Help with a High School rule
 

I am not a High School Football Official. I hope the terminology I used is correct.

Under High School rules.

4th and 5 at B's 5 yard line. A1 throws a legal forward pass to A2. A2 jumps straight up and possesses a pass about a yard inside of the end zone(both the ball and A2 have broken the goal line plane). B3 makes legal contact with A2 forcing him back to the one yard line and the catch is made at the one yard line where A2 is downed. Had no contact been made with A2 he would have made the catch with the ball over the goal line. The contact by B3 made A2 come out of the end zone and when his feet came down for a catch the ball was not across the goal line and A2 is downed from that contact at the 1 yard line.

What is the ruling?

Same scenario, however A2 when knocked back stays on his feet runs back to B's 2 yard line and is downed by B4.

Thanks for any help.

Sit 1. A possesses ball in the endzone. Force by B carries A out of EZ. Touchdown.

Sit 2. Same. A possesses ball in the endzone. Force by B carries A out of EZ. Touchdown.

If A's own momentum carried him out of the EZ (no contact from B) then we play on... but as you stated the play, TD for A.

Case play 2-15-1 is almost this exact play.

thanks for the first reply.

using the same idea above except the end zone is now the first down line. is forward progress marked at where he possessed the ball in the air before he is knocked back and onto the ground?

Thanks again.

Yes.

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 he is contacted by a defender.

From the NFHS Case Book:
2.15.1 SITUATION: 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 on 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.

The reason why A is given a TD in the first scenario is because you are awarding forward progress. Same would be true at any point on the field. In the second scenario, if he regains his feet and is now under his own power, forward progress no longer applies and he gets only what he is able to get on his next advance. As odd as it is to say, the best thing the receiver can do on this type of play is let the defender tackle him. If he gets loose, he loses the forward progress gained.

You are correct on the 2nd one Bison. I misspoke (mistyped).:)

I would agree with your assessment when this type action happens on the playing field, but when possession was secured in the EZ (situation 1) as soon as he touched down while maintaining possession of the ball, it's a TD, the ball id dead and any subsequent (legal) activity by either player is immaterial.

ajmc, so are you saying both situations are TDs? Why is it different in the EZ? I don't disagree, just trying to learn.

It's different because any player who reaches the ball into the endzone has scored a touchdown. The touchdown can't be unscored. A player who gains a first down and voluntarily retreats loses the yards gained, but not a touchdown.
________
KinkyNdirty

As stated, the instant a touchdown is scored, the ball is dead and the play is over. anything that happens then, happens during a dead ball. Other than when the EZ is involved, the play remains alive, if the runner is able to advance.

When a TD is scored, there's nowhere for the runner to advance to.

If the receiver does not get tackled when pushed back into the field of play with that initial contact, you do not have forward progress so he is not awarded a TD unless he gets back into the end zone. I think there is a case play that clarifies this but i can't find it. I know I've read it in other publications and this has been discussed at many of the clinics I've attended. Am I missing something here?

Incorrect

Case play-

7.5.2 SITUATION J: A8, in B’s end zone, leaps in the air to catch a pass and is contacted by B2 forcing A8 to come down inbounds on B’s 1-yard line where he is downed. RULING: Touchdown, since A8’s forward progress was stopped over B’s end zone by B2’s contact. Even though the catch was not made until A8 came down inbounds, his forward progress was stopped by B2’s contact resulting in A possessing the live ball in its opponent’s end zone, hence, a touchdown.

This play involves forward progress. If he's pushed back but that does not cause the receiver to be downed, forward progress does not apply. Just because a guy gets pushed back, if he gets free from the tackler, he doesn't get credit for the forward progress of the original hit.

So the defender should try to shove the airborne receiver back but not hold on to him long enough to complete the tackle? And not to shove him across the sideline in the field of play either?

We know that if the receiver is carried off the ground out of bounds by an opponent after the catch, the pass is complete. No equivalent benefit if he's carried out of the end zone and dropped?

When A possesses the ball in B's end zone it is a touchdown and the ball is dead. Period.

That is what the OP references, he just doesn't use the terminology.

Forward progress doesn't apply if the defender hits a receiver but doesn't tackle him. It's just a hit. It would be equivalent to a running back running into the line, hitting a defender and bouncing it around the outside. You don't declare forward progress at the point of the first hit. Forward progess applies if the runner is tackled or gives up his ability to advance.

Not according to NFHS 2-15-2 (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."

Case Book 2,15,1,b (Ruling)" It is a touchdown if the covering official judges the contact by B1 is the cause of A1 coming down at the 2 yl, instead of in the EZ."

The instant the airborne receiver touches down(completing the catch) after he has secured possession beyond the goal line plane, his forward progress and possession of the ball, in his opponents end zone, is a TD, and the ball is dead. After scoring a TD there is no opportunity to advance.

ajmc,

you left out the part of your case example that states the receiver is hit out of the EZ, lands, and is downed at the 2 yard line. I would say the case book is silent in regard to how to rule if the receiver maintains his feet, which is unfortunate. In every other instance of catch or run, that type of hit keeps the ball alive and progress is not awarded. Is it different when the goal-line is involved? I don't know, but lean toward it's not a TD.
NCAA rules are clear in this instance that if the receiver is hit out and downed it is a TD but if the hit does not cause him to be downed it is not.

Thanks Mike. That is exactly how I understand it at the HS level as well. I could have sworn there was a case play or rule that specifically mentioned it but I can't find it. I know this is how it has been explained at every HS clinic and association meeting I've been to where this type of play has been discussed.

With all due respect to "every HS clinic and association meeting" within memory, NFHS 2-15-2 does not seem ambiguous. Of course your call, is your call but the NFHS rule and associated Case book ruling seem pretty clear. NF: 8-2-1 simply advises, "Possession of a live ball in the opponent's EZ is always a TD."

Since touching the ground while, retaining possession completes the airborne catch, at the foremost point of progress, according to NF: 8-2-1, the result is "always" a TD. NF: 3-3-4-g indicates, "The clock will be stopped when: (g)
a score or touhback occurs.", so any action after the catch is completed is during a dead ball.

I can't comment on the NCAA interpretation you alude to, but it really doesn't seem to add much sense to the question, as why would any player who has already scored a TD try and repeat that which he has already accomplished? Be that as it may, NCAA rules are simply different than NFHS rules in many circumstances.

I'm just not sure one way or the other. The definitions of "catch", "forward progress" and "possession" all refer to one another in a confusing way for this situation. Add to that the rule on how a TD is scored and how the runner must be held for forward progress/dead ball to occur and I think it's easy to be confused. I'm still not convinced by ajmc's arguments however and wish there was some clear cut ruling like NCAA has managed to produce.

We were discussing possession after a catch of an airborne player on a similar thread.
There seems to be an inconsistency: A player is airborne in the EZ (like the forward progress situation described above), he is pushed back out of EZ while airborn to 1yd line. We have said TD because as soon as forward progress is ruled then play is over. I agree. Yet, what if that player looses the ball while still airborne as he comes down on the 1yd line? If the forward progress determines the TD then it should still be a TD right? If not, explain

Further, why is it a TD when forward progress is ruled in the above situation but not a TD, say 5 yards deep in the EZ as A player possesses the ball while airborne, is hit and then looses control of ball on the way down to the ground or as he hits the ground?

It's my understanding that a catch (anywhere) has not been completed until an airborne receiver returns to the ground in possession of the ball. When possession is obtained while ariborne, and subsequently lost before returning to the ground, the pass has not been caught and the pass is considered incomplete, whereas forward progress is irrelevant.

If I follow your second example, that pass would be incomplete as well, for the same reason.

It seems, upon further reflection, that your position is:
if the airborne player is over the EZ, possesses the ball but is pushed out of the EZ and comes down inbounds then forward progress is ruled whether or not the player is down or held and a TD is awarded. However, it also appears true that if you take the EZ out of the equation and say the catch is at the 20 and the airborne receiver is pushed back but not downed or held then forward progress is not going to be ruled and the now runner is on his own to do whatever he tries to do.
This seems like a totally inconsistent way to rule on the same action just because of where it happens on the field.

Editted to add: in your example of casebook 2.15.1 if the condition of actually being downed is immaterial, why is it even included in the example? Why wouldn't it just say "while in the air in the EZ, he is contacted by B1 and then lands on B's 2 yard line"? But instead, it includes "and is downed". Do we just ignore that condition/implication of the example?

ajmc, so in either case, you are saying (I think) that we must see if the player hangs on to the ball when he hits the ground. That to me is consistent and I would agree.

I may be misunderstanding, I thought some were saying, or implying, that "progress" was the determining factor of a catch in the EZ and not allowing for the result of the play (i.e. coming down with or without the ball ) to be the final determining factor.

The OP says in both instances that the A player was "downed". The Rule 7 case play I posted that rules TD is identical.

Where in the world does it state that a player must be "tackled" to stop forward progress? The rule and case book both say "contact or contacted". "Tackle" actually has no definition under Federation rules.

If B55 hits, tackles, contacts, or "lights up" runner A20 at the A35 yard line and knocks him back and he is downed at the A32 yard line, where are you going to spot the ball?

If an A receiver possesses the ball in the air at the 50 yard line and then B knocks him back and to the ground and downed or out of bounds at the 47, where are you going to spot the ball?

Here's a hint:
SECTION 15 FORWARD PROGRESS
ART. 1 . . . Forward progress is the end of advancement of the ball in a runner’s possession or the forward-most point of the ball when it is fumbled out of
bounds toward the opponent’s goal and it determines the dead-ball spot.
ART. 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.

I disagree with this statement. You do not have a completed catch at this point. Thus, I don't believe we have a TD yet.

Jeez almighty
 

7.5.2 SITUATION J: A8, in B’s end zone, leaps in the air to catch a pass and is
contacted by B2 forcing A8 to come down inbounds on B’s 1-yard line where he
is downed. RULING: Touchdown, since A8’s forward progress was stopped over
B’s end zone by B2’s contact. Even though the catch was not made until A8 came
down inbounds, his forward progress was stopped by B2’s contact resulting in A
possessing the live ball in its opponent’s end zone, hence, a touchdown.

I swear by all that is Holy this is copied directly from the 2009 Fed case book.

You guys are all missing the point. Forward progress only applies when it is "the end of advancement" (as quoted from 2-15-1). If I am hit while airborn and not tackled or the ball is otherwise declared dead because I'm getting pushed back (forward progress awarded), I have not ended my advancement. If that hit only pushes him back and he first touches the ground outside the end zone, he is not awarded forward progress. That is the definition everyone seems to be missing. I don't think it's vague at all. Since forward progress is not awarded if the receiver regains control and gets away from the defender, you do not award forward progress. The case book above even mentions "where he is downed" implying the receiver was tackled as part of the contact.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.