TD or NO TD

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

A receiver that controls the ball as his first foot hits the ground, then comes to the ground with his body and loses that control the moment he hits the ground DID NOT HAVE CONTROL of the ball long enough for us to call it a catch.

If your experience is true, you know that. And you know that well enough that you have taught it, and trained it into our newer officials.

If you don't know that, either you're experience is not the truth, or you've managed to not have 40 years of experience, but rather 1 year of experience 40 times. No offense intended.

But if a ball carrier takes a handoff and runs into the end zone, hits the ground in the end zone with one foot and the ball crossing the goal line, comes to the ground with his body and loses control of the ball the moment the body hits the ground is still credited with a touchdown. Correct?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

But if a ball carrier takes a handoff and runs into the end zone, hits the ground in the end zone with one foot and the ball crossing the goal line, comes to the ground with his body and loses control of the ball the moment the body hits the ground is still credited with a touchdown. Correct?

Yes but he already possessed the ball by rule so it was a touchdown as soon as the ball broke the plane of the goal line. The rules for an airborne receiver are different than a ball carrier.

[Robert Goodman]

What if a player catches a pass while kneeling, then falls & hits the ground with his chest, the ball squirting out as he does so? Does it matter how much of his body hits the ground before the ball is lost?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What if a player catches a pass while kneeling, then falls & hits the ground with his chest, the ball squirting out as he does so? Does it matter how much of his body hits the ground before the ball is lost?

In my Canadian rules, I have a TD. Surviving contact with the ground does not apply to plays where the catch is completed simultaneously with the play ending; it does apply to airborne players.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What if a player catches a pass while kneeling, then falls & hits the ground with his chest, the ball squirting out as he does so? Does it matter how much of his body hits the ground before the ball is lost?

By your description he is going to the ground as part of making the catch and did not control it through the process so it would be incomplete. Thank you for demonstrating how easy it is to make this consistent.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

aj, with all due respect... I'm going to assume you are telling the truth about your experience. If you are, then you have been involved in hundreds of clinics, training sessions, videos, etc that CLEARLY tell us that the receiver must maintain possession longer than just the instant described in the OP. Forget out of bounds considerations here. A receiver that controls the ball as his first foot hits the ground, then comes to the ground with his body and loses that control the moment he hits the ground DID NOT HAVE CONTROL of the ball long enough for us to call it a catch.

If your experience is true, you know that. And you know that well enough that you have taught it, and trained it into our newer officials.

If you don't know that, either you're experience is not the truth, or you've managed to not have 40 years of experience, but rather 1 year of experience 40 times. No offense intended.

You must associate with some very shallow people, MD Longhorn, to worry about. or suspect, my comments were fabricated, not that any of that really matters, other than to correct a foolish, and inaccurate, presumption.

Actually, I agree with much of what you suggest, but that is NOT the way I interpreted the ORIGINAL sample question. As that question OVERTLY emphasized that the receiver "CLEARLY" possessed the ball, while airborne and (again) "CLEARLY" maintained that possession through touching the ground inbounds (in the EZ) and was SUBSEQUENTLY contacted and knocked to the ground OOB, where he lost possession simultaneously with "hitting" the ground, I have a catch followed by a contact AFTER the requirements of a TD were satisfied, where the receiver lost possession of a DEAD BALL.

I understand that sometimes it can be a real pain in the butt to have differences in rule codes, that may complicate officiating for those working at multiple levels. Perhaps "things have changed" for some, but considering the many, many bulletins I've seen, meetings and training sessions I've attende, I don't recall a single one suggesting I should, or could, pick and choose the code I FELT like following.

In Texas (and Massachusettes) you follow a single code for both interscholastic and collegiate football, so I can appreciate your concern about consistency, but fortunately (or if some prefer, unfortunately) there are differences in the codes applied to interscholastic and collegiate football in the other 48 States, and officials are required (whether they choose to consider them, or not) to deal with the complications of "differences".

Sometimes "differences" really don't matter all that much, then again, sometimes they actually do.

[JRutledge]

Working multiple codes is not that difficult. And it is certainly not difficult in this situation. It is not like the rule is so drastic that you have to really think about the difference in this play. That is one of the silliest concerns I read and hear officials claim on this site and off this site by officials that in most cases obviously do not work other levels.

This is a philosophy that basically I use because of the ball pops out, what is it going to look like when you call a TD and someone says to you that he never had the ball in the first place? Unlike major college and the NFL, you do not get 20 angles and super-slow motion replay to determine how much time he had the ball. If you cannot hand me the darn ball after the overall catch, then you do not need a TD in this case and I am certainly not going to call a fumble in a similar case after you touched down with feet and the ball starts falling out. If that is what some want to do, be my guest. But this is also about what you can sell. And it is harder to sell a ball is 10 feet away from a fallen receiver that he caught the ball then tell me he did not catch the ball. It has nothing to do with level or even what the rule says.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

In Texas (and Massachusettes) you follow a single code for both interscholastic and collegiate football, so I can appreciate your concern about consistency, but fortunately (or if some prefer, unfortunately) there are differences in the codes applied to interscholastic and collegiate football in the other 48 States, and officials are required (whether they choose to consider them, or not) to deal with the complications of "differences".

Sometimes "differences" really don't matter all that much, then again, sometimes they actually do.

The states set the real interpretations more so than the NF in the first place. So each of those 48 states might tell their officials something slightly different than the other. None of us work directly for the NF and in some cases we do not play dues to the NF, so what the NF says only can take you so far if your state decides to do something different. And if you do not believe me, look at the uniform rule in basketball where my state decided with the BOD for the IHSA to basically change the rule or change how that rule was enforced because of all the problems uniforms were being handled previously. There was almost a darn revolt if everyone went by the NF rules. And this case, I can tell you that our state is just fine with the philosophy to survive the ground or hit. I would not be so sure what is required by states outside of Texas and Mass.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Personally, I don't think it's the intent of the NFHS Rules Committee to apply NCAA rules to NFHS plays. If it were, the NFHS would adopt the NCAA ruling on this play. Until they do, I have a catch and a touchdown in NFHS play.

[Robert Goodman]

I find it funny in anybody's code that a player has to do more to complete a catch while falling than while just running, especially when it's already harder to catch a ball while falling, and most especially considering that inexperienced players may put arms out to break their fall (foolishly because that can lead to injury).

For those using the "survive the ground" code or interpret'n, does it also apply to a player crashing into a goal support? If a teammate in the end zone catches the receiver (who already has the ball) to prevent his falling to the ground or hitting the goal post, is that helping the runner?

I can see using "survive the ground" as a guideline to judgment for otherwise unclear cases, but not a hard & fast rule unless it explicitly is a rule in the code you're using.

[zebra2955]

As Bill Lemonier told us at an association meeting "Incomplete, incomplete, incomplete. When there is a question about possession or not. most times incomplete. Helps with consistency

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

For those using the "survive the ground" code or interpret'n, does it also apply to a player crashing into a goal support?

Yes.

If a teammate in the end zone catches the receiver (who already has the ball) to prevent his falling to the ground or hitting the goal post, is that helping the runner?

No. Read rule 9-1.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

so what the NF says only can take you so far if your state decides to do something different. And if you do not believe me, look at the uniform rule in basketball.... I can tell you that our state is just fine with the philosophy to survive the ground or hit. I would not be so sure what is required by states outside of Texas and Mass. Peace

I'm in total agreement with what you suggest, accept that I don't work basketball, so I don't pay a lot of attention to what basketball rules, or officials, decide is appropriate for THEIR sport, as well those decisions may be.

State Associations absolutely make decisions about requirements, procedures and interpretations that apply WITHIN their State, and it's smart to abide by those decisions when working WITHIN those States. ("When in Rome, do as a Roman" - BUT that doesn't automatically mean that whatever Romans decide, applies OUTSIDE Rome.)

I'm no where near sure, " what is required by States outside Texas or Mass", but in NYS, unless and until NYS has decided to do something different, NFHS Rules apply as written, just as NCAA rules apply to collegiate level games. DIFFERENT doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a "Right and Wrong". Different just means DIFFERENT.

What works well for NCAA, or NFL may work equally as well for NFHS, then again that's up to the NFHS, or the individual governing board within each NFHS State, to decide when (or if) to adopt practices or "philosophies" accepted by other governing bodies.

Following the instructions, policies and decisions of YOUR State governing board is sound advice, but until MY State decides to agree with those decisions, I hope you'll understand, I'm doing my best to follow that same "sound advice".

[Cliffdweller]

Play nice guys....
This is a play I would have to see, it could go either way, I'm betting most NFHS officials would call incomplete.
That being said, "possession of a live ball in the opponents end zone is always a touchdown". I say based on "securely gaining possession" it's a TD.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I find it funny in anybody's code that a player has to do more to complete a catch while falling than while just running, especially when it's already harder to catch a ball while falling, and most especially considering that inexperienced players may put arms out to break their fall (foolishly because that can lead to injury).

For those using the "survive the ground" code or interpret'n, does it also apply to a player crashing into a goal support? If a teammate in the end zone catches the receiver (who already has the ball) to prevent his falling to the ground or hitting the goal post, is that helping the runner?

I can see using "survive the ground" as a guideline to judgment for otherwise unclear cases, but not a hard & fast rule unless it explicitly is a rule in the code you're using.

This is where the consistency gets really nice. If a receiver catches the pass and gets hit immediately causing the ball to come out, it's incomplete. If he crashes into the goal support immediately after catching the ball, it's incomplete. If the goal support is well behind the end line he may have had a few steps before hitting it. Then it would be complete. If he goes to the ground a few steps after catching it, then it's complete. The more you understand the concept and the more plays you watch, the more this philosophy makes it so much easier to make a call and the more consistent your decisions will be.

This is also not about being consistent between the different levels. We are borrowing something from them that has made their rulings be more consistent. It fits within the wording and spirit of the rule.