The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[Jeffbigalls]

6 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

Inbounds it would have been an INT. Since he didn't keep full control while out of bounds, it was not. I'm fine with the rule as it's clear as day.

 

Edit: but what an attempt by Poyer. As was the TD pass and catch by Josh and DIggs that was recalled by a penalty,

Not if he hit the ground and it bobbled at the end like it did on that play. Would not have been an int

[MPT]

1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

He not only tucked it, but had a THIRD foot down in bounds, both of which satisfy the requirement of a football move.

 

The third foot isn't really used to judge that. Players take an extra step all the time in the field of play then get the ball knocked out and it's still called an incompletion. That's why they specify "an act common to the game" and not just a step.

[Alphadawg7]

6 hours ago, Repulsif said:

Being around since 2002, I guess this is my 1st topic.

 

After seing the Poyer INT canceled, I really thought this rule is wrong (and prone to official/Vegas conspiracy)

For me, since/when the player has 2 feet in ground, don't juggle the ball while falling, it's a catch/int...

Runners don't have this rule

Should be the same thing whenever you run it or catch it

 

Am I the only one to think this ?

Could someone explain to me the difference ?

 

I totally agree.

 

Rule should simply be this:  (gonna specifically use the poyer INT) - When the player controls the ball with 2 feet cleanly established on the ground (and in bounds), it shall be ruled a catch unless the ball comes loose and makes any contact with the ground before regaining control.

 

In the event, like Poyer, player has control with 2 feet in bound but ball moves when player hits ground, but the ball does NOT come in contact with the ground, it remains a catch.

 

It is such a simple fix, but the NFL doesn't do things like common sense well.  

[Billsfanatixs]

I have seen countless interceptions as the player goes out of bounds, this is the first time I have ever seen this call.

 

It has always been

 1) Does the player have control of the ball while both feet are down.

2) does player still have control of ball as he breaks the out of bounds plane.

 

Never have I seen them add this 3rd criteria.

 

3) does the player maintain possession of the ball when landing on the ground while out of bounds.

 

Good thing the game wasn't decided by that or this message board would look very different right now

 

 

[Billz4ever]

15 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

The third foot isn't really used to judge that. Players take an extra step all the time in the field of play then get the ball knocked out and it's still called an incompletion. That's why they specify "an act common to the game" and not just a step.

It literally says it in the rule book.

 

Poyer tucked it away AND got a 3rd foot in bounds.

 

NFL rule book states a player must secure the ball, have two feet down, and then “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)”

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Don Otreply]

The ball was caught/intercepted both feet were in bounds, upon the player crossing the line to go out of bounds the play was over/done, It was a BS  call. 

[Just Joshin']

5 hours ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

As I said in my first post, a toe tap counts towards part B of the rule. 

 

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

 

Note that they use "both feet" and not "step".  

 

Part C is a separate part of the rule and clearly says "step"

 

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. 

 

I don't think any reasonable person is going to consider Poyer tapping his toe down for a fraction of a second while falling to the ground to be a "step". 

 

Listening to NFL radio " Moving the Chains" show and both hosts thought it was an Int.  They are not reasonable?

 

They also believe the ejection call was incorrect.

[Billz4ever]

6 hours ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

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

OK, let's say it doesn't.  Tucking the ball away does and he did that too.

[MPT]

1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

It literally says it in the rule book.

 

Poyer tucked it away AND got a 3rd foot in bounds.

 

NFL rule book states a player must secure the ball, have two feet down, and then “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)”

 

I did not realize it actually specified that! My bad

[Billz4ever]

5 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

I did not realize it actually specified that! My bad

Now I guess there's some debate whether getting a toe tap down constitutes an additional step, but even if we say it doesn't, he still did tuck it away, which is also considered a football move.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Chaos]

9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The runner is presumed to have possession, unless he's fumbled. The receiver has not yet attained official possession. Makes sense to me, personally.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if many disagree, with some justification, but I'm OK with it.

One the runner is “down” with possession it is logically for the play to end.  In Poyers case he has possession in bounds and the moment his first foot touched out of bounds he still had possession and was “down”.  Play should be deemed complete as soon as he is down. The rule should be “possession surviving until down”

[MPT]

1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

Now I guess there's some debate whether getting a toe tap down constitutes an additional step, but even if we say it doesn't, he still did tuck it away, which is also considered a football move.

 

Objectively, I don't think I would count a toe tap as a step. I think the spirit of the rule is to affirm the player had control of the ball long enough and a toe tap can happen in a tenth of a second. To me, that wouldn't prove the player had control. However, tucking the ball away and only having it come loose when he hits the ground would, to me, affirm that he controlled the catch.

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

Objectively, I don't think I would count a toe tap as a step. I think the spirit of the rule is to affirm the player had control of the ball long enough and a toe tap can happen in a tenth of a second. To me, that wouldn't prove the player had control. However, tucking the ball away and only having it come loose when he hits the ground would, to me, affirm that he controlled the catch.

In bounds you are correct because the play is not over. Out of bounds the play is over the first moment the player touches out of bounds. It analogous to the ball breaking the he plane is the goal line. The play ends at that point. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Chaos

[frostbitmic]

I thought he tucked it before it came out.

[MPT]

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

In bounds you are correct because the play is not over. Out of bounds the play is over the first moment the player touches out of bounds. It analogous to the ball breaking the he plane is the goal line. The play ends at that point. 

 

Right, but you have to qualify the catch itself somehow. If Poyer had caught it and then immediately went to the ground and the ball came loose I wouldn't have any problem calling that incomplete even though he landed out of bounds with the ball in his hands. It just wouldn't make any sense to award a catch if the player can't maintain control for the fraction of a second that it takes to hit the ground.

 

To qualify the catch, the catch rule requires a football move in order to prove that the player has control of the ball (condition "c" referenced below). When the player goes to the ground out of bounds, the rule says the following:

 

"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"

 

I have no problem with the rule itself. It's just applied inconsistently and often incorrectly. Like in this case, where (c) was fulfilled by Poyer tucking the ball so the above stipulation shouldn't have applied. 

[Chaos]

22 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

Right, but you have to qualify the catch itself somehow. If Poyer had caught it and then immediately went to the ground and the ball came loose I wouldn't have any problem calling that incomplete even though he landed out of bounds with the ball in his hands. It just wouldn't make any sense to award a catch if the player can't maintain control for the fraction of a second that it takes to hit the ground.

 

To qualify the catch, the catch rule requires a football move in order to prove that the player has control of the ball (condition "c" referenced below). When the player goes to the ground out of bounds, the rule says the following:

 

"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"

 

I have no problem with the rule itself. It's just applied inconsistently and often incorrectly. Like in this case, where (c) was fulfilled by Poyer tucking the ball so the above stipulation shouldn't have applied. 

Catch SHOULD be qualified by 1) two feet down in bounds with possession 2) touching out of bounds with possession. 

Since the ball can no longer be advanced, the play should be considered over at that instance.  What would happen if the reciever is pushed out of bounds and juggles the ball until he comes back in bounds, and then falls to the ground with the ball, should that be considered a catch?, or was the play over as soon as he touched the ball while out of bounds? 

[MPT]

5 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Catch SHOULD be qualified by 1) two feet down in bounds with possession 2) touching out of bounds with possession. 

Since the ball can no longer be advanced, the play should be considered over at that instance.  What would happen if the reciever is pushed out of bounds and juggles the ball until he comes back in bounds, and then falls to the ground with the ball, should that be considered a catch?, or was the play over as soon as he touched the ball while out of bounds? 

 

Obviously the play was over as soon as he  touched it out of bounds. That hypothetical is silly and you know it.

 

The question is: where is the line between juggling the ball and possessing the ball? The catch rule defines it, and I agree with setting some standards to possession that are more than "he had the ball in his hands at some point". What I have an issue with is the inconsistency with which the NFL applies the rule.

[Chaos]

Just now, MPT said:

 

Obviously the play was over as soon as he  touched it out of bounds. That hypothetical is silly and you know it.

 

The question is: where is the line between juggling the ball and possessing the ball? The catch rule defines it, and I agree with setting some standards to possession that are more than "he had the ball in his hands at some point". What I have an issue with is the inconsistency with which the NFL applies the rule.

Its not a silly hypothetical.  It makes clear the point the play is over.  It is fundamentally inconsistent to require some further action after the play is clearly over. It makes zero logical sense. The rule needs to determine if the player had possession at the moment the play is over.  Same exact rule applies inbounds. Play is not over until the player hits the ground after contact, with control of the ball, if he loses it on contact, it is not a catch because he did not possess it at the time the play was over. 

[Doc]

It was the right call.

[MPT]

4 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Its not a silly hypothetical.  It makes clear the point the play is over.  It is fundamentally inconsistent to require some further action after the play is clearly over. It makes zero logical sense. The rule needs to determine if the player had possession at the moment the play is over.  Same exact rule applies inbounds. Play is not over until the player hits the ground after contact, with control of the ball, if he loses it on contact, it is not a catch because he did not possess it at the time the play was over. 

 

Exactly. You say the play is over when the player touches out of bounds with possession, and you also say possession depends on maintaining control. So if he doesn't maintain control, he never had possession. That applies in bounds or out of bounds equally.

 

My argument is that Poyer demonstrated control by tucking the ball before he went out of bounds. If he hadn't demonstrated control, he wouldn't have possession and the pass would be incomplete.

[MPT]

19 minutes ago, Doc said:

It was the right call.

 

Based on what? Certainly not the rules or common sense. 

[Buffalo Ballin]

I hate this f*ckin rule. It needs to be changed. It's stupid.

 

Jordan Poyer clearly had an INT and we were robbed of it. Poyer clearly had 2 feet in and possession of the ball (Yes, Poyer had possession; full control tucked in) BEFORE going out of bounds. Whatever happens, OUT OF BOUNDS, doesn't matter.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Buffalo Ballin

[MJS]

I think they were dumb to mention the ground at all when defining the rules. What they are really trying to do is gauge possession. When has possession been established? If you go to the ground and the ball comes out before possession is established, it is an incompletion. If possession has been established, it is a fumble. They say you need more than just two feet in bounds to establish possession. You need a "football move". I'm pretty sure Poyer took a third step in bounds. Shouldn't that be the football move required to complete a catch?

 

Honestly, I think it was a pretty close call on this particular play, but there is enough there to argue that the play should have been an INT.

[pennstate10]

51 minutes ago, MJS said:

I think they were dumb to mention the ground at all when defining the rules. What they are really trying to do is gauge possession. When has possession been established? If you go to the ground and the ball comes out before possession is established, it is an incompletion. If possession has been established, it is a fumble. They say you need more than just two feet in bounds to establish possession. You need a "football move". I'm pretty sure Poyer took a third step in bounds. Shouldn't that be the football move required to complete a catch?

 

Honestly, I think it was a pretty close call on this particular play, but there is enough there to argue that the play should have been an INT.

Guys, this has been a rule for at least 5 years. You see plays like this every wknd. If you bobble the ball oob, that’s losing possession. It’s really straightforward. 
 

if a guy gets 2 feet down, and then bobble the ball oob before turning upfield or some other Football move, it’s no catch. 
 

It really was a pretty obvious call. 

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

15 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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.

I believe if a player has control with two feet inbounds, as he leaves the field of play nothing that happens out of bounds should affect that status. 

It seems strange to me that actions occurring after a player has legally left the field of play and the play is effectively dead impact what happened prior to that when the basic criteria for a catch (historically, at least) has already been fulfilled. To your point in bold, I don't think Poyer lost full possession of the ball. He partially did, but it never hit the ground or even lost contact with his body. I.e. he quickly reacquired full possession a second time. But regardless of that, I don't think it should matter as he met the criteria of a catch previously already before he entered a section of the field where he was no longer a legal participant in the play anyway and the ref blows the whistle at the same time, or even before the bobble occurred. 

 

Cases where the player is still inbounds when the ball movement occurs are a trickier subject I think as it relates to continuation to the ground, but even there, it's seems somewhat strange that the ground can "cause" an incomplete catch, whereas it cannot cause a fumble, even in cases where the ball never touches the ground before it is re-acquired under control (ala Hunter Henry last week vs. Minnesota). 

 

 

[LeGOATski]

Should've been a catch. He got 3 feet in bounds (right, left, right) and had complete control. It bobbled when he hit the ground, but he never lost it.

 

Just another one of those intentional gray areas that NFL officials live in.

[Richard Noggin]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

Should've been a catch. He got 3 feet in bounds (right, left, right) and had complete control. It bobbled when he hit the ground, but he never lost it.

 

Just another one of those intentional gray areas that NFL officials live in.

I skipped from page 1 to page 10, so forgive me, but...is this a popular sentiment, that Poyer, who obviously got two feet down (right then left), actually also tapped that right foot inbounds AGAIN as he left the field of play and went to the ground? Which would of course nullify the whole "survive the ground" stipulation... 

[Brand J]

7 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

I skipped from page 1 to page 10, so forgive me, but...is this a popular sentiment, that Poyer, who obviously got two feet down (right then left), actually also tapped that right foot inbounds AGAIN as he left the field of play and went to the ground? Which would of course nullify the whole "survive the ground" stipulation... 

Not only that, but he tucked the ball away, which is also in the rules as a football move. He satisfied A, B, and C of the catch process. Refs got it wrong. 

[LeGOATski]

31 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

I skipped from page 1 to page 10, so forgive me, but...is this a popular sentiment, that Poyer, who obviously got two feet down (right then left), actually also tapped that right foot inbounds AGAIN as he left the field of play and went to the ground? Which would of course nullify the whole "survive the ground" stipulation... 

yep

 

 

 

drags that right foot again like a receiver

[Doc]

8 hours ago, MPT said:

Based on what? Certainly not the rules or common sense. 

 

Based on the rule.  If he hadn't been going to the ground, it's a catch.  Since he was, he has to have a firm grip on the ball and it not move when he hits the ground. 

[Meatloaf63]

21 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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.

Accept your surviving the ground is stupid because the ball never touched the ground and in the field of play it’s a catch every time. He caught the ball put it away got a knee down that’s a football move as he still has possession. Rule is dumb and is clearly not consistent.

6 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

Guys, this has been a rule for at least 5 years. You see plays like this every wknd. If you bobble the ball oob, that’s losing possession. It’s really straightforward. 
 

if a guy gets 2 feet down, and then bobble the ball oob before turning upfield or some other Football move, it’s no catch. 
 

It really was a pretty obvious call. 

Really in your scenario inbounds with a bobble it’s incomplete when the ball never touches the ground? 

[Teddy KGB]

23 hours ago, Repulsif said:

Being around since 2002, I guess this is my 1st topic.

 

After seing the Poyer INT canceled, I really thought this rule is wrong (and prone to official/Vegas conspiracy)

For me, since/when the player has 2 feet in ground, don't juggle the ball while falling, it's a catch/int...

Runners don't have this rule

Should be the same thing whenever you run it or catch it

 

Am I the only one to think this ?

Could someone explain to me the difference ?

I’m still trying to figure out the Dez catch and Hunter Henry’s non TD last week 

[Billz4ever]

This is also the rule (no matter how dumb the rule is) in college and high school ball as well. The scenario given below is using NCAA rules (only needing 1 foot in), but this same scenario that happened with Poyer.

-------------------

https://www.referee.com/hesitation-may-not-lead-aggravation/

 

The ground can cause an incomplete pass.

 

Catching a ball involves more than simply gaining control of it. It means gaining possession of the ball in flight and first coming to the ground inbounds (NFHS 2-4-1; NCAA 2-2-7). If an airborne player receives the ball and lands so his first contact is inbounds, he has caught the ball. Barring contact by an opponent, if the first contact is out of bounds, there is no catch and the pass is incomplete. If a player controls the ball while airborne, but loses possession when he lands, there is no catch. Thus, the ground can cause an incomplete pass.

 

One fairly common scenario is a player who gains control of a ball in flight while he is in mid-air. He then comes to the ground with a foot just inside the sideline and falls to the ground out of bounds. When the player contacts the ground, the ball pops out from his hands. That may occur either with or without the ball contacting the ground.

---------------------

The difference here is the "performs any act common to the game" (part c in the NFL rules). If it says tucking the ball constitutes a football move, then if it comes lose after contact with the ground, it shouldn't matter at that point since the elements of a completed catch were already fulfilled.  If you then say the ball coming loose still does matter even after a,b, and c were satisfied as per what defines a catch, then you're saying a,b, and c are not what defines a catch, which in that case, means they need to update the rule book.

 

“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.”

Edited December 3, 2022 by Billz4ever

[davefan66]

So, a DB can catch the ball, two feet down, control of ball, ball crosses the sideline, opposing player in bounds keeps raking at the ball out of bounds and can cause it to be a non-catch?  Seems like a poor rule to me.

 

Obviously this applies to a WR also.

 

Ground can’t cause a fumble.  Can the ground cause a non-catch out of bounds?

 

Ticky tack.  Seems it’s a rule that probably isn’t followed every similar catch.

[pennstate10]

2 hours ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Accept your surviving the ground is stupid because the ball never touched the ground and in the field of play it’s a catch every time. He caught the ball put it away got a knee down that’s a football move as he still has possession. Rule is dumb and is clearly not consistent.

Really in your scenario inbounds with a bobble it’s incomplete when the ball never touches the ground? 

?  No, that’s the key, he wasn’t inbounds. He was OOB (out of bounds). 
If a guy juggles a pass for 20 steps in bounds, it a catch. 
if a guy juggles a pass for 20 steps, never has clear possession, and goes oob while juggling, it’s no catch. 
Have to have complete possession, including not losiing clear possession when hitting the ground. In poyers case, he bobbled the bal oob, so no catch. 

[Billz4ever]

17 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

?  No, that’s the key, he wasn’t inbounds. He was OOB (out of bounds). 
If a guy juggles a pass for 20 steps in bounds, it a catch. 
if a guy juggles a pass for 20 steps, never has clear possession, and goes oob while juggling, it’s no catch. 
Have to have complete possession, including not losiing clear possession when hitting the ground. In poyers case, he bobbled the bal oob, so no catch. 

But that's not what defines a catch in the NFL. Which of these did he not satisfy?

 

“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.”

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

But that's not what defines a catch in the NFL. Which of these did he not satisfy?

 

“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.”

 

He was going to the ground.  Have to maintain complete control of the ball all the way through.

[Billz4ever]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

He was going to the ground.  Have to maintain complete control of the ball all the way through.

I'm not seeing that in what defines a catch.  If he's already satisfied the requirements for a catch (below👇) you're saying there's more requirements that aren't part of the rule that defines a catch?

 

“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.”

 

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

I'm not seeing that in what defines a catch.  If he's already satisfied the requirements for a catch (below👇) you're saying there's more requirements that aren't part of the rule that defines a catch?

 

“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.”

 

I believe it's a "clarification" of the rule above, but when a player in going to the ground, what defines it as a catch is if the player has complete control of the ball all the way through.

[Billz4ever]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I believe it's a "clarification" of the rule above, but when a player in going to the ground, what defines it as a catch is if the player has complete control of the ball all the way through.

So why isn't that verbiage part of what defines a catch?  Seems pretty ambiguous when it's spelled out in 3 parts what defines a completed catch and then somewhere else it adds "oh, and this too".