The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[Thurman#1]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

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.

 

 

You're right. I'm wrong. Sorry. I was looking at an old rulebook, I find. Sorry!!! Thanks for the correction. Removing the post.

 

However, saying that what Poyer did was taking a step is not clear at all. It could just as easily be called hitting the ground with your foot as you fall, a reflexive attempt to avoid falling, or something else along those lines. IMO not clearly and definitively a football move by any means.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Thurman#1

[0017]

7 hours ago, nkreed said:

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.

All that and a knee down OOB, to me play is over right there, the rest as one poster said is in the bench area and could be effected by players not in the game. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Dr. Football

[pkwwjd]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

I think they flat out got the rule wrong.

 

Poyer had 3 feet down on the INT play. Look at the images below.

 

The rule book states a catch is when a player:

 

“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.”

 

NOTE: Poyer took the additional step. He had 3 full feet down. If “c” is satisfied, then surving the ground doesn't apply. Again, see the rule book:

 

“If a player, who satisfied (a) and (b), but has not satisfied (c), contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, it is an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds”

 

He satisfied “c” with his third step, so surviving the ground becomes null and void. That’s an INT.

 

 

This ... Poyer had three steps

[Thurman#1]

41 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.

 

 

No, a loose ball is what any pass is called till it is ruled incomplete or possession is secured by the catch being finished.

 

"ARTICLE 4. LOOSE BALL

"A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any ball that has been kicked, passed, or fumbled. A Loose Ball is considered to be in possession of the team (offense) whose player kicked, passed, or fumbled it. It is a Loose Ball until a player secures possession or until the ball becomes dead. If it has not yet struck the ground, a Loose Ball is In Flight."

Edited December 2, 2022 by Thurman#1

[NoSaint]

34 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

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.  

Giving the referees more opportunity to make unilateral judgement calls always sounds great in the moment, but infuriates fans in practice 

[nkreed]

36 minutes 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? 

Absolutely an interception. 3 steps=possession prior to OOB.

7 minutes ago, Dr. Football said:

All that and a knee down OOB, to me play is over right there, the rest as one poster said is in the bench area and could be effected by players not in the game. 

All that and a knee down OOB, to me play is over right there, the rest as one poster said is in the bench area and could be effected by players not in the game. 

I get the going to ground when full possession isn't established. However with three feet in and control of the ball throughout the process should have constituted possession. The going to ground there shouldn't be entertained. The league overturned this because they assumed that pretty Poyer didn't have the ball with the first foot down.

 

Additionally, how does looking at your feet with the ball in your hands tucked into your body and hitting that third step in not a football move for possession?

[BuffaloBill]

Hard to completely eliminate the grey in the rule. It does seem

insane that the ball never left his possession nor touched the ground and it is not considered a catch / interception. Guy is running at full speed, getting his feet down, twisting to land while not getting hurt and he loses the interception because the ball moves slightly in the process. 
 

It feels wrong but I guess it comes down to what can consistently be enforced. 

[Dan]

2 hours ago, ddaryl said:

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

And as also noted, although the ball moved when he landed on the ground, it never touched the ground.    And could it not be considered a “football move” when he repositioned the ball while falling?     Seemed like a catch to me. 

[bmur66]

Poyer caught the ball in bounds with two feet and the ball never made contact with the ground. Sure looked like an int to me. Glad it didn’t matter.

[The Firebaugh Kid]

2 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

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.

THIS. 

[Sestak4ever]

I thought the interception should have been upheld and based on this rule, when Poyer’s hand touched out of bounds then the play was over and the ball is dead. He was not juggling the ball at that point. It should be the same for touchdowns also.

[machine gun kelly]

The calling is actually the rule, but as Joe from the extra point show points out, it’s a dumb rule.  Considering his knee was down, it’s a bit much.  
 

Ufs not that he completely lost the ball and hit the turf, just bobbled when goi g down.  It doesn’t matter as they’ll not change because we witched about it.  Maybe Beane and or McD can lobby Terry to bring up at the next owners meeting.

[1ManRaid]

2 hours ago, ddaryl said:

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

 

That's not the rule.  It isn't a black and white clear distinction like "breaking the plane" at the goal line, the act of catching the ball while going to the ground is a continuous process with multiple qualifiers of which you have to pass ALL of them.  The one he failed was "surviving the ground".  

 

It's a stupid rule and I think it should be changed so that in that specific example it counts as an INT as the ball doesn't hit the ground after he had already established control, but the ruling was correct as the rule is now.

[Man with No Name]

I would accept whatever gene steratore has to say about this. To me, 3 steps makes it a catch. He had 2 clear steps then a bit of a dragging, and starting to tuck as he went to the knee. not so sure he was tucked before knee hit. This is a really close call, and the video I watched wasn't slow motion enough for me to be clear. 

[Charles Romes]

They really ought to clarify this rule. I’m very happy they got rid of the force out rule, which created a great defensed pass by Tre last night 

[Billz4ever]

2 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 ?

The fact that it would be considered a catch in-bounds, but somehow it's not because it's out of bounds shows how ridiculous the rule is.  As long as the ball didn't touch the ground, it should be treated like any other catch IMO.

[Thurman#1]

4 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

The fact that it would be considered a catch in-bounds, but somehow it's not because it's out of bounds shows how ridiculous the rule is.  As long as the ball didn't touch the ground, it should be treated like any other catch IMO.

 

 

I think it is treated the same as any other catch. 

 

Any catch completed in bounds is complete and any catch completed out of bounds is considered incomplete.

[Billz4ever]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I think it is treated the same as any other catch. 

 

Any catch completed in bounds is complete and any catch completed out of bounds is considered incomplete.

If he had done that same exact thing in bounds, it would've been a catch.  He still caught the ball in-bounds, got two feet down (actually 3, and by the rule, that's a catch with the 3rd foot) without it ever touching the ground.

 

It's on McD for not challenging though when Poyer was right in front of him.  

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[What a Tuel]

2 hours 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.

 

 

People understand the ruling they dont understand why it is a thing. Why if bolded sentence 1 is true then bolded sentence two exists? If he has control and got two feet down, then it is a catch. Anything after that should be a potential fumble.

6 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

If he had done that same exact thing in bounds, it would've been a catch.  He still caught the ball in-bounds, got two feet down (actually 3, and by the rule, that's a catch with the 3rd foot) without it ever touching the ground.

 

It's on McD for not challenging though when Poyer was right in front of him.  

 

McD couldn't challenge as it was ruled a turnover then reviewed and overturned. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Think when he came down on the ground, if that occurred in bounds would have easily been an Int, but because there was a juggle and by that point he was OB, ended up being ruled incomplete.