Foot down?

[Spence]

In regards to the foot being down for a catch to be complete am I correct that its any part of the foot and not just the toes? In other words, if the receiver is along the back line of the endzone and has his heels touching the ground but not his toes (say he's falling backwards) is that enough?

If the reciever is on the sideline and he drags a heel and then his toes hit OOB is that a catch?

[mbyron]

You might have specified the rule set you're concerned with, but if I'm imagining the cases you're asking about they would all count as inbounds.

Some cases would not be: for example, on the back line the receiver touches with toes inbounds and then heels out of bounds. That would be ruled out of bounds.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You might have specified the rule set you're concerned with, but if I'm imagining the cases you're asking about they would all count as inbounds.

Some cases would not be: for example, on the back line the receiver touches with toes inbounds and then heels out of bounds. That would be ruled out of bounds.

Let me make sure I'm following. In your "wouldn't count" play are you saying that the toes touch first and then the heels touch OOB?

[NorCalRef12]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You might have specified the rule set you're concerned with, but if I'm imagining the cases you're asking about they would all count as inbounds.

Some cases would not be: for example, on the back line the receiver touches with toes inbounds and then heels out of bounds. That would be ruled out of bounds.

I disagree, if the player has caught/possesed a ball and his toes are on the ground and he subsequently touches OOB with his heel or knee, I've got a completed catch. It would happen very fast, but possession is possession.

[With_Two_Flakes]

In other words, if the receiver is along the back line of the endzone and has his heels touching the ground but not his toes (say he's falling backwards) is that enough?

Yes that's enough. Everyone sees the NFL and top NCAA players do awesome catches where they drag their toes inbounds to make fabulous catches. Dont so often see your scenario of someone dragging a heel, but that would be no different.

If the reciever is on the sideline and he drags a heel and then his toes hit OOB is that a catch?

That is more difficult. If it is toe,heel or heel,toe then no catch - the philosophy in this situation is to regard the foot as one item.
If it is toe......heel or heel.....toe with a definite and distinct period between the two, then it is a catch.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

That is more difficult. If it is toe,heel or heel,toe then no catch - the philosophy in this situation is to regard the foot as one item.
If it is toe......heel or heel.....toe with a definite and distinct period between the two, then it is a catch.

I've read the above a few times but I'm not certain of what you're saying.

Lets say the left foot had the toes in and the right foot had the heel hit inbounds but the toes hit OOB.

[whitehat]

Spence, i think what you are getting at is if the foot comes down "flat" and the toes are inbounds and the heal out (or vice versa) at the same time. In this case it would be OOB. However, if the inbounds part of the foot hits inbounds first, then the other part touches OOB it would be a completed pass.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Spence

I've read the above a few times but I'm not certain of what you're saying.

Lets say the left foot had the toes in and the right foot had the heel hit inbounds but the toes hit OOB.

Spence, my advice would be to focus on NF: 2-4-1 and it's requirement of "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 maintainging possession of the ball."

What you see on TV, and hear from talking heads may apply to different, or even imaginary rules. Sometimes you can try and split a hair so fine, you can'r see anything.

[Spence]

Thanks, guys. I'm a basketball ref which means my friends ask me about every rule of every sport so I come here for the right answer.

So, there is no distinction between the heel and the toes when it comes to meeting the requirements for a catch, correct? I get that if they both land at the same time and one of the two is OOB that its not a catch.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Spence

Let me make sure I'm following. In your "wouldn't count" play are you saying that the toes touch first and then the heels touch OOB?

Yes, as part of a single fluid landing motion. IOW, he doesn't land on his toes, hold it there, and then come down on his heels. He lands toe-heel, ba-dum, with heels OOB.

No catch.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Spence

So, there is no distinction between the heel and the toes when it comes to meeting the requirements for a catch, correct?

In Fed & NCAA, there's no distinction between any parts of the body, not just the foot, regarding that. You could catch the ball in the air, then reach out a hand and touch it down in bounds for the completion. NFL's is the only USAn code that retains the old rule that references feet in any way.

[Welpe]

I think that for NCAA, there is a fairly recent interpretation that if a receiver touches his toes down inbounds and then his heel out of bounds as two separate actions, he is considered out of bounds.