forward progress when caught in the air
 

if the receiver catches the ball in the air at the other team's 9 yard line, but lands both feet down on the 10 yard line. is forward progress given at the 9, or is it at the 10? i would think at the 10, because when you catch a ball in the air, it's not a complete catch yet, you have to establish yourself on the ground, right? i saw a call in the eagles game where this happpened. it wasn't important at all, but he caught it about a yard and a half past the 1st down line, but landed right on the 1st down line, and they spotted it where he caught it in the air, not where he landed after the catch.

Was the receiver's backward motion due to his own action or provided by an opponent?

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Forward progress is always where the ball is, no where the feet are. The fundmental concept if forward progress is that you earn (either direction) where you get to on your own accord. If the ball was at the B9 and A1 caught the ball while airborne, and he lands without being touched, with the ball at the B10, then forward progress is the B10. If you're contacted while airborne, you get the spot where the ball was when you were contacted.

I can't imagine that the NFL is different.

In NF fwd progress is the farthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a defender. The definition of possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after he....catches it. Therefore he has to catch it, meaning come down to the ground inbounds.

There are two separate principles involved in your question. Forward Progress and completing a catch, that don't always happen at the same time, or at the same spot. A receiver can secure possession of a ball while in the air, and forward progress will be considered the farthest point the ball has progressed, towards the opponent's goal line while possessed, however the "catch" will not be completed until one, or both feet (depending on rules code) touch down inbounds while possession of the ball is maintained.

Consider the goal line. If an airborne player possesses a ball that breaks the plane of the goal line, but is subsequently knocked back so that his first contact with the ground is back within the field of play, although the "catch" is not complete until he touches down, once he does and maintains possession, the forward progress would result in a TD.

And only if you're the Pittsburgh Steelers. ;)

I'm guessing you are talking about being contacted by a defender. If he is in the EZ and jumps towards the field of play securing the ball in the EZ but landing at the one, he won't score unless he was driven out to the one by the defender. If he lands at the one on his own, he is not given FP (touchdown) but rather will have the ball at his one.

Yes I was.

No, it's a touchdown. Once he touches the ground in bounds, his having possessed the ball in the end zone is recognized in all codes AFAIK.

His forward progress is only given if he's contacted by a defender. Forward progress is the "end of advancement of the ball in a runner’s possession". He doesn't have possession until he makes a catch and he doesn't make a catch until he returns to the ground inbounds.

How would you rule this one: A1 is just inside the EZ and while running back towards the goal line leaps into the air. He grasps the ball while over the EZ but lands outside the EZ at the one. He then tries to make a backward pass to A2 but instead B2 catches the backward pass and runs the ball back for a TD.

This is not a case of forward progress, but of possession of a live ball beyond the opposing goal line. The catch is ruled once the foot hits the ground, but possession is retroactive to when the ball was actually grasped by the airborne player.

The ball was dead once he landed, and the touchdown given.

However, if he hadn't touched the ground before getting rid of the ball, it would be a touchdown for the other team because the original pass was completed by B2.

Robert

Robert, my argument is based on the following rules:

2-34-1...A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.

2-4-1...A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.

8-2...Possession of a live ball in the opponent’s end zone is always a touchdown.

The only rule I can't find is the one that says "possession is retroactive to when the ball was actually grasped by the airborne player". Please give me the rule number for that statement.

Is the rule different in the NFL? Because in NFHS an airborne receiver's forward progress is the furthest point of advance after possession is established if contacted by a defender. So an airborne receiver who catches a ball over the end zone but lands at the one without defender contact has not scored a touchdown.

REPLY: kdf5...you're correct for Federation. Unless contacted and driven back into the field of play, an airborne receiver securing control of a ball in flight above the opponent's end zone, must complete his catch (i.e. touch the ground inbounds) with the ball in the opponent's end zone in order for a TD to be ruled. Otherwise, where he initially controlled the pass is not significant. But if he is contacted above the opponent's end zone and driven back so that his first contact is with the ground in the field of play, forward progress is ruled and a TD is awarded.

NCAA rules are different. In NCAA, if the airborne receiver over the opponent's end zone is contacted by an opponent and driven to the ground in the field of play, he is awarded a TD. If, however, he lands on his feet, the ball remains alive and no TD is awarded on the basis of forward progress.

I disagree with a point RG makes. If the receiver goes up to make a catch while in the end zone, but his own momentum causes him to land in the field of play, he isn't given forward progress for a TD. According to 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.

The case book supports this as well (Case 2.15.1): It is first and 10 for A at B's 12-yard line. A1 sprints near the end line and then buttonhooks. He jumps and possesses a forward pass while in the air above the end zone. (a) A1's momentum carries him back into the field of play and he lands and is downed at the 1 yard line; or (b) while in the air in the end zone, he is contacted by B1 and he then lands and is downed on B's 2-yard line. Ruling: In (a), it is A's ball first and goal at B's 1-yard line. In (b), 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 end zone.

In discussing this case, we've also talked about the situation where the defender contacts the receiver and pushes him back into the field of play but the receiver is able to get away without being tackled. Because he is no longer engaged with the defender, forward progress does not apply and he must get back into the end zone to score.

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.