Help with a High School rule

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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?

[youngump]

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.

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

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.