The "ball did not survive the ground" rule

[Jeffbigalls]

6 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,

Not if he hit the ground and it bobbled at the end like it did on that play. Would not have been an int

[MPT]

1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

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

 

The third foot isn't really used to judge that. Players take an extra step all the time in the field of play then get the ball knocked out and it's still called an incompletion. That's why they specify "an act common to the game" and not just a step.

[Alphadawg7]

6 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 ?

 

I totally agree.

 

Rule should simply be this:  (gonna specifically use the poyer INT) - When the player controls the ball with 2 feet cleanly established on the ground (and in bounds), it shall be ruled a catch unless the ball comes loose and makes any contact with the ground before regaining control.

 

In the event, like Poyer, player has control with 2 feet in bound but ball moves when player hits ground, but the ball does NOT come in contact with the ground, it remains a catch.

 

It is such a simple fix, but the NFL doesn't do things like common sense well.  

[Billsfanatixs]

I have seen countless interceptions as the player goes out of bounds, this is the first time I have ever seen this call.

 

It has always been

 1) Does the player have control of the ball while both feet are down.

2) does player still have control of ball as he breaks the out of bounds plane.

 

Never have I seen them add this 3rd criteria.

 

3) does the player maintain possession of the ball when landing on the ground while out of bounds.

 

Good thing the game wasn't decided by that or this message board would look very different right now

 

 

[Billz4ever]

15 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

The third foot isn't really used to judge that. Players take an extra step all the time in the field of play then get the ball knocked out and it's still called an incompletion. That's why they specify "an act common to the game" and not just a step.

It literally says it in the rule book.

 

Poyer tucked it away AND got a 3rd foot in bounds.

 

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)”

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Don Otreply]

The ball was caught/intercepted both feet were in bounds, upon the player crossing the line to go out of bounds the play was over/done, It was a BS  call. 

[Just Joshin']

5 hours 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". 

 

Listening to NFL radio " Moving the Chains" show and both hosts thought it was an Int.  They are not reasonable?

 

They also believe the ejection call was incorrect.

[Billz4ever]

6 hours 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

OK, let's say it doesn't.  Tucking the ball away does and he did that too.

[MPT]

1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

It literally says it in the rule book.

 

Poyer tucked it away AND got a 3rd foot in bounds.

 

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)”

 

I did not realize it actually specified that! My bad

[Billz4ever]

5 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

I did not realize it actually specified that! My bad

Now I guess there's some debate whether getting a toe tap down constitutes an additional step, but even if we say it doesn't, he still did tuck it away, which is also considered a football move.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Billz4ever

[Chaos]

9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The runner is presumed to have possession, unless he's fumbled. The receiver has not yet attained official possession. Makes sense to me, personally.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if many disagree, with some justification, but I'm OK with it.

One the runner is “down” with possession it is logically for the play to end.  In Poyers case he has possession in bounds and the moment his first foot touched out of bounds he still had possession and was “down”.  Play should be deemed complete as soon as he is down. The rule should be “possession surviving until down”

[MPT]

1 hour ago, Billz4ever said:

Now I guess there's some debate whether getting a toe tap down constitutes an additional step, but even if we say it doesn't, he still did tuck it away, which is also considered a football move.

 

Objectively, I don't think I would count a toe tap as a step. I think the spirit of the rule is to affirm the player had control of the ball long enough and a toe tap can happen in a tenth of a second. To me, that wouldn't prove the player had control. However, tucking the ball away and only having it come loose when he hits the ground would, to me, affirm that he controlled the catch.

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

Objectively, I don't think I would count a toe tap as a step. I think the spirit of the rule is to affirm the player had control of the ball long enough and a toe tap can happen in a tenth of a second. To me, that wouldn't prove the player had control. However, tucking the ball away and only having it come loose when he hits the ground would, to me, affirm that he controlled the catch.

In bounds you are correct because the play is not over. Out of bounds the play is over the first moment the player touches out of bounds. It analogous to the ball breaking the he plane is the goal line. The play ends at that point. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Chaos

[frostbitmic]

I thought he tucked it before it came out.

[MPT]

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

In bounds you are correct because the play is not over. Out of bounds the play is over the first moment the player touches out of bounds. It analogous to the ball breaking the he plane is the goal line. The play ends at that point. 

 

Right, but you have to qualify the catch itself somehow. If Poyer had caught it and then immediately went to the ground and the ball came loose I wouldn't have any problem calling that incomplete even though he landed out of bounds with the ball in his hands. It just wouldn't make any sense to award a catch if the player can't maintain control for the fraction of a second that it takes to hit the ground.

 

To qualify the catch, the catch rule requires a football move in order to prove that the player has control of the ball (condition "c" referenced below). When the player goes to the ground out of bounds, the rule says the following:

 

"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"

 

I have no problem with the rule itself. It's just applied inconsistently and often incorrectly. Like in this case, where (c) was fulfilled by Poyer tucking the ball so the above stipulation shouldn't have applied. 

[Chaos]

22 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

Right, but you have to qualify the catch itself somehow. If Poyer had caught it and then immediately went to the ground and the ball came loose I wouldn't have any problem calling that incomplete even though he landed out of bounds with the ball in his hands. It just wouldn't make any sense to award a catch if the player can't maintain control for the fraction of a second that it takes to hit the ground.

 

To qualify the catch, the catch rule requires a football move in order to prove that the player has control of the ball (condition "c" referenced below). When the player goes to the ground out of bounds, the rule says the following:

 

"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"

 

I have no problem with the rule itself. It's just applied inconsistently and often incorrectly. Like in this case, where (c) was fulfilled by Poyer tucking the ball so the above stipulation shouldn't have applied. 

Catch SHOULD be qualified by 1) two feet down in bounds with possession 2) touching out of bounds with possession. 

Since the ball can no longer be advanced, the play should be considered over at that instance.  What would happen if the reciever is pushed out of bounds and juggles the ball until he comes back in bounds, and then falls to the ground with the ball, should that be considered a catch?, or was the play over as soon as he touched the ball while out of bounds? 

[MPT]

5 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Catch SHOULD be qualified by 1) two feet down in bounds with possession 2) touching out of bounds with possession. 

Since the ball can no longer be advanced, the play should be considered over at that instance.  What would happen if the reciever is pushed out of bounds and juggles the ball until he comes back in bounds, and then falls to the ground with the ball, should that be considered a catch?, or was the play over as soon as he touched the ball while out of bounds? 

 

Obviously the play was over as soon as he  touched it out of bounds. That hypothetical is silly and you know it.

 

The question is: where is the line between juggling the ball and possessing the ball? The catch rule defines it, and I agree with setting some standards to possession that are more than "he had the ball in his hands at some point". What I have an issue with is the inconsistency with which the NFL applies the rule.

[Chaos]

Just now, MPT said:

 

Obviously the play was over as soon as he  touched it out of bounds. That hypothetical is silly and you know it.

 

The question is: where is the line between juggling the ball and possessing the ball? The catch rule defines it, and I agree with setting some standards to possession that are more than "he had the ball in his hands at some point". What I have an issue with is the inconsistency with which the NFL applies the rule.

Its not a silly hypothetical.  It makes clear the point the play is over.  It is fundamentally inconsistent to require some further action after the play is clearly over. It makes zero logical sense. The rule needs to determine if the player had possession at the moment the play is over.  Same exact rule applies inbounds. Play is not over until the player hits the ground after contact, with control of the ball, if he loses it on contact, it is not a catch because he did not possess it at the time the play was over. 

[Doc]

It was the right call.

[MPT]

4 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Its not a silly hypothetical.  It makes clear the point the play is over.  It is fundamentally inconsistent to require some further action after the play is clearly over. It makes zero logical sense. The rule needs to determine if the player had possession at the moment the play is over.  Same exact rule applies inbounds. Play is not over until the player hits the ground after contact, with control of the ball, if he loses it on contact, it is not a catch because he did not possess it at the time the play was over. 

 

Exactly. You say the play is over when the player touches out of bounds with possession, and you also say possession depends on maintaining control. So if he doesn't maintain control, he never had possession. That applies in bounds or out of bounds equally.

 

My argument is that Poyer demonstrated control by tucking the ball before he went out of bounds. If he hadn't demonstrated control, he wouldn't have possession and the pass would be incomplete.