Help with a High School rule

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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?

C'mon Mike, I was simply presenting rule 2-4-1 in it's entirety. That which referes to this discussion is, ""A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds........". I'm not ignoring anything about the "dowing requirement" (Case Book: 7,5,2,Sit J) you suggest is implied. I simply don't see how it relates to what we're talking about, and is simply intended to suggest action ended at that point.

You're beating a dead horse to the point of just being silly.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

C'mon Mike, I was simply presenting rule 2-4-1 in it's entirety. That which referes to this discussion is, ""A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds........". I'm not ignoring anything about the "dowing requirement" (Case Book: 7,5,2,Sit J) you suggest is implied. I simply don't see how it relates to what we're talking about, and is simply intended to suggest action ended at that point.

You're beating a dead horse to the point of just being silly.

It's not beating a dead horse because you have yet to adequately justify your position since you have used rule examples that do not apply to the situation and are refusing to see how a key component to the casebook example you cited relates to the situation.
Why doesn't the statement "is downed" relate to the situation just like it would with any other forward progress situation?
I also think your reasoning is faulty because what you have stated could be interpreted to apply to the play in question whether or not any contact by a defender was made. You still have not addressed that either.

[NorCalRef12]

Mike, I think you are getting hung up on the "is downed there" portion of the statements. If the covering officials that the players forward progress is stopped. The ball is dead, the down is ended and A is awarded a touchdown. This is not a special case because the goal line or end zone is involved.

4-2-2(a) says that the ball is dead and the down is ended when a runner is held so his forward progress is stopped. If A1's momentum was carrying him out of the end zone then the catch is completed when he contacts the ground inbounds and forward progress begins at that point. If A1 is not moving or is moving towards team B's end line an is then contacted as he is making the catch, forward progress is where he gains control of the ball before subsequently touching the ground.

In short, the player "is downed" when the covering official rules that a catch was made and the forward progress spot is in the end zone. As soon as that happens, the ball is dead, even if the player gets away and runs back to the B40 yard line.

[Mike L]

You're right, I'm hung up on what appears to be a requirement (per the casebook) that the receiver must be downed in order for forward progress to apply.
And, admittedly, I'm also somewhat hung up by a clear ruling in NCAA that the play in question does not result in a TD and my not being able to find any substantial difference in the applicable rules between the two. The only difference being in NFHS the ball must be possessed in the EZ (but in this case the catch must also be completed) and the NCAA says the receiver must catch the ball in the EZ. So from what I can see, the problem remains no clear interp from NFHS since the one given has the pesky "is downed" component, while NCAA has a definite interp.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

You're right, I'm hung up on what appears to be a requirement (per the casebook) that the receiver must be downed in order for forward progress to apply.
And, admittedly, I'm also somewhat hung up by a clear ruling in NCAA that the play in question does not result in a TD and my not being able to find any substantial difference in the applicable rules between the two. The only difference being in NFHS the ball must be possessed in the EZ (but in this case the catch must also be completed) and the NCAA says the receiver must catch the ball in the EZ. So from what I can see, the problem remains no clear interp from NFHS since the one given has the pesky "is downed" component, while NCAA has a definite interp.

For what it's worth Mike, there are a lot of NCAA interpretations that simply don't apply to NFHS. Those perceptions are not necessarily better, or worse, just different. Trying to apply one to the other is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole, sometimes.

I have no idea where you're going with, "I also think your reasoning is faulty because what you have stated could be interpreted to apply to the play in question whether or not any contact by a defender was made. You still have not addressed that either.", or what you are referencing. As for the referenced case book play, I do not read into it what you apparently do, sorry.

[NorCalRef12]

Here are the NCAA interpretations:

I. Airborne A1 receives a legal forward pass one yard within the
opponent’s end zone. As A1 receives the ball, he is contacted by B1
and first comes to the ground with the catch at the one-yard line,
where the ball is declared dead. RULING: Touchdown (Rule 8-2-
1-a).
II. Airborne A1 receives a legal forward pass one yard within Team B’s
end zone. As A1 receives the ball, he is contacted by B1 and first
comes to the ground, on his feet, with the catch at the one-yard line.
After he regains his balance, he runs and is downed at Team B’s
five-yard line. RULING: Not a touchdown. Team A’s ball at the spot
where the ball is declared dead.

The difference between the two is when the ball is declared dead. In the second one, if the official rules that forward progress was stopped in the end zone, the result is still a touchdown.

NCAA 4-1-3a A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle
or declare it dead: When it goes out of bounds other than a kick that scores a field goal aftertouching the uprights or crossbar, when a ball carrier is out of bounds,
or when a ball carrier is so held that his forward progress is stopped.
When in question, the ball is dead (A.R. 4-2-1-II).

NCAA 5-1-3a. The most forward point of the ball when declared dead
between the end lines shall be the determining point in measuring distance
gained or lost by either team during any down. The ball always shall be
placed with its length axis parallel to the sideline before measuring (A.R.
8-2-1-I-IV) (Exception: When an airborne pass receiver of either team
completes a catch inbounds after an opponent has driven him backward and
the ball is declared dead at the spot of the catch, the forward progress is
where the player received the ball) (Rule 4-1-3-p) (A.R. 5-1-3-I, III, IV and
VI, and A.R. 7-3-6-VI).

I'm not seeing a big difference between the rule sets. It's just the judgement of the official as to where progress is and whether forward progress is stopped.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by NorCalRef12

I'm not seeing a big difference between the rule sets. It's just the judgement of the official as to where progress is and whether forward progress is stopped.

I agree, but can you rule forward progress on an airborne receiver who is "hit" back yet never "downed" or "held"? Apparently you can in NFHS if the goal line is involved per many here, I'm just not convinced. NCAA clearly chooses to rule it as a "good play" by the defense and you play on.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

For what it's worth Mike, there are a lot of NCAA interpretations that simply don't apply to NFHS. Those perceptions are not necessarily better, or worse, just different. Trying to apply one to the other is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole, sometimes.

It's not worth much since the rules sets are nearly identical for this particular instance.

I have no idea where you're going with, "I also think your reasoning is faulty because what you have stated could be interpreted to apply to the play in question whether or not any contact by a defender was made. You still have not addressed that either.", or what you are referencing. As for the referenced case book play, I do not read into it what you apparently do, sorry.

Go back over your arguments and I think you can see where your reasoning is not limited to just the question at hand. In particular, I felt using your arguments and examples one could easily apply the ruling of TD to a receiver who jumps out on his own without being hit. Maybe I'm mistaken in that, but it's the impression I got from what you presented.