TD or NO TD

[WGGriffon]

Pass by A to back of EZ from B24 yard line. A81 extends out, clearly secures ball by bringing it to body, clearly gets one foot in end zone. As he is falling out of back of end zone ball comes loose simultaneously with A81 hitting ground. Ball was 100% secure until contact with ground.

TD or incomplete...

NFHS?
NCAA?

[BoBo]

NCAA Incomplete

NFHS, I would say incomplete as well

[PGA185]

No catch

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by WGGriffon

Ball was 100% secure until contact with ground.

If it wasn't secure upon contact with the ground, then it wasn't secure prior to contact with the ground.

Incomplete.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

If it wasn't secure upon contact with the ground, then it wasn't secure prior to contact with the ground. Incomplete.

Could you provide any NFHS Rule, or interpretation, support for your assessment and conclusion. The op suggests "A81 CLEARLY secures the ball by bringing it SECURELY to body (possession in the air)then CLEARLY gets one foot in the end zone.", which satisfies ALL the requirements of NFHS 2-4-1 and 8-2-1, after which the ball is DEAD.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

If it wasn't secure upon contact with the ground, then it wasn't secure prior to contact with the ground.

Incomplete.

Agreed. I believe with the way that 2-4-1 is written, the intention is to make a catch a process and not an instantaneous event. The rule mentions "maintaining possession". Maintaining something is an ongoing process.

Adhering to this philosophy will ensure a greater consistency in judging catches and in the field of play, will prevent cheap turnovers. Make them complete the process of the catch. This is a standard philosophy in all levels of football though local mileage will vary.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by WGGriffon

Pass by A to back of EZ from B24 yard line. A81 extends out, clearly secures ball by bringing it to body, clearly gets one foot in end zone. As he is falling out of back of end zone ball comes loose simultaneously with A81 hitting ground. Ball was 100% secure until contact with ground.

TD or incomplete...

NFHS?
NCAA?

CANADIAN RULING:

Incomplete. Must survive contact with ground.

[Forksref]

For a catch the receiver must survive contact and the ground.

[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.

[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.

[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.