB spot is where it became dead by going OOB. These are different spots in this play and only one of them is a clear clock stopper.

But in my 12 years of officiating I still have yet to see a force-out play.

Grant, I disagree with you. The only thing we need to determine is if the A player would have returned to the ground inbounds or not. If the B player prevented A from returning the ground inbounds, it does not matter what directions they were moving in, together or not. If B carries A 5 yards and drops him OOB, A gets the completion and the forward progress spot.

He doesn't stop being a runner when his forward progess is stopped.

The down ended out of bounds. Forward progress is always ruled retroactively. You never have a "spot where progress ended" until the ball is dead. A runner whose progress was stopped may, if the ball doesn't meanwhile become dead, pass or advance the ball beyond that point. The ball may become dead by various means and under various conditions, and the timing rules reflect how the ball became dead, not where the spot will be marked.

Robert

The down does not end when he gets driven out of bounds, even if you do wait forever to actually rule progress is stopped. The down ended at the forward progress spot by rule. See 4-2-2a The ball becomes dead and the down is ended: ..., is held so his forward progress is stopped,...
Once again, how can you say a ball that is dead by rule in bounds because forward progress is stopped is afterwards also dead out of bounds allowing you to stop the clock?

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.

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.

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.

Rick, that's straight from the case book. I don't have this year's books yet and online isn't working, but look at 7.5.2 L (c) from last year's case book. In the ruling it says "... the added force in the general direction the player was moving, is not considered a factor affecting his spot of landing...."

So if B contacts A from behind in the same direction A was moving to begin with, B's contact is not a factor in determining whether it was a catch or not. If A lands OOB after being contacted by B and forced in the same direction he was originally heading, the pass is ruled OOB.

This is something that is often overlooked since it is in the case book only and not in the rule book. That's one reason why I brought up my original point.

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.

Robert, what happens to the down when forward progress is stopped? It ends, right? So any action after forward progress is stopped has no bearing on the status of the clock. If the player controls the ball airborne while in bounds and then is driven backwards OOB by B, his progress was stopped in bounds and the fact that he is driven backwards OOB is moot.

Picture it this way, a runner is running parallel to the sideline and is stood up by a DB and driven backwards OOB. What's the clock status on this play? Where do you mark the ball dead? At the foremost point of the ball before his progress was stopped, right? So what's the clock status on this play? It's running, right? Because his progress was stopped in bounds prior to being driven OOB and the ball was dead at the point his forward progress was stopped.

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.

When a runner is first held by an opponent and has no forward progess, an interval begins during which the question of whether he's been "held" for purposes of determining the ball dead is in abeyance. The runner may be able to resume forward progress, or may pass or fumble the ball, or the ball may become dead for some other reason, before it can be determined that the runner has indeed been held.

Once the ball is dead, then the question of awarding the spot comes into play. Forward progress must be allowed for regardless of whether the player was so "held" or the ball became dead for some other reason.

So, for example, a runner may be knocked backwards by an opponent who has no more than momentary contact with him. It is quite conceivable that the runner may regain balance and eventually advance beyond that point, and it is also conceivable that the runner may touch out of bounds or have some part of his body other than hands or feet touch the ground before he can advance beyond that point. Either way, he gains the benefit of that point of progress, but in one case the ball is dead out of bounds and the other in bounds.

During the interval in which the runner's forward progress was stopped by an opponent (whether he holds him or not), time counts and the down has not ended. The reason the ball became dead may be that an opponent held him and stopped his progress, or it may be some other reason, but the runner's progress determines the dead ball spot even if the ball was not at that spot at the time it became dead and even if that was not the reason for the ball's becoming dead.

So yeah, the runner gets the spot of forward progress and the clock gets stopped in the case at hand.

Robert

So because A was pushed and not controled, we would give him the progress spot and stop the clock because he went OOB? I disagree with that although the case book apparently says different.

grant...also see in your quote of 7.5.2L, (I too only have the 2007 casebook with me).
In the explanation of the ruling: "completed pass in both (a) and (b), the contact by B1 changed the direction of A2 and he is given forward progess (emphasis mine). So we have 2 different casebook rulings that appear to be in conflict with each other.
I still say, the opinion in the casebook regarding 3.4.3c is wrong. 4.2.2 says it's wrong and the wording here says it's wrong.

Mike,

If I am understanding all this correctly now (and lord knows that is a strecth for me recently :( ), in either play we are going to award forward progress. The impact on the clock depends on whether A was controlled in bounds by B or not. So if A is merely pushed out in an opposite direction he was heading, you award forward progress and stop the clock because he wasn't controled in bounds by B. Now if B wrapped the airborne A player up and drove him OOB, I would say that the clock runs in this case since his forward progress was stopped in bounds and then driven out of bounds.

Is that along the right train of thought?

IMHO, on Saturday and Sunday in either case they are going to wind the clock, and from what I've been told by some D1 guys, that if there is a shadow of a doubt in their mind, they are going to wind it unless they are under 5 minutes left in the half. Can we apply that to our level? Possibly.

I think the clock runs according to whatever you have with the stopped progress and really has nothing to do with him being knocked out of bounds. Stopped progress is stopped progress regardless of how it occurs. There is the possibility of progress being stopped without the player being controlled. Say a runner has advance to the 40, is hit by a defender that takes him straight back so the first thing that hits the ground is his back side at the 42. Just one of those hilite film big hits. Are you going to spot the ball at the 40 (progress spot) or the 42 (down spot)? Throw the sideline in, say because of the hit he flies OOB at the 42. Where do you spot the ball? So why, when dealing with an airborne receiver being knocked OOB do we suddenly ignore the dead ball rules stated in 4.2.2?
Hey, and for Sundays it is apparently all going to be a moot point. Per a San Diego Union article this weekend, Mike Carey was instructing the Chargers about some new rule changes for this year, one of them being if the receiver gets knocked out prior to getting both feet down, it's incomplete. No more judgement calls on would he have landing in. Also, it seems the NFL is going to allow a defer option on the coin toss now.

I say the time determination and spot determination are separate issues, and here's why:

The reason for the provision stopping the clock on out of bounds was because of the extra time necessary to return the ball to play from farther away. Yeah, it's not much farther away when the runner takes just that extra step to go out of bounds, but they drew the line somewhere. I suppose they could've applied the same rationale to balls dead in a side zone, returning it to the hash, but they didn't.

The reason for allowing forward progress in determining the spot was to avoid a prolonged mauling of the runner by the defense to improve their spot. It was possible for the runner to yell "down" if he chose not to be pushed farther back, but the officials didn't like being in the position of recognizing whose voice was saying that, so even though they retained that option in the rule book for a long time (only NCAA having eliminated it so far AFAIK), it wasn't exactly encouraged when forward progress was put into the rules.

Certain means by which the ball becomes dead are sufficient to determine clock status, but not to determine the spot for the next down. They're separate issues, connected only in some cases. When someone carrying the ball is carried or thrown backwards by an opponent, the ball can still become dead by any of various means, and even the time the ball becomes dead is not determined by when that player started to be carried or thrown backward. You wouldn't put a second or more back on the clock because that time elapsed between when the runner started to be pushed backward and when his foot hit the sideline, would you?

Robert