The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

11 minutes 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 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.

 

How about when the Patriots rolled into Martin's legs after a punt ? The broadcast completely ignored it

[TheBrownBear]

23 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.

I agree.  Who cares if he's juggling it.  So long as the receiver possesses the ball at the end and it never hits the ground they should just award a catch.  That would make things clear as day.  The two feet rule can remain - the receiver just needs to have two feet in when initially possessing the ball even if later movement occurs when they hit the ground.

[BRH]

1 hour 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's ball never touched the ground.  Ever.  Not even when it moved.  

 

Meyers' ball was lying by itself on the ground at the end of the play.

[BRH]

Basically the rule has been -- going all the way back to Bert Emanuel, through Dez Bryant, through untold others (like the Pittsburgh TE against NE a few years ago), etc -- 

 

A catch is whatever the league needs it to be at that particular time.

 

If the league needed that interception in order to keep the game close (as opposed to basically ending the game), I fully believe they would have come up with some rule interpretation that would have preserved it.

 

Like I said before, thank God we're good enough now that this kind of bull#### rarely impacts our ability to win a game.

[MPT]

3 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.

 

 

 

 

 

We've seen two plays similar to this in the past two weeks (Gabe Davis against the Vikings and Lamb on Thanksgiving) where the ball clearly moved and the review booth either didn't stop play to review it or confirmed it was a catch. Poyer had control of the ball for much longer than either of those two before the ball moved and he completed a football move by tucking the ball. 

 

If their argument is that tucking the ball isn't a valid football move, then I just hope they're consistent about it. 

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

To me it was a catch.

 

The ball never hit the ground.  He cradled it on his stomach.

 

If he caught it and landed on top of it and it hit the ground (he couldn't get his hands under it in time), then that is an incompletion

[LABILLBACKER]

It's the most convoluted and poorly written rule in the NFL since the tuck. If the out of bounds is out of "the field of play" then why the hell do we care what happens to the ball when we all can see it was a catch. Poyer secured the ball and got both feet in. Rb's that instantaneously cross the plane of the goal line then the ball is knocked out don't have to survive anything? What if Poy intercepts it, goes OB then bumps into a player and ball comes out? Or he runs into the bench and ball comes out. How far out of bounds do we take the survival? What if he jumps into the stands and a fan knocks it out?....All utter & complete nonsense with zero common sense written in.

Edited December 2, 2022 by LABILLBACKER

[Man with No Name]

11 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

It's the most convoluted and poorly written rule in the NFL since the tuck. If the out of bounds is out of "the field of play" then why the hell do we care what happens to the ball when we all can see it was a catch. Poyer secured the ball and got both feet in. Rb's that instantaneously cross the plane of the goal line then the ball is knocked out don't have to survive anything? What if Poy intercepts it, goes OB then bumps into a player and ball comes out? Or he runs into the bench and ball comes out. How far out of bounds do we take the survival? What if he jumps into the stands and a fan knocks it out?....All utter & complete nonsense with zero common sense written in.

on a running play, the ball is live until a td is scored or a whistle is blown. not the same as a pass play. 

 

i think this is a catch though. 3 feet. shouldn't even matter if he loses the ball after that, right? 

[Mr. WEO]

"official/Vegas conspiracy" as your first step into the thread pool?

 

[BRH]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

"official/Vegas conspiracy" as your first step into the thread pool?

 

 

If you're talking to me, (1) say so, and (2) go back and read the beginning of the thread.

[Billz4ever]

34 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

We've seen two plays similar to this in the past two weeks (Gabe Davis against the Vikings and Lamb on Thanksgiving) where the ball clearly moved and the review booth either didn't stop play to review it or confirmed it was a catch. Poyer had control of the ball for much longer than either of those two before the ball moved and he completed a football move by tucking the ball. 

 

If their argument is that tucking the ball isn't a valid football move, then I just hope they're consistent about it. 

He not only tucked it, but had a THIRD foot down in bounds, both of which satisfy the requirement of a football move.

[without a drought]

3rd foot down with the ball firmly in his hands = football move.

 

They got it wrong.

[Mr. WEO]

7 minutes ago, BRH said:

 

If you're talking to me, (1) say so, and (2) go back and read the beginning of the thread.

 

huh?  I quoted the OP.  Is that you too? 

 

Settle down.

 

 

[CouldBe]

This is a stupid rule. The unwritten and unstated rule seems to that Poyer must take the ball home with him, take it to bed and preferably complete a sexual assault on the ball. Then it would be ruled an interception.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

5 hours ago, smuvtalker said:

I felt the exact same way. Where my confusion lies is, like you said, Poyer makes the interception(✔️), makes sure to get that second foot well in bounds(✔️), as he's making sure to get both feet in bounds, he clearly has full possession of the football, it is secure and not moving(✔️)...and even after he hits the ground, the ball never makes contact with the ground!  Yes it moves, but he is clearly underneath it, and it in no way ever hits the turf.   I thought that was indisputable evidence. 

He lost control of the ball while he was out of bounds going to the ground. Its been the rule for several years now and a pretty easy call. Like others said the ball never hit the ground so if his body was still in bounds its a catch.

 

36 minutes ago, without a drought said:

3rd foot down with the ball firmly in his hands = football move.

 

They got it wrong.

Not even close to the correct interpretation of the play.  He made no football move. He didn't survive the ground. No catch. Easy call.

[BigAl2526]

5 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.

That's what I thought.  The question is why is it different for an in bounds catch versus Poyers' would be interception, where he caught the ball, got two feet in, then bobbled the ball as he hit the ground without ever letting it touch the ground. 

[DCofNC]

The rule sucks.  The rule was applied correctly.  I feel the same way about Pats TE Henry’s TD last week.  I hate the Pats, but I said at that moment, “right call, ***** rule”.  Last night I got the chance to say “right call, ***** rule”.  Both situations the catch was made, the ground jarred it, but they had possession at the end of it.  Complete BS rule.

[SoCal Deek]

What ‘football move’ is required when you land out of bounds? Does he have to pop up and strike a Heisman pose? When a receiver lays out on the sideline with a double toe tap. There’s no football move made. 

[without a drought]

20 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

He lost control of the ball while he was out of bounds going to the ground. Its been the rule for several years now and a pretty easy call. Like others said the ball never hit the ground so if his body was still in bounds its a catch.

 

Not even close to the correct interpretation of the play.  He made no football move. He didn't survive the ground. No catch. Easy call.

This is the NFL's definition. A football move is considered any act common to the game, including a third step, tucking the ball away, extending toward the goal line or the first-down marker, turning upfield, or a motion to ward off an opponent.

 

No need to survive the ground 

[LABILLBACKER]

14 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

The rule sucks.  The rule was applied correctly.  I feel the same way about Pats TE Henry’s TD last week.  I hate the Pats, but I said at that moment, “right call, ***** rule”.  Last night I got the chance to say “right call, ***** rule”.  Both situations the catch was made, the ground jarred it, but they had possession at the end of it.  Complete BS rule.

The rule not only sucks but takes away the spirit of the game. The tuck rule was poorly written and ridiculous.  They finally realized this and changed it. The same needs to happen for survival catches.  If NFL fans see it with their eyes as a catch,  then it's a catch.  Period

Edited December 2, 2022 by LABILLBACKER