The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[loveorhatembillsfan4life]

I may be wrong but listening to an Nfl show on Sirius and the the host said the surviving the ground thing is not even in the rule book. It’s sort of have been made up as it goes.. 

 

Can anyone confirm that it is a rule?

Edited December 2, 2022 by loveorhatembillsfan4life

[Motorin']

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

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

 

 

Like striking the Heisman pose? Sorry, I'll never understand what is and what isn't a football move. Taking a knee is a football move that ends a play. But not when the guy caught the ball and goes to the ground? 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

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

[What a Tuel]

14 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.

 

The problem is he clearly had possession when he had his feet down. Anything after that should be considered a fumble. How can the officials agree you have possession of the ball in bounds (and they would have if he hadn't bobbled it) but then bobble it on the ground and suggest that means you gained possession out of bounds? 

Edited December 2, 2022 by What a Tuel

[Big Turk]

14 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.

 

Personally, I think it's dumb...if the ball never hits the ground and the player has it on their person, what difference does it make? Additionally, if he has possession and 2 feet in bounds, what does it matter what happens AFTER he goes out of bounds?  It should be irrelevant, as he is OUT OF BOUNDS.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Big Turk

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, Antonio said:

 

"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. 

Yep. The football move according to the rules is falling to the ground. So you must maintain possession through the fall.

 

 I think they should tweak the rule to allow tucking the football while falling as a football move. Meaning catch, 2 feet, then the football move is a tuck or reaching the ball out before hitting the ground.

 

There’s been so many controversial plays with this rule. 

[nkreed]

Might as well add the play...

 

https://twitter.com/J_poyer21/status/1598542205706199040?t=2mYZjktj0mWEcF1O-XfOog&s=19

 

For whatever reason I don't know how to embed a tweet on my phone.

Edited December 2, 2022 by nkreed

[smuvtalker]

5 minutes ago, Antonio said:

 

"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. 

Got it.  So what you're saying is, had he been in bounds when he landed, even though the ball moved, as long as it never touched the ground, it would have been an INT?

[What a Tuel]

I just want to add for the record that we are discussing this even though we handily won. So all those who say we only talk about this stuff as an excuse for losing can suck it.

[Solomon Grundy]

21 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 could see if the ball hit the ground in this scenario, but it didn't!! Rule should be amended

[BuffaloRebound]

2 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

This.  The rule has to be adjusted for playing going out of bounds.  Camera-men, cheerleaders, walls, Chain gang, coaches, players on sidelines… there’s too many things out of the field of play to enforce the rule for a player going out of bounds.  

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, BuffaloRebound said:

This.  The rule has to be adjusted for playing going out of bounds.  Camera-men, cheerleaders, walls, Chain gang, coaches, players on sidelines… there’s too many things out of the field of play to enforce the rule for a player going out of bounds.  

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.

[Rochesterfan]

22 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 guess I really do not understand how anyone could not understand the ruling. The Refs got it 100% correct and even though it sucks - that is exactly how that call should go based upon the rules.

 

Poyer did everything right - caught the ball and worked hard to get both feet down, but that action caused him to fall to the ground - now the rule becomes he must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground.  
 

Poyer clearly loses control as the ball moves when he hits the ground.  The fact that he regains control without the ball hitting the ground is meaningless.  The “official” catch does not occur until he has control and is on the ground in this situation and that occurs with him well out of bounds.

 

If that had happened in the middle of the field it is an interception at the point he regains control, but as that occurred OOB - it is just incomplete.

 

There is nothing crazy or controversial about the call - it is pretty consistently called that way along the sidelines and just because it negated an Int - doesn’t change they got the call correct.

 

 

 

 

[pocoboy]

I think these are the types of rules that you hate when they take something from your team, and love when it benefits.

 

Unfortunately you have to come up with bland, blanket rules to cover these types of things. If he lands inbounds, the ball pops out, and a NE player grabs it, do you go berzerk because he didn't establish possession and instead of it being a 1st down for NE it's an incompletion?

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I guess I really do not understand how anyone could not understand the ruling. The Refs got it 100% correct and even though it sucks - that is exactly how that call should go based upon the rules.

 

Poyer did everything right - caught the ball and worked hard to get both feet down, but that action caused him to fall to the ground - now the rule becomes he must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground.  
 

Poyer clearly loses control as the ball moves when he hits the ground.  The fact that he regains control without the ball hitting the ground is meaningless.  The “official” catch does not occur until he has control and is on the ground in this situation and that occurs with him well out of bounds.

 

If that had happened in the middle of the field it is an interception at the point he regains control, but as that occurred OOB - it is just incomplete.

 

There is nothing crazy or controversial about the call - it is pretty consistently called that way along the sidelines and just because it negated an Int - doesn’t change they got the call correct.

 

 

 

 

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. 

[nkreed]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I guess I really do not understand how anyone could not understand the ruling. The Refs got it 100% correct and even though it sucks - that is exactly how that call should go based upon the rules.

 

Poyer did everything right - caught the ball and worked hard to get both feet down, but that action caused him to fall to the ground - now the rule becomes he must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground.  
 

Poyer clearly loses control as the ball moves when he hits the ground.  The fact that he regains control without the ball hitting the ground is meaningless.  The “official” catch does not occur until he has control and is on the ground in this situation and that occurs with him well out of bounds.

 

If that had happened in the middle of the field it is an interception at the point he regains control, but as that occurred OOB - it is just incomplete.

 

There is nothing crazy or controversial about the call - it is pretty consistently called that way along the sidelines and just because it negated an Int - doesn’t change they got the call correct.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

3 minutes ago, pocoboy said:

I think these are the types of rules that you hate when they take something from your team, and love when it benefits.

 

Unfortunately you have to come up with bland, blanket rules to cover these types of things. If he lands inbounds, the ball pops out, and a NE player grabs it, do you go berzerk because he didn't establish possession and instead of it being a 1st down for NE it's an incompletion?

I don’t actually hate the complete the catch rule when out of bounds. It’s very simple rule to me. Probably the easiest to call.

 

I only get confused about the rule when a player is reaching the football out while falling and loses control when hitting the ground. To me the reach is a football move.

[ArtVandalay]

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. 

 

[Antonio]

18 minutes ago, smuvtalker said:

Got it.  So what you're saying is, had he been in bounds when he landed, even though the ball moved, as long as it never touched the ground, it would have been an INT?

 

Yep, thats right. 

[Einstein]

The league could make this a lot simpler if they changed the rule to be:

 

1) Two feet in bounds

2) Firm grasp of the ball when the two feet are in bounds

3) The ball does not touch the ground when you fall down

 

Enough of the “well the ball slightly moved” stuffed.

 

If they had two feet in bounds with firm grasp of the ball and the ball doesn’t touch the ground when they fall, catch.

 

Why should a ball slightly moving on a players body but never touching the ground matter?