TD or NO TD

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I like the survive the ground philosophy as well on plays like this. Unfortunately there are a lot of clock operators...err...officials...like Alf who think that way so we will have inconsistency on this call.

I've considered it appropriate to ignore some of your previous childish remarks, bisonlj, simply because I see no value in responding to you. But every now and again, taking excaption has value. Although my "field" experience as a HS football official is limited to 40+ years, in 4 States, I've elected to extend my connection to the game as an assigned "clock operator" and have endeavored to keep abreast of NFHS Rules, Case Book information, Points of Emphasis and other documentation.

Perhaps, missing something, but I honestly don't understand why, considering NFHS Rules, Case Book advice, Points of Emphasis and ANY documentation; a receiver suggested to have obtained "CLEARLY" possession of a forward pas, while airborne and "CLEARLY" maintaining that possession while touching down in the EZ with one foot, and THEN subsequently getting knocked OOB and ultimately losing possession "simultaneously with hittng the ground" would NOT be a TD.

Someone of your (self) apparent superior knowledge, vast experience and expertise should have no DIFFICULTY in explaining that to me, referencing some specific NFHS Rule reference, Case Book confirmation, Point of Emphasis or other documented conclusion.

I anxiously await your advice.

As for consistency, during those years I worked at the NCAA Division II and III level, I tried to maintain distinction between NCAA and NFHS Rules and practices.

[JRutledge]

Incomplete all levels I am working (NCAA and NF). And this is a personal philosophy as much as it may be interpretation from our higher ups. Honestly I do not care what the NF says, if they cannot survive the ground then it is not a catch. Just like I do not care what the philosophy of the NF on holding or PI.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I've considered it appropriate to ignore some of your previous childish remarks, bisonlj, simply because I see no value in responding to you. But every now and again, taking excaption has value. Although my "field" experience as a HS football official is limited to 40+ years, in 4 States, I've elected to extend my connection to the game as an assigned "clock operator" and have endeavored to keep abreast of NFHS Rules, Case Book information, Points of Emphasis and other documentation.

Perhaps, missing something, but I honestly don't understand why, considering NFHS Rules, Case Book advice, Points of Emphasis and ANY documentation; a receiver suggested to have obtained "CLEARLY" possession of a forward pas, while airborne and "CLEARLY" maintaining that possession while touching down in the EZ with one foot, and THEN subsequently getting knocked OOB and ultimately losing possession "simultaneously with hittng the ground" would NOT be a TD.

Someone of your (self) apparent superior knowledge, vast experience and expertise should have no DIFFICULTY in explaining that to me, referencing some specific NFHS Rule reference, Case Book confirmation, Point of Emphasis or other documented conclusion.

I anxiously await your advice.

As for consistency, during those years I worked at the NCAA Division II and III level, I tried to maintain distinction between NCAA and NFHS Rules and practices.

I promise to be nicer this time. Sorry about that.

There are a lot of philosophies that you are probably not going to find in any official publication. You learn them by attending association meetings, clinics, and talking to other officials. When it makes sense, the philosophies used at levels above us can be applied at the HS level. This is one I think that makes a lot of sense.

Let's say this is in the middle of the field and receiver is hit immediately after his foot touches the ground causing the ball to come out. By your absolute definition this would be a catch/fumble. Those situations can be tough with a lot of gray area. The philosophy of requiring the receiver to maintain possession on an immediate hit or catching it while going to the ground helps me be more consistent from play to play and it helps create more consistency within a crew and from crew to crew.

I assume this philosophy is becoming much more common based on the other comments in this thread. That is a good thing for officiating. I've never seen an official philosophy on holding or pass interference either, but there are generally accepted philosophies on when to pass and when to call both. They may be documented through unofficial publications (i.e. Reddings guide) or association documents (i.e. mechanics books, presentations) or clinic handouts.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Someone of your (self) apparent superior knowledge, vast experience and expertise should have no DIFFICULTY in explaining that to me, referencing some specific NFHS Rule reference, Case Book confirmation, Point of Emphasis or other documented conclusion.

That's been attempted before and ends up with a lot banging of heads against walls. I proffered my own explanation and I'll leave it at that.

As for consistency, during those years I worked at the NCAA Division II and III level, I tried to maintain distinction between NCAA and NFHS Rules and practices.

These times are a changin'. More and more we are seeing fundamental philosophies of all three levels coming in line with each other as the years pass. This is influenced by NFL officials becoming conference coordinators and passing down these philosophies to their conference staff. In turn, the NCAA officials in clinics and as high school supervisors pass down these philosophies to the high school level. We are seeing it with not only philosophies but also actual rule changes and mechanics. Seven man crews are common in many states and are even required in a few. This is directly influenced from the collegiate level.

This is a good thing and should be celebrated as progress in officiating. We need to keep changing as the game changes. It is done in other sports, most notably internationally in soccer and it works quite well.

There will always be some things that are different between levels and that is to be expected to adjust for the level of the game.

In many, dare I say most, areas of the country this is not regarded as a catch and it shouldn't be.

As an aside, when the definition of an inbounds player changes in NFHS to match NCAA, I do not suspect you'll be complaining.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

As an aside, when the definition of an inbounds player changes in NFHS to match NCAA, I do not suspect you'll be complaining.

I almost went there too (even had something typed before I deleted it), but I promised to be nice. I do hope to see a NFHS change that matches the NCAA change.

[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.

[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.