John,
the casebook play you cite contains the following in explanation.
"the added force in the general direction the player was moving is not considered a factor affecting his spot of landing".
You are attempting to use an example where the receivers general direction was changed (pushed back) which does not apply to the OP.

If there was no defender there do you think he would have caught this ball inbounds?

I do.

Correct interpretation of the force-out rule.

While I sit in a very comfortable chair watching the video several times and the official had to make the call in real-time.

However, the official does take a good wide position on the sideline and immediately moves to the goal line on the snap and as the ball arrives he straddles the sideline while watching the ball.

You have to ask, why is he watching the ball (note the bill of the cap) and not observing the opponents in his area. If a PI occurred he would not see it. At the time the receiver touches the ball he first observes contact and probably was unable to properly observe the receiver's ability or inability to come down in-bounds, and, properly apply the force-out rule.

You have to wonder how many times this official has seen this situation.

Picasa Web Albums - john - Drop Box

This is where he caught the ball!

It doesn't matter in this case. The receiver's direction in this play is clearly towards the sideline. Since the defender's push is in the same direction, the casebook directs the officials to ignore the push and only focus on whether or not the receiver actually comes down in bounds.

"Opinions are like a--holes, everyone has one and it's a little different that anyone else". The question is not answered by NF 7-5-2, or the related case book plays. NF: 2-4-1 defines, "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 possession of the ball."

That is purely a judgment call, that was made by an assigned official who was in perfect position to render a judgment. The comments, which were pure whining, by the losing coach didn't do him personally, or his school any good. From the opposite sideline, his version is obviously worthless and whatever he might have been told by a spectator (Administrator or not) is totally immaterial.

I would presume the covering official was fully aware of case book 7-5-2k's recommendations but did not opine they were a factor. The difference between his opinion, and subsequent judgment, and the opinions of everyone else, is that his opinion counts.

I agree with that too.

4.3.3 SITUATION B: A has third down and seven yards to gain at B’s 30. A1
leaps near the sideline to catch a pass near B’s 30-yard line. A1 is driven out of
bounds backwards by B2 while making the catch and lands outside the sideline
at B’s 32. RULING: The covering official must make the following decisions: Did
B2’s actions cause A1 to land out of bounds? If the official determines that B2
caused A1 to land out of bounds, then the official must determine forward
progress in the field of play and should not stop the clock. If however, the clock
is stopped, it should start on the ready because forward progress was stopped in
the field of play. If A1 would have landed out of bounds of his own accord, it is
an incomplete pass and the clock should be stopped.


COMMENT: When any
receiver is close to the sideline and is contacted by an opponent, the covering
official must make a decision about where he would have landed without the contact.
(4-3-2)

Well Alf, opinions are what spectator have, officials use judgment; therefore, the statement you used which is my signature BTW ***-backwards, "it's your opinion and my judgment and since my judgment counts (and your opinion doesn't), that's the call."

As for the official's mechanics they are questionable, and mechanics are what put the Rule Book in motion, of course, no one expects you to agree with anyone else.

So what is it about his mechanics that caused the error, if in fact this was an error?

Really? So when a particular situation requires the use of multiple rules and their attendent interps, it's ok to simply reject any you don't feel like applying? Is that what you are trying to say here? Or are you trying to imply the quote out of the case book "the added force in the general direction the player was moving is not considered a factor affecting his spot of landing" is not applicable to this play?

I agree with the judgement call aspect, but to say this official is in perfect position....well you're a much easier grader than any evaluator I've ever had.

We really do not know the answer to this unless someone talks to that person directly. Now I do not like the ruling, but if that is what he based it on then there is not much we can say. I would suggest that the rule changed and only apply this issue to forward progress and being carried out of the EZ. But this provision of the rule is hard to decide and should make the judgment easier. And we would not be discussing this as what the official might have decided.

Peace

Take a look at the official's cap and you will see the bill follow the ball. The official should be focusing more on the players in his area. Remember PIs occur before the ball arrives and if you are watching the ball you will miss it. In this case to properly officiate the official needs to observe the direction of both the receiver and the defender much like observing for a PI. The argument being made is the receiver was moving toward the sideline and the interpretation would not allow the catch and subsequent TD.