Bob...what's your interpretation of my situation (assuming NFHS) where the defender does make contact with the airborne receiver in the end zone and pushes him back but the receiver gets away? As we've discussed at clinics and association meetings, forward progress doesn't apply in this case because the runner got free.

It's not a matter of forward progress. The player who wound up with the ball was never moving forward, so how can he have had forward progress? Rather, it's possession of the ball beyond the opposing goal line. I believe that in that case, the word "caught" is to be read in its natural meaning, rather than the technical meaning as in the definition of "catch". I could be wrong, but I think Fed was just sloppy in wording it and that my way was the way they meant it.

We had this also with the situation of a player's catching the ball while off the ground and passing it again before touching the ground. If you look at the definition of "pass", that'd seem to be impossible, but it doesn't make much sense unless you ignore the technicality in such a case.

Robert

So if he wasn't moving forward and can't have forward progress where would you spot the ball? You've said earlier that if he grasps the ball over the EZ but lands outside the EZ at the one, without being pushed out of the EZ by a defender that you're going to give him a TD so how can you say he gets a TD if you can't have forward progress? Forward progress is defined in Rule 2. It's the farthest point of advancement when the runner has possession. Possession is defined in Rule 2. Possession occurs after the ball has been snapped or handed to a player or AFTER they've CAUGHT or recovered it. Notice the word AFTER.

Where in the rule book does it give you the option of using your own definition?

That's sort of arrogant Robert. The word catch is defined in Rule 2. I don't think I'm going to apply my own definitions to something that's already defined unless I want to spend the rest of my career buried by my association in Pee Wee games.

Again, I'm confused as to where you get license to apply your own twists to words which are defined in the book. I hate to preach but whenever a newbie wants to know what to do to become a good official most veterans tell him to learn Rule 2. It seems like you feel entitled to disregard that rule.

If I am invisioning your play correctly, I would say that is correct. Below is a case book play from 2008:

2.15.1 SITUATION:

But.. once he completes the catch ("lands on his feet") it is a touchdown. The ball is dead immediately and not being "wrapped up or controlled" is of no consequence. Progress is not an issue when the ball is possessed by a player in the opponent's end zone.

I understand what you are saying and think you are correct in the strictest interpretation of the rule book, although I personally disagree with the ruling (which has little impact on the grand scheme of things).

I say this play is not a TD because he was not controlled by the player and still has the right to advance. I guess I am more of a fan of the NCAA interpretation.

Because they had to be twisted to make any sense of the play situation in which a player in the air catches and then throws the ball before landing. Do you remember that discussion here? Once that situation is understood to mean, "They must've just neglected to cover situations like that", then I think most of us would want to rule in a way consistent with the unwritten coverage of such situations. Obviously, though, the case book disagrees in the end zone case.

Try this: A ball is passed by A1 and is trapped between A2 and B1 as A2 lands on top of B1; each player has both hands on the ball, but for at least a moment only B1 touches the ground.

I have a simultaneous catch. Do you have a ball dead in sole possession of B1, because only B1 satisfied the definition of "catch" before the pass ended?

Robert

I don't see where the Fed wording is "sloppy". Actually it's pretty clear in the definitions.
Forward Progress - 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.
So if he is not contacted by a defender he does not get forward progress. Just because he possessed it over the EZ does not automatically give him a TD. So what's a catch?
Catch - establishing possession of an in flight ball and contacting the ground or contacted by an oppopenent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession.
So in the OP he made the catch and is awarded forward progress if he is contacted by a defender. If not contacted by a defender, he's made a catch and better try to get back into the EZ because there is nothing in the rules that allows him to be awarded the TD yet.
As for your worries about the pass and an airborne player possessing it and then "throwing" it again, that too is supported by definition under passing.
Passing A forward pass ends when it is caught...
refer back to the def of catch, possession of the pass in the air is not a catch and if the player subsequently releases the ball before completing the catch, it is still considered a pass.
Now you could attempt to say the "second pass" was a bat, but since it is ok for an A player to bat a forward pass in any direction, who really cares?

REPLY: Anyone ever notice that the definitions of "possession" and "catch" are circular? You can't catch a ball until you possess it, and you can't possess a ball until you catch it.

There is a rule change proposal to 'fix' the definition of catch so this is no longer true. Hopefully it gets passed.

It seems, sometimes, we can get so caught up in some obscure interpretation, of what has been previously clearly understood, we foget the option of simply stating, "No, that's not what it means".

Just because someone applies a new interpretation based on some unique understanding of what means something different to everyone else, doesn't mean that interpretation is acceptable, or requires additional language.

What would be helpful with these recurring disputes would be an available mechanism whereby disputes of this nature could be addressed quickly, a binding conclusion determined and an official pronouncement (i.e Case Book addition specifically addressing the issue) made in a timely fashion. I know that type of mechanism is supposed to currently exist, but it honestly doesn't seem to work all that well and is anything but timely, at least at the NFHS level.

It's really not rocket science. Most organizations appoint an "Interpreter" whose job it is to resolve questions for that organization. When the question can't be resolved, there is usually a "State Interpreter" available to help clarify the question. State Interpreters have access to NFHS Interpreters as a resource, and if/when an issue has multi State implications.

Usually, these questions boil down to a simple, "Yes/No"determination, either the new interpretation applies, or it doesn't. If a lengthy debate and discussion may be required at the upper most rule making level, fine, that can take place AFTER a "here's how we're going to deal with that pending further review" decision addresses the issue.

Part of the process has to be a willingness to accept the decisions rendered, even when we disagree with them, knowing that there is a way to present the nature of the disagreement to the appropriate level. Rules change, and the appeal process to amend rules is ongoing, the problems come up when there is confusion about how the rule is to be enforced, right now and getting "right now" decisions made faster and distributed better would be a big help.

perfectly said. this makes sense.