The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[Shortchaz]

Since he caught it AND shifted the ball to secure it BEFORE he hit the ground, the play should’ve been dead as soon as his elbow hit the ground, I.e. a completion. 

[Rochesterfan]

6 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

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.

 

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

 

Then I will ask again - should Meyers have been awarded a TD on Hamlin’s hit.

 

He got 2 feet down and moved the ball from his shoulder to his hip. 
 

Then he got drilled and it was correctly ruled incomplete.

 

2 feet and control is not the rule - it is part of the rule.

 

To make a play like Poyer’s acceptable- has consequences like making Meyers a TD.

 

It also makes potential catches into fumbles.

 

Based upon how the NFL calls catches - they absolutely got it right - you want to change that - fine but then people will get pissed about plays like Meyers becoming a catch because it occurred in the end zone or if that Meyers hit occurs in the field that being ruled a fumble.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Then I will ask again - should Meyers have been awarded a TD on Hamlin’s hit.

 

He got 2 feet down and moved the ball from his shoulder to his hip. 
 

Then he got drilled and it was correctly ruled incomplete.

 

2 feet and control is not the rule - it is part of the rule.

 

To make a play like Poyer’s acceptable- has consequences like making Meyers a TD.

 

It also makes potential catches into fumbles.

 

Based upon how the NFL calls catches - they absolutely got it right - you want to change that - fine but then people will get pissed about plays like Meyers becoming a catch because it occurred in the end zone or if that Meyers hit occurs in the field that being ruled a fumble.

 

Poyer had 3 feet down.

 

Myers never secured the ball.

[What a Tuel]

7 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Then I will ask again - should Meyers have been awarded a TD on Hamlin’s hit.

 

He got 2 feet down and moved the ball from his shoulder to his hip. 
 

Then he got drilled and it was correctly ruled incomplete.

 

2 feet and control is not the rule - it is part of the rule.

 

To make a play like Poyer’s acceptable- has consequences like making Meyers a TD.

 

It also makes potential catches into fumbles.

 

Based upon how the NFL calls catches - they absolutely got it right - you want to change that - fine but then people will get pissed about plays like Meyers becoming a catch because it occurred in the end zone or if that Meyers hit occurs in the field that being ruled a fumble.

 

No, because he dropped the ball....

 

I can see your argument if the ball hit the ground when Poyer lost control but it did not.

 

So Poyer catches ball in bounds, tucks it, bobbles it after hitting ground out of bounds, regains control.

• We acknowledge Poyer caught the ball and gained possession in bounds.
  • We claim poyer lost possession and regained possession out of bounds so 1st catch doesn't count?
    • Just seems silly

Do you think Meyers catch would have been ruled incomplete if he maintained possession to the ground despite bobbling it? No.

Edited December 2, 2022 by What a Tuel

[Mango]

2 hours 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.

 

A ball can move when caught in bounds though, that isn't problem.

I "think" the issue is that when the ball moves in bounds there are three possible outcomes if the ball moves, catch, incomplete, fumble. I am guess that the league thought is that because 2 of the 3 possible outcomes are "not a catch/possession", that when it happens OOB they air on the side 2/3 rather than 1/3? 

[Billz4ever]

26 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

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.

 

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

Then the refs got it wrong and don't understand the rule considering once he got the 3rd foot down with possession, it's a completed catch. The 3rd foot down satisfies the football move part of the rule.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

14 minutes ago, Shortchaz said:

Since he caught it AND shifted the ball to secure it BEFORE he hit the ground, the play should’ve been dead as soon as his elbow hit the ground, I.e. a completion. 

 

I think that was the problem, by the time his elbow hit ground, he/it was OB.  If that whole play occurred in middle of field would have been an Int.

[Billz4ever]

12 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Then I will ask again - should Meyers have been awarded a TD on Hamlin’s hit.

 

He got 2 feet down and moved the ball from his shoulder to his hip. 
 

Then he got drilled and it was correctly ruled incomplete.

 

2 feet and control is not the rule - it is part of the rule.

 

To make a play like Poyer’s acceptable- has consequences like making Meyers a TD.

 

It also makes potential catches into fumbles.

 

Based upon how the NFL calls catches - they absolutely got it right - you want to change that - fine but then people will get pissed about plays like Meyers becoming a catch because it occurred in the end zone or if that Meyers hit occurs in the field that being ruled a fumble.

Meyers never made a football move.  Poyer's 3rd step down is considered exactly that.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[What a Tuel]

2 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:

Then the refs got it wrong and don't understand the rule considering once he got the 3rd foot down with possession, it's a completed catch.

 

I dont think they got it wrong, the whole surviving the ground thing just needs to be updated to be dropping the ball. If he maintains possession in bounds, then he should be able to juggle the ball all he wants on the way to the ground as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground. Possession in bounds occurred already.

[Billz4ever]

4 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

I dont think they got it wrong, the whole surviving the ground thing just needs to be updated to be dropping the ball. If he maintains possession in bounds, then he should be able to juggle the ball all he wants on the way to the ground as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground. Possession in bounds occurred already.

If getting an additional foot down fulfills the football move part of the equation, they most certainly got it wrong.

 

NFL rule book states a player must secure the ball, have two feet down, and then “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)”

 

But I do agree with you they need to update the rule with wording about as long as the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, What a Tuel said:

 

No, because he dropped the ball....

 

I can see your argument if the ball hit the ground when Poyer lost control but it did not.

 

So Poyer catches ball in bounds, tucks it, bobbles it after hitting ground out of bounds, regains control.

• We acknowledge Poyer caught the ball and gained possession in bounds.
  • We claim poyer lost possession and regained possession out of bounds so catch doesn't count?
    • Just seems silly

Do you think Meyers catch would have been ruled incomplete if he maintained possession to the ground despite bobbling it? No.

The problem is based on the rule Poyer did not catch the ball in bounds - he had 2 hands on the ball and got 2 feet down - fulfilling part of the requirements - when he landed out of bounds - he lost control and re-established control while OOB. 
 

The play Poyer makes is 100% an Int if he is in bounds, but based upon the ruling he does not establish control when the ball bounces on his chest OOB.

 

It is essentially like someone recovering a fumble in the field of play, but their feet are OOB.

[Brand J]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

The problem is based on the rule Poyer did not catch the ball in bounds - he had 2 hands on the ball and got 2 feet down - fulfilling part of the requirements - when he landed out of bounds - he lost control and re-established control while OOB. 
 

The play Poyer makes is 100% an Int if he is in bounds, but based upon the ruling he does not establish control when the ball bounces on his chest OOB.

 

It is essentially like someone recovering a fumble in the field of play, but their feet are OOB.

Incorrect, he got 3 feet down. The toe drag was the third.

[Billz4ever]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

The problem is based on the rule Poyer did not catch the ball in bounds - he had 2 hands on the ball and got 2 feet down - fulfilling part of the requirements - when he landed out of bounds - he lost control and re-established control while OOB. 
 

The play Poyer makes is 100% an Int if he is in bounds, but based upon the ruling he does not establish control when the ball bounces on his chest OOB.

 

It is essentially like someone recovering a fumble in the field of play, but their feet are OOB.

Poyer got 3 feet down in bounds with possession.  As soon as the 3rd foot touches, that fulfills the 3rd part of the rule regarding a football move.

 

player must secure the ball, have two feet down, and then “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)”

[Mango]

 

3 hours ago, nkreed said:

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.

 

This was my thought. 

Also it looks like his knee is down before his elbow hits or ball moves. So by rule, at that point the play is over.

 

I posted earlier, that I think part of the reason the league makes you "survive the ground" is because if that happens in bounds there are only a few options. Catch, fumble, incompletion. 2/3 are bad. So the league gives no credit one way or the other since the play cannot finish OOB. 

[TheWeatherMan]

3 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

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,

But he did keep full control of the ball, the ball shifted but never separated from his possession.  

[Beck Water]

I thought the ball was in Poyer's arm and stayed in his arm as he hit the ground.  I didn't think the rule was that the ball couldn't shift or touch the ground at all, just that it couldn't come out of the receiver's grip.  I thought the ball stayed in Poyer's grip.

 

But, It Is What It Is.

 

I'm more concerned about the zebras missing the DB who pinned little Dirty's arms long before the ball got there (both announcers were looking for a flag) and the DB who kicked Diggs in the helmet while he was on the ground right in front of them.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Beck Water

[SoCal Deek]

The bottom line is that it’s just this sort of splitting hairs that muddles up the spirit of the sport. That was a catch. The player shouldn’t have to keep the ball from MOVING! The ball is always moving. 

[Billz4ever]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

I thought the ball was in Poyer's arm and stayed in his arm as he hit the ground.  I didn't think the rule was that the ball couldn't move or touch the ground at all, just that it couldn't come out of the grip.

 

But, It Is What It Is.

 

I'm more concerned about the zebras missing the DB who pinned little Dirty's arms long before the ball got there (both announcers were looking for a flag) and the DB who kicked Diggs in the helmet while he was on the ground right in front of them.

I couldn't believe the Diggs kick didn't get a flag.  Dude may end up with a fine though regardless.

[Buffalo Boy]

3 hours 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.

   If a receiver catches a ball in the field of play, bobbles the heck out of it while hitting the ground BUT it doesn’t touch the ground and he eventually has it IT IS A RECEPTION.

    Why this isn’t the fact out of bounds I’d befuddling.

[Brand J]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Boy said:

   If a receiver catches a ball in the field of play, bobbles the heck out of it while hitting the ground BUT it doesn’t touch the ground and he eventually has it IT IS A RECEPTION.

    Why this isn’t the fact out of bounds I’d befuddling.

Some will say “because out of bounds is no longer in the field of play” and I’d rebuttal with “so why are we looking at anything that happens out of bounds if he clearly satisfied the requirements of a catch while in bounds?”