The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[Repulsif]

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 ?

[SoCal Deek]

I could not agree more. Think of it another way. When a receiver catches a ball in bounds and does NOT hit the ground, but instead releases it because he is now off the field of play, is it not a catch?  Of course it is. That was a really dumb call. The league needs to change that.

[Moulds 808080]

If the ball cant cause a fumble why can a moving ball after he caught it and had two feet down be called no INT.

 

You all are right!!!!

[Antonio]

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.

[BRH]

If Poyer had rolled over out of bounds and the ball had touched the ground, I see the argument for "not a catch."  But although the ball moved when he hit the ground, it never touched the ground itself, and Poyer was able to secure it.  I don't know in what world that's not a catch.

 

That said, it's pretty cool to be good enough that a stupid rule like that doesn't affect the game's outcome.

[Jerome007]

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,

Edited December 2, 2022 by Jerome007

[ddaryl]

Part of his body had already made contact with the OB turf before the bobble therefore the play ends the moment he is officially OB

So I agree it should of been an INT

Edited December 2, 2022 by ddaryl

[Antonio]

Just now, Moulds 808080 said:

If the ball cant cause a fumble why can a moving ball after he caught it and had two feet down be called no INT.

 

You all are right!!!!

 

´cause it is only a fumble when a ball it's already secured.

 

In this case you are in the process to secure the ball.

 

Trust me, I hated the call, but it was the right one. Poyer made a hell of a play there, too bad he needed to go down. 

[Ramza86]

I dont love the rule, but I dont hate it either. 

 

I think id leave it the way it is.

 

Imagine all you needed was two feet and possession. A DB could no longer knock it out of the WRs hands after he puts his hands on the ball.

 

It would be ruled a fumble instead of a pass breakup.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Ramza86

[smuvtalker]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I could not agree more. Think of it another way. When a receiver catches a ball in bounds and does NOT hit the ground, but instead releases it because he is now off the field of play, is it not a catch?  Of course it is. That was a really dumb call. The league needs to change that.

I felt the exact same way. Where my confusion lies is, like you said, Poyer makes the interception(✔️), makes sure to get that second foot well in bounds(✔️), as he's making sure to get both feet in bounds, he clearly has full possession of the football, it is secure and not moving(✔️)...and even after he hits the ground, the ball never makes contact with the ground!  Yes it moves, but he is clearly underneath it, and it in no way ever hits the turf.   I thought that was indisputable evidence. 

[zow2]

I think the same rule was enforced when the Patriots tight end made what looked like a goaline catch last Thursday night at Minnesota.  Then it was ruled incomplete.  Personally i hate the rule because if the ball never touches the ground and it's in his possession when he first hits the ground, it should stand.  If the ball touches the ground that's a different story.  This rule should be changed.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, Moulds 808080 said:

If the ball cant cause a fumble why can a moving ball after he caught it and had two feet down be called no INT.

 

You all are right!!!!

The rule is saying possession never happens until there is a football move.

 

In this instance I would say Poyer tucks the football which is a football move.

 

The rule as the refs called is Poyer caught it but was falling down out of bounds so now he must hit the ground and secure the football or it’s a catch out of bounds.

 

 

 

 

[JoPoy88]

9 minutes 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 ?

the difference is a runner has indisputable possession of the ball prior to falling to the ground. On a pass, the theory goes the pass catcher cannot use the ground to help “trap” or secure complete possession. 
 

I don’t agree with the nuances of the rule or how it’s enforced or interpreted either, but that’s the difference.

[BuffaloRebound]

The interesting thing is that his momentum took him into the bench area when he hit the ground.  What if he made contact with a player on sidelines before he hit ground?  If that’s the rule, shouldn’t an opposing sideline try to separate the ball from an opposing receiver/interceptor if their momentum brings them into their sideline?  

[Motorin']

9 minutes 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 ?

 

The Poyer play shows the rule needs to be changed.

 

He caught the ball, got two feet in bounds. Then his knee went down out of bounds and he still has possession of the ball. The play should be over at that point, because the play is over at that point.

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, Motorin' said:

 

The Poyer play shows the rule needs to be changed.

 

He caught the ball, got two feet in bounds. Then his knee went down out of bounds and he still has possession of the ball. The play should be over at that point, because the play is over at that point.

 

 

The problem is when does possession happen. You need 2 feet and a football move. 
 

 

[Antonio]

4 minutes ago, smuvtalker said:

I felt the exact same way. Where my confusion lies is, like you said, Poyer makes the interception(✔️), makes sure to get that second foot well in bounds(✔️), as he's making sure to get both feet in bounds, he clearly has full possession of the football, it is secure and not moving(✔️)...and even after he hits the ground, the ball never makes contact with the ground!  Yes it moves, but he is clearly underneath it, and it in no way ever hits the turf.   I thought that was indisputable evidence. 

 

"Football move" is missing, therefor you need to mantain controll of the ball when hitting the ground. Ball can´t move. As he was out of bounds when he finally has controll of the ball after he hit the groud it is an incompletion. 

[Thurman#1]

11 minutes 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 ?

 

 

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.

[Billsatlastin2018]

11 minutes 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 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.

[nkreed]

He had three feet in on the play with a tuck before he is OOB. I think it was a terrible enforcement of going to the ground. That third step with possession and tuck should have constituted a football move.