The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Terrible rule written in typical NFL technicality. Who gives a ***** if the ball moves and then the player gets up and hands it to the ref. Did we worry about it when were kids? No it was a frickin catch!

[BearNorth]

If the ball never touches the ground before the player is down, that should be a catch/interception, regardless if its moving a bit.  Seems like they league is far more strict on what is a catch than what is a fumble.  The say the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass.

[BuffaloFan68]

It’s a stupid & WRONG rule.  If a player has possession & 2 feet down or the equivalent then the play should stand, it should not matter what happens after being out of bounds.  Out of bounds is out of bounds, they shouldn’t be extending what happens with the play to the out of bounds area.  Just stupid.  Same with a TD, once the plane of the goal is broken, it should be a score & end of play. 
While the officiating is better than years past, there is still plenty of room for improvement but it really starts with getting the Rulebooks straight.

Go Bills!!!!!

[Matt_In_NH]

When I saw the replay I immediately knew it was coming back....the rule is clear about this and he lost control after he hit the ground....the ball does not have to hit the ground  Now if the same catch happens in the field of play it would be a catch because the ball does not touch the ground.  The catches going out of bounds are always scary because of the survive the ground aspect.  We can argue to change the rule but the they got the call right per the rules today.

 

I will also say we talk about catches a LOT less frequently than we used to, they changed it up a few years ago and it is much better now.  But there is some room for interpretation/subjectiveness and it is probably impossible to get rid of that completely.   

17 minutes ago, BuffaloFan68 said:

possession & 2 feet down

 

Even in the field of play (not out of bounds) this is not good enough, you also have to have a football move or some element of time.

[The Wiz]

42 minutes ago, BearNorth said:

If the ball never touches the ground before the player is down, that should be a catch/interception, regardless if its moving a bit.  Seems like they league is far more strict on what is a catch than what is a fumble.  The say the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass.

Isn't this the same thing that happened to the Steelers vs the pats, feels like a decade ago and probably was, where the TE caught the ball and extended toward the goal line and they ruled it incomplete?

 

Might have been a playoff game also. Can't remember anymore. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by The Wiz

[Billz4ever]

6 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

When I saw the replay I immediately knew it was coming back....the rule is clear about this and he lost control after he hit the ground....the ball does not have to hit the ground  Now if the same catch happens in the field of play it would be a catch because the ball does not touch the ground.  The catches going out of bounds are always scary because of the survive the ground aspect.  We can argue to change the rule but the they got the call right per the rules today.

 

I will also say we talk about catches a LOT less frequently than we used to, they changed it up a few years ago and it is much better now.  But there is some room for interpretation/subjectiveness and it is probably impossible to get rid of that completely.   

 

Even in the field of play (not out of bounds) this is not good enough, you also have to have a football move or some element of time.

He tucked the ball away, which per the rule, is a football move. 

[Rochesterfan]

7 hours ago, BearNorth said:

If the ball never touches the ground before the player is down, that should be a catch/interception, regardless if its moving a bit.  Seems like they league is far more strict on what is a catch than what is a fumble.  The say the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass.

 

The ground can most certainly cause a fumble - it happens all the time.  
 

The ground can not cause a fumble on a player being tackled because when they hit the ground with anything other than feet or hands they are down by contact.

 

If the player dives forward untouched and the ball squirts free on hitting the ground - it is a fumble.  Even if the ground causes it.

 

The issue with the Poyer Interception- is and has been - that if in the act of catching the ball the player is going to the ground - the NFL considers that part of the catch action and he must maintain full control through the action - regardless of steps, knee down, any other action. 
 

In this case, whether Poyer got 2, 3, or 4 feet down - or his knee hit first out of bounds, or he made an act of tucking the ball as he was falling - all of that is irrelevant because the act of falling started as part of the catch and therefore he must complete the catch. 
 

When he lands on the ground he loses possession as the ball rides up his chest and he re-established control lying on the ground out of bounds.  That is the point the catch becomes official because based upon his falling action as part of the catch that is all part of the action.

 

It is the same reason the Meyer TD was not a TD.  He made the catch and had control, 2 feet down, and moved the ball from his shoulders to his hip, and act like tucking common to the game.  Meyers never possessed the ball and completed additional move - so not catch - they have requirements to fulfill.  Poyer in going to the ground also has a requirement and he did not fulfill it.

 

Making a knee down a sole requirement has further impact because if a player dives in the middle of the field untouched and catches a ball laid out - and he posses the ball in his hands, his legs and knees make first contact- fulfilling the requirement, but as he lands on the ground the ball pops out - now it becomes a fumble rather than an incomplete pass.

 

It becomes even worse when we add that for Poyer most of this occurred out of bounds.

 

I understand the consternation, but it was a pretty clear cut and easy call to make and based upon how they call the game it was absolutely 100% the correct call.  The call goes totally different if Poyer stays on his feet mostly because without hitting the ground - he never loses the ball - hence the requirement.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Rochesterfan

[MPT]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

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

 

That only applies if he hasn't first demonstrated a football move, one of which is explicitly stated in the rule as tucking the ball away. Which Poyer did.

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, Matt_In_NH said:

When I saw the replay I immediately knew it was coming back....the rule is clear about this and he lost control after he hit the ground....the ball does not have to hit the ground  Now if the same catch happens in the field of play it would be a catch because the ball does not touch the ground.  The catches going out of bounds are always scary because of the survive the ground aspect.  We can argue to change the rule but the they got the call right per the rules today.

 

I will also say we talk about catches a LOT less frequently than we used to, they changed it up a few years ago and it is much better now.  But there is some room for interpretation/subjectiveness and it is probably impossible to get rid of that completely.   

 

Even in the field of play (not out of bounds) this is not good enough, you also have to have a football move or some element of time.

They got the tuck rule call right but that doesn't make it an intelligent rule. I think the NFL keeps this stupid rule alive to increase drama and replay looks.

[Charles Romes]

The ground can’t cause a fumble rule used to apply in the endzone as well. Butch Johnson Super Bowl catch cowboys v broncos 

 

 

[BuffaloFan68]

7 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

When I saw the replay I immediately knew it was coming back....the rule is clear about this and he lost control after he hit the ground....the ball does not have to hit the ground  Now if the same catch happens in the field of play it would be a catch because the ball does not touch the ground.  The catches going out of bounds are always scary because of the survive the ground aspect.  We can argue to change the rule but the they got the call right per the rules today.

 

I will also say we talk about catches a LOT less frequently than we used to, they changed it up a few years ago and it is much better now.  But there is some room for interpretation/subjectiveness and it is probably impossible to get rid of that completely.   

 

Even in the field of play (not out of bounds) this is not good enough, you also have to have a football move or some element of time.

I liked it better the way it was.  

[Matt_In_NH]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloFan68 said:

I liked it better the way it was.  

You want the pre 2018 rule back?   You are in rare company on that.