The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[Big Turk]

It just doesn't make any sense really.  By this standard, on a fumble, since possession was lost in bounds, any team that recovers it out of bounds should get possession. But the OOB area is black and white in this situation, but fluid when catching a ball.  Why does it matter when you have possession and 2 feet down in bounds?  Once you go out of bounds whatever happens after that should be irrelevant because he is OUT OF BOUNDS...same as whatever happens after a fumble goes out of bounds is irrelevant.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Big Turk

[Thurman#1]

8 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

I went crazy last night at the bar about this! So what, if the ***** ball moves when the player hits the ground, as long as the football doesn’t hit the GROUND! It never did.

 

Poyer caught the ball, went out of bounds in possession and the ball moved slightly IN HIS HANDS when he hit the ground, the ball itself never touching the ground and strides later !

 

On the Offensive side, when the WR is going down and makes a football move to spike the Goal Line for the TD, by crossing the plane, the act of the spike should never, ever eliminate the TD!

 

Just as it does not for an RB!

 

***** up rule.

 

 

It moved when he was out of bounds. Only after that he got control. If he'd been in bounds, it would have been a catch if it didn't hit the ground.

 

The comparison to a spike doesn't hold water. Reaching to cross the plane is a football move, proving possession. Poyer didn't make a football move so he hadn't showed possession when the ball moved when he was already out of bounds.

[CLTbills]

It was the right call by the way the rule is written. Doesn't mean I like the rule.

 

[Big Turk]

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

It moved when he was out of bounds. Only after that he got control. If he'd been in bounds, it would have been a catch if it didn't hit the ground.

 

The comparison to a spike doesn't hold water. Reaching to cross the plane is a football move, proving possession. Poyer didn't make a football move so he hadn't showed possession when the ball moved when he was already out of bounds.

 

But he had 2 feet down and possession in bounds.  Once he went out of bounds, the play should be over. Same as a fumble in bounds that goes out of bounds.  NFL makes up rules as they go it seems and makes them way more complicated and convoluted than they need to be.

[Rochesterfan]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And just as important....he DID survive the ground. He did not let it hit the turf. If that had been on the field, it would've been ruled a catch.  Sometimes I think the NFL is looking to make things way more complicated than they really are.

 

The turf never matter - it is at what point the action of a catch is complete and in this case the action is not complete until he has survived hitting the ground.

 

The ball moved when he landed - so the action of his completing the play occurred as soon as he re-secured the ball and at that point he was OOB.

 

Should the pass that Hamlin broke up been called a TD?  The Receiver caught the ball very briefly with 2 feet down and got drilled before he could move and the ball came loose.

 

They define in the rules and via study what makes a catch and what doesn’t - some are close, but neither of them in the game last night were particularly close.  Poyer clearly lost control when he hit the ground - it was pretty obvious and should have been called live, but was so easy they didn’t even need to have the Ref look to overturn.  Hamlin’s hit also clearly caused the receiver to lose possession before he could make a football move.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Is this a catch? I think they should add a football move to the falling to the ground rule. Meaning if you get 2 feet and tuck the ball or reach the ball it’s a catch and possession. 
 

On this play they say he hit the ground before the 3rd step and the ball came loose. If they tweak the rule it would be a catch due to him

tucking the football before hitting the ground.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

But he had 2 feet down and possession in bounds.  Once he went out of bounds, the play should be over. Same as a fumble in bounds that goes out of bounds.  NFL makes up rules as they go it seems and makes them way more complicated and convoluted than they need to be.

2 feet is not considered possession.

[Simstim]

8 minutes ago, ArtVandalay said:

Good call good rule. He was lunging/ diving for the ball, and competely lost it when he hit the ground. 

 

Almost a great play but obviously lost control of the thing.  

 

If you are jumping/diving you need to hold onto it when you land. It's that simple. Don't over think it. 

 

Nope, didn't see that. I saw it get juggled for a moment. He didn't, under any use of those words completely lose it. 

 

 

It's a silly rule. I'm not going to claim it was a unfair call, as it was clearly the correct call. Doesn't make it not stupid though. Because it is.

[Rochesterfan]

11 minutes ago, Bob Chandler's Hands said:

I understand the rule. It was correctly applied. 

Yet, the rule sucks and should be changed in the off-season. Changing the definition of a catch is nothing new in the NFL, they do it all the time. 

 

How should they change it to make that a catch - because you have to be very careful or you end up with a bunch of unintended consequences.

 

The rule is set pretty standard now for actions where the player makes a catch that causes him to go to the ground.

 

I am all for examining it, but I think that in pretty much any scenario- that is an incomplete pass.  I do not see what change you make that allows a player that loses full possession of the ball to be granted a catch or interception OOB.

[ArtVandalay]

2 minutes ago, Simstim said:

Nope, didn't see that. I saw it get juggled for a moment. He didn't, under any use of those words completely lose it. 

 

 

It's a silly rule. I'm not going to claim it was a unfair call, as it was clearly the correct call. Doesn't make it not stupid though. Because it is.

Lmao the ball flipped around on his chest, in no way did he have control of that thing. It wasn't even close. 

 

What is silly about asking a player to hold on to the football? I swear you guys are being ridiculous with this. If this was against us you would be slamming the table no way he caught it. 

[Einstein]

I think they flat out got the rule wrong.

 

Poyer had 3 feet down on the INT play. Look at the images below.

 

The rule book states a catch is when a player:

 

“a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

 

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

 

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.”

 

NOTE: Poyer took the additional step. He had 3 full feet down. If “c” is satisfied, then surving the ground doesn't apply. Again, see the rule book:

 

“If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds”

 

He satisfied “c” with his third step, so surviving the ground becomes null and void. That’s an INT.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Einstein

[mikemac2001]

Just now, ArtVandalay said:

Lmao the ball flipped around on his chest, in no way did he have control of that thing. It wasn't even close. 

 

What is silly about asking a player to hold on to the football? I swear you guys are being ridiculous with this. If this was against us you would be slamming the table no way he caught it. 

Exactly - good call I would have been pissed if they called it an INT vs US 

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

I think they flat out got the rule wrong.

 

Poyer had 3 feet down on the INT play. Look at the images below.

 

The rule book states:

 

“A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.”

 

Poyer took the additional step. He had 3 full feet down. If “c” is satisfied, then surging the ground doesn't apply. Again, see the rule book:

 

“If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds”

 

He satisfied “c” with his third step. That’s an INT.

 

 

I missed that third step - now im

pissed off 😡 but really it was so close watching it live I said no int 

[Thurman#1]

31 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if the guy catches the ball and a teammate congratulates him by swatting the ball when he's out of bounds....is it also then not a catch? Ridiculous rule. When you are off the field of play, you are off the field of play. Period

 

 

Is it not a catch, you ask? Dunno. Depends whether he made a football move and finished the catch inbounds or if it moved when he hit the ground.

 

If the guy made the catch but hadn't completed the catch and his teammate swatted it out that would make him the stupidest teammate in the world, in bounds or out of bounds.

 

If he completed the catch and then went out of bounds, it's a catch and the teammate slaps it out it's a catch. If he didn't complete the catch and went out of bounds, it's not a catch. The swat doesn't matter if he goes out of bounds first. 

 

Poyer had not completed the catch till OOB.

[BuffaloRebound]

‘Going to the ground’ becomes a very grey area when the Receiver/interceptor goes out of bounds.  What if he landed on the Bills Coach that was right by him?  What if a Bills player on bench held him up and prevented him going to the ground?  What if an opposing team player on sidelines didn’t get out of Poyer’s way?  

The reason it was ruled an interception on the field is because he went to the ground so far out of bounds the refs didn’t see the bobble.  

[Billsatlastin2018]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Is it not a catch, you ask? Dunno. Depends whether he made a football move and finished the catch inbounds or if it moved when he hit the ground.

 

If the guy made the catch but hadn't completed the catch and his teammate swatted it out that would make him the stupidest teammate in the world, in bounds or out of bounds.

 

If he completed the catch and then went out of bounds, it's a catch and the teammate slaps it out it's a catch. If he didn't complete the catch and went out of bounds, it's not a catch. The swat doesn't matter if he goes out of bounds first. 

 

Poyer had not completed the catch till OOB.

Nope.

 

THIS…

 

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.”

 

Poyer took the additional step. He had 3 full feet down. If “c” is satisfied, then surging the ground doesn't apply. Again, see the rule book:

[Shaw66]

47 minutes ago, Antonio said:

I don´t like the rule either. But I kind of understand it. 

When catching the ball while going to the ground, the ball can´t move when the WR hits the ground. If it moves, then it is considered that the WR don´t have possession of the ball yet, it is not "secure".

 

In this case Poyer lands out of bounds, so when he finally secured the ball he was out. If this was within the field of play that would have been a catch because the ball never touched the ground.

I think you're correct.  We didn't like last night but we like it if it's called against Kelce!   

 

I don't know the rule exactly, but what I think it should be is that if in order to catch the ball you had to put your body in a position where you're going to have to go the ground, then your control of the ball has to continue through your impact with the ground.  That's what happened with Poyer - his play was so athletic that he had to give up his body to catch it, and he didn't control the ball through impact with the ground.  

 

Now, like you, I think they should change the rule a bit.   I think there's a difference between the ball moving and losing control.  Poyer never really lost control - he hit the ground, he knew he was going to hit the ground, the ball moved a fair amount about he continued to use his arms and hands to keep the ball under his control.  It never touched the ground, it never popped up in the air, anything.   And he clearly had caught it, had full possession and gotten two feet in bounds, three actually.  Under the rules the way I think they should be, that should have been a catch.  

[hondo in seattle]

48 minutes ago, Antonio said:

I don´t like the rule either. But I kind of understand it. 

When catching the ball while going to the ground, the ball can´t move when the WR hits the ground. If it moves, then it is considered that the WR don´t have possession of the ball yet, it is not "secure".

 

In this case Poyer lands out of bounds, so when he finally secured the ball he was out. If this was within the field of play that would have been a catch because the ball never touched the ground.

 

I get the rule.  I don't like it.

 

He had two feet inbounds.  And he caught the ball - he never dropped it.  That should be a pick.  

 

Back in the 1920s when football was raw, that would have been a pick.  And it would have still been ruled a pick just a few years ago.  But the technocrats have overwhelmed the rule book with head-scratching details and subjective ideas like maintaining possession and securing the ball.    

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Is it not a catch, you ask? Dunno. Depends whether he made a football move and finished the catch inbounds or if it moved when he hit the ground.

 

If the guy made the catch but hadn't completed the catch and his teammate swatted it out that would make him the stupidest teammate in the world, in bounds or out of bounds.

 

If he completed the catch and then went out of bounds, it's a catch and the teammate slaps it out it's a catch. If he didn't complete the catch and went out of bounds, it's not a catch. The swat doesn't matter if he goes out of bounds first. 

 

Poyer had not completed the catch till OOB.

 

Poyer had 3 feet down. The 3rd step counts as a football move. Once that 3rd step is made, surviving the ground doesn’t exist.

 

See: https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/244127-the-ball-did-not-survive-the-ground-rule/?do=findComment&comment=8088395

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

I think they flat out got the rule wrong.

 

Poyer had 3 feet down on the INT play. Look at the images below.

 

The rule book states:

 

“A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.”

 

Poyer took the additional step. He had 3 full feet down. If “c” is satisfied, then surging the ground doesn't apply. Again, see the rule book:

 

“If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds”

 

He satisfied “c” with his third step. That’s an INT.

 

 

Lol now I’m confused reading the rules. So they already say if you tuck the ball while falling it’s a football move.

 

Are the refs calling these plays wrong?

[Rochesterfan]

15 minutes ago, nkreed said:

I think there is a nuanced discussion about football move with control of the ball. 

 

Poyer very clearly possesses with two feet in, tucks the ball and manages to get a third foot down. There's a belief that the surviving the ground doesn't come into effect in this situation, since he has clearly passed the three rules of control, body, and football move prior to being OOB.

 

That might be, but he clearly gets 2 feet down and that action causes him to fall - therefore the way they teach it is no matter how many body parts or tucking action occurs - he still must maintain the control.

 

If all of that had occurred 3 more feet in bounds and he flew as he did - got both feet down and continue to fall - his knee, hip, and shoulder all landed in bounds, but his head hit OOB and the ball moved - possession would have been established after his head hit OOB and it would still be incomplete.

 

The reason I say be careful is because any rule change where tucking might be considered a football action could have unseen consequences- such as a WR diving for a catch in bounds - gets hands on the ball and 2 feet down.   As he is falling he tucks the ball and it comes loose  as he hits the ground - based upon your new definition- that would be a catch and a fumble with the potential for a huge turnover.

 

 

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

I think they flat out got the rule wrong.

 

Poyer had 3 feet down on the INT play. Look at the images below.

 

The rule book states:

 

“A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.”

 

Poyer took the additional step. He had 3 full feet down. If “c” is satisfied, then surging the ground doesn't apply. Again, see the rule book:

 

“If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds”

 

He satisfied “c” with his third step. That’s an INT.

 

 

 

A toe tap like that is not "an additional step". It would count towards part b of the catch rule, but not part c