The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[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".