Possession
 

A kicks to B
Ball is rolling around B's legs
B falls onto and clutches ball with legs between legs while A simultaneously grabs with hands.

Ruling?

It's going over to B no matter what.

What do you mean no matter what? It is a kickoff. What I am asking is if clutching the ball with the legs is possession?

I understood it is a kickoff. If B possessed it at the moment he falls onto it, the ball is dead in his possession. If the ruling is dual possession, dual possession of a kicked ball goes to the receiving team so therefore in either your team B will take possession.

The definition of possession is cited below.

"2-34-ART. 1 . . . A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it."

This is a great example why Rule 2 is so important to all of the other rules. Possession, on the football field, means exactly what it says it means in Rule 2, nothing more, nothing less. That applies to many other words, some of which are very common and can mean different things to different people.

None of that matters, besides what Rule 2 says something means, exactly.

Would you award a catch to a player that caught the ball between his legs while on the ground or after falling to the ground and subsequently lands inbounds with the ball still between his legs?

Sounds like possession to me.

I've got a feeling this isn't an official, or at least a veteran, based on his 2nd post.

All of the major codes have provisions regarding team possession in cases of simultaneous gain of possession by opponents, so what the question boils down to is whether to prefer hands over legs if it comes down to a judgment of "control", or whether to simply invalidate possession via the legs. So let's see what they say about player possession of a ball; some of these quotes may be outdated, so adjust as necessary if you know of any more recent:

• Fed bases possession on the ball's being "held or controlled by a player".
• NCAA goes by "holding or controlling" it.
• NFL goes by "firm grip and control" of it.
• Football Canada and CFL say "firmly held in the hand or hands, arm or arms, leg or legs, or under his body".

I'm not sure how seriously the distinctions between the codes are to be taken, officials being wont to apply general principles in some cases, but let's take them at their words.

The Canadian rules are the only ones making explicit an apparently equal status between holding by the hands and legs.

NFL and Canadian rules are the only ones to have a firmness criterion in there.

Fed & NCAA admit of either holding or controlling the ball, rather than NFL's requiring both, as a means of possession.

My understanding of "control" is that only one person at a time can be said to have it over the ball.

So how to rule on this case? It is conceivable that the Fed, NCAA, and NFL rules did not contemplate a between-legs wedging of the ball as "holding" or "gripping" it. However, Fed & NCAA would allow it as possession if that's merely sufficient to control the ball, while under NFL rules I'm not sure.

The firmness criterion applied by NFL & Canadian rules might favor the hands player vs. the legs player. It is also likely that when one player has hands on the ball and the other just legs, NFL's requirement of control would favor the hands.

So here's how I'd rule:

In Fed or NCAA, sole possession by the hands player unless the legs player has control of the ball, in which case he has sole possession.

In NFL, ball is still loose.

In Canadian rules, if both are firm, simultaneous possession. Otherwise, judge by firmness.

I appreciate the responses. This play occurred during a playoff game I had last year and was at a critical point in the game. The play happened a little differently with B actually reaching down for the ball after he already had the leg posession. I ultimately ruled in favor of B as I explained it as joint possession to the coach. I was just curious if B had not grabbed it with his hands would it still be B ball. I feel confident that I made the right call.

IMO, "control" implies the ability to pass, hand or run with the ball, none of which a player can do with the ball between his legs.

PLAY: R23 muffs a kickoff at his 15, falls to the ground and the ball is between his legs. R33 picks up the ball and runs for a TD.

RULING: ??

If we're talking NFHS, R23 is down.

That is why the definition of possession includes the term "held OR controlled".

Would you rule "no control" in all cases where a player had the ball trapped between some part(s) of the body and the ground (or the back of another player) such that he would have to let the ball go before he could xfer it to another "grip" that would allow him to do any of those things?

Where is the definition of "controlled"?

There isn't one. But since we can infer that held is with the hands, why would the Fed use the term controlled in the same definition?

At one time I thought it was to put hysteresis into the concept of possession, because Fed (differently from NCAA) adds to the definition, "after having gained" it by a listing of different means. I thought maybe they meant that first gaining possession might require a firmer grasp on the ball than maintaining possession did. Later I decided that was probably not what they meant.

NFL is using the earlier wording, the and instead of the or. Some time after 1960 and before 1978, Fed changed it to an "or"; I don't know when NCAA did.