The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You might think he had possession in bounds. According to the rules, he didn't satisfy the requirements for that from what I see.

 

There are two rules involved:

 

Item 3: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his boty, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession.

 

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.

 

Your foot hit the ground a third time inbounds as you fall, IMO, does not fit the "act common to the game" idea. It's not juking, changing direction, reaching the ball forward towards an area that would reward him in the context of the game or whatever. It's just part of falling, generally.

 

This is where the rules simply need to be changed.

[Einstein]

2 minutes 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". 

 

The rule book is clearly ambiguous on this, likely on purpose, to allow them to adjust as needed.

 

As I showed, the definition of a step in english is just another foot/leg forward. And the league counts toe taps as a foot.

 

So semantics it all you want. He also tucked the ball away too.

 

 

 

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

He tucked the ball. Forget he step argument.

 

I agree the "tuck" part is a more compelling argument. 

 

I know the time element part of this rule doesn't necessarily apply to the tuck part, but I don't think Poyer had the ball tucked away long enough to be considered a tuck (looks like half a second at most before he hits the ground). 

[Repulsif]

45 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Is this a catch? I think they should add a football move to the falling to the ground rule. Meaning if you get 2 feet and tuck the ball or reach the ball it’s a catch and possession. 
 

On this play they say he hit the ground before the 3rd step and the ball came loose. If they tweak the rule it would be a catch due to him

tucking the football before hitting the ground.

 

 

2 feet is not considered possession.

 

That's a catch for me 🤷‍♂️

He has 2 feet after catch and don't juggle the ball while falling

[Buffalo_Stampede]

6 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You might think he had possession in bounds. According to the rules, he didn't satisfy the requirements for that from what I see.

 

There are two rules involved:

 

Item 3: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his boty, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession.

 

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.

 

Your foot hit the ground a third time inbounds as you fall, IMO, does not fit the "act common to the game" idea. It's not juking, changing direction, reaching the ball forward towards an area that would reward him in the context of the game or whatever. It's just part of falling, generally.

Ok that makes sense now. There are two rules. 
 

I try not to read the NFL rule book. Makes my head hurt. So basically the 1st rule doesn’t matter at all. Lol.

 

Thats where the confusion comes into play for fans.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You might think he had possession in bounds. According to the rules, he didn't satisfy the requirements for that from what I see.

 

There are two rules involved:

 

Item 3: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his boty, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession.

 

Not sure why you’re quoting loose ball rules here. It has nothing to do with the play. That has to do with turnovers being recovered.

 

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Your foot hit the ground a third time inbounds as you fall, IMO, does not fit the "act common to the game" idea. It's not juking, changing direction, reaching the ball forward towards an area that would reward him in the context of the game or whatever. It's just part of falling, generally.

 

Except the rule book specifically mentions a 3rd step being an act common to the game. Literally mentions it.

[NoSaint]

29 minutes 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

I think the nfl COULD moving forward discuss if a toe tap could be a football move but as is the right call was made 

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Repulsif said:

 

That's a catch for me 🤷‍♂️

He has 2 feet after catch and don't juggle the ball while falling

 

Correction: 3 feet.

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Ok that makes sense now. There are two rules. 
 

I try not to read the NFL rule book. Makes my head hurt. So basically the 1st rule doesn’t matter at all. Lol.

 

Thats where the confusion comes into play for fans.

 

No, it doesn’t make sense.

 

He is confusing rules and bringing turnover rules into the discussion and they have no place here.

 

Loose ball rules have NOTHING to do with a catch. The rule he quoted is saying if there is a fumble, for example, the recovering player must possess the ball with 2 feet in bounds.

 

I have no idea why he brought that up.

[Ya Digg?]

So my question to those who say it was an interception-if the teams were switched and it was the Pats who made that play, would you still say it was an interception? Or would you be saying it’s the correct call because the ball moved? 

[Einstein]

Just now, Ya Digg? said:

So my question to those who say it was an interception-if the teams were switched and it was the Pats who made that play, would you still say it was an interception? Or would you be saying it’s the correct call because the ball moved? 

 

I would say: “Dang, the Pats player had 3 feet down. Sucks, but it’s a catch.”

[BuffaloRebound]

1 minute ago, Ya Digg? said:

So my question to those who say it was an interception-if the teams were switched and it was the Pats who made that play, would you still say it was an interception? Or would you be saying it’s the correct call because the ball moved? 

I’d say the NFL consistently calls that incomplete so Poyers play was called correctly, but exceptions need to be made to the ‘going to the ground’ rule when the ground is that far out of bounds.  

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Correction: 3 feet.

 

No, it doesn’t make sense.

 

He is confusing rules and bringing turnover rules into the discussion and they have no place here.

 

Loose ball rules have NOTHING to do with a catch. The rule he quoted is saying if there is a fumble, for example, the recovering player must possess the ball with 2 feet in bounds.

 

I have no idea why he brought that up.

Man….

 

Honestly I don’t know. Because the refs always call it the same. There must be something we’re missing in the rules because every controversial call should’ve been a completion based on the ABC rule you posted. Every single one.

[Bubba Gump]

The ball moved, but Poyer maintained possession throughout the entire play. He never lost control so therefore he completed the catch. Was a BS call and the reversal came in way too fast IMO. They never really reviewed it. That was 100% a good INT.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Man….

 

Honestly I don’t know. Because the refs always call it the same. There must be something we’re missing in the rules because every controversial call should’ve been a completion based on the ABC rule you posted. Every single one.

 

Conspiracy theorists will tell you they keep it ambiguous for a reason.

Think about it - we are literally debating what a “step” is!?

[muppy]

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

 

Morning!

 

I appreciate the clarification of the rule in this regard.  The intricacies of the NFL rulebook and all the caveats are mind boggling some times. To use an old expression imo The NFL is trying to remove the fly ***** from black pepper. The ball being bobbled and he is out of bounds even as both feet were down before he went out.......I dont like the rule. I think it is overly micro managing the intent of NFL football... and takes the athletic skill it took to even make that play and voids it nil

 

Baloney!

 

m

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Conspiracy theorists will tell you they keep it ambiguous for a reason.

Think about it - we are literally debating what a “step” is!?

Yeah but there are plays where there is clearly a football move being made. Part C of the rule is clear but it’s always they must survive the ground.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour 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.

Yes the league needs to change this. It's as dumb a rule as the tuck. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just did a little reading, the NFL removed the surviving the ground rule a few years ago. All that’s needed is the ABC to satisfied.

This seems like it should be a big deal.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[Malazan]

1 hour 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 think it's too open to interpretation. If the ball ends up in the player's hands without it touching the ground then it should be good.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I just went to the rulebook itself. Not someone explaining the rulebook, but the rulebook itself. What I see is NOT what you're saying above. Particularly the "e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent" does not appear to be there to me. 

 

I could have missed it. Could you show me where you found that bit?

 

 

It’s there. I read an article posted after the Patriots TE controversial incompletion last week. What’s not in the rule book according to the article is surviving the ground rule. It was removed a few years ago.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede