I have to agree with HLinNC and ajmc that Forward Progress was stopped in the end zone ... Touchdown.

Case Book 2.15.1 Ruling b states ... it is a touchdown if the covering official judges that the contact by B1 is the cause of A1 coming down at the 2 yard line, instead of in the end zone.

The Ruling does not say that A1 is tackled, it simple says that A1 came down on the 2 yard line.

Put the crack pipe on the table and step away.

When he touches the ground, the play is complete and we have a TD.

Where has anyone said anything about "regains control and gets away from the defender"? Have you even read the original post? It states in both instances that the receiver is subsequently "downed" in the field of play after he possesses the ball in B's end zone where he was "contacted" by B. Which is the exact scenario as presented in the case play that I have now posted twice in this thread.

The second scenario says "however A2 when knocked back stays on his feet runs back to B's 2 yard line and is downed by B4". B3 made the initial contact. That means we are not dealing with forward progress. He escaped the initial hit by B3, stayed on his feet adn ran to the 2 yard line. How can forward progress apply if his advance has not been stopped. Everyone seems to be ignoring that part of the forward progress definition.

This is also irrelevent to my previous post. I understand that if and when he completes the catch it will be a touchdown. However, at the moment he possesses the ball in the air and is pushed back does not equal a TD. If the receiver loses the ball prior to completing the catch, I don't believe you have a TD. Thus, my disagreement with Ed's post.

What you are ignoring is as soon as he lands back on the field of play with possession of the ball, after controlling it in the endzone is the play is now dead as all of the qualifications have now been met for the TD. The receiver is running with a dead ball.

Amen. Just read the rules and case play cited, and don't overanalyze. That's the problem, is so many times we overanalyze something and we lose focus of what the rule/case play actually says.

Do these statements contradict each other?

Where was the catch (possession, not just touching) made?

With all due respect, I think the point you are missing is that there is an enormous difference when forward progress involves the goal line than anywhere else on the field.

The Goal line is handled, uniquely as a "plane". When a ball in player possession touches that plane, for a milisecond, it is a TD and the ball is dead. For the rest of the field it is completely different. When a player runs into a brick wall at the 50 YL, and bounces back, whether or not he is given forward progress at the 50 YL is determined by what he subsequently does.

If he is downed, as a result of that collision, he is awarded the 50 YL as his forward progress, if he is not downed, retains control and continues to attempt to advance, he then becomes responsible for wherever he may subsequently go down, or create another point of forward progress.

Example: A runs into a wall at 50YL, bounces back to 48YL, retains control continues attempt to advance by running away from obstacles, is again hit at the 46 YL, where he's driven back to the 44 YL. Depending on what happens after he's hit at the 46 YL (does he go down, or not) the 46 YL either becomes a new "point of forward progress", or the cycle repeats itself until he goes down somewhere else.

All that is possible because the play stays alive. When the goal line is involved, the same principles apply regarding the point of forward progress being established for the farthest point of advancement, but the catch is not being completed until the airborne receiver contacts the ground. Once, however, the contact with the ground completes the catch, and the previous point of farthest advancement is in the EZ, a TD has been earned and the ball is INSTANTLY dead.

I chalk that up to him not being an official. Just ignore the last "where the catch is made" part. He caught the ball in the EZ.

Would not this line of reasoning imply that a receiver who jumps for the ball, possesses it over the EZ but whose jump now carries him out of the EZ (without any defensive contact) scores a TD?
And I'm still waiting for someone to adequately explain why the casebook play has the requirement of the receiver being downed when apparently it makes no difference.

Absolutely not, at some point you really have to actually read NF: 2-4.

NF: 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 control of the ball.

As for your second question, the only person who can answer that, factually, is whomever wrote the casebook narrative.

I have read that, but don't understand how that applies to the question at hand since the receiver was not prevented from returning to the ground inbounds.
And I take it you are choosing to ignore the downing requirement of the casebook play since you have no explanation, correct?

It doesn't apply to the case at hand. The case at hand is a touchdown. A receiver possessed the ball in the endzone and completed the catch. Touchdown.

In your example, the receiver possessed the ball in the endzone and landed out of bounds. That is an incomplete pass. Because the receiver never touched the ground inbounds.

I think people are getting hung up on the forward progress part of this. I don't think that's quite relevant. Two examples:
1. On a snow covered field a receiver loses the goal line, steps into the endzone and then back out to juke a defender. Touchdown no forward progress spot.
2. A receiver catches the ball in the air near the back of the endzone and is carried out of bounds in a way that prevents him from returning to the ground inbounds but in the direction of the back of the endzone. No forward progress spot, just a touchdown.
________
BustySquirter

That has never been my example. I have consistently said the receiver landed inbounds. And I think you should reconsider your conclusion on your play. You may want to consider the possibilities of casebook play 7.5.2 sit K (2008)

This is also a change from the question at hand because now you are talking about a runner who carried the ball from the field into the EZ, which is entirely different.

True if he's carried. Again, you may want to consider the possibilities of casebook play 7.5.2 sit K (2008)