The ever present "football move" debate

[Suburban Rhythm]

I tend to agree with Don Banks' questioning of the rule in this case--

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/01/08/snap.judgments/1.html

I know the Edell Shepherd non-catch was the right call by rule in the Bucs-Redskins game, but here's what always has made me scratch my head when it comes to what constitutes possession in the end zone:

How is it you can score by merely breaking the plane of the end zone, even if you fumble the ball away a millisecond later, but you can have what looks to be a catch ruled incomplete even after you've had the ball for a step and a half in the end zone?

Basically, why is the ruling different on a play originating outside of the endzone? The image that comes to mind for me is the Vince Young/Michael Vick play--diving from the 3 yard line at the pylon, extending the ball over the goal line while some or all of his body is out of bounds. Based on the "in the endzone" interpretation, if he loses the ball once he hits the ground, it should not be a TD.

Two years ago, both Edell Sheppard and Antwan Randle El would have had TD's.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If I'm following the question, the answer is that the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line the play has ended.

[Ramzavail]

I agree, its ridiculous.

That should have been a TD, no doubt in my mind, I don't know why they have a rule as stupid as this.

[rkmsuf]

The rule is fine. In order to have possesion in the endzone you must possess the ball. A catch is defined a certain way to determine possession. Way different than rushing a ball over the goalline.

[Suburban Rhythm]

If I'm following the question, the answer is that the instant the ball crosses the plane of the goal line the play has ended.

I believe Randle El had the ball in mid-air, crossing the goal line. When he hit the ground (in the end zone), the ball moved...but several yards deep in the endzone.

Based on that, shouldn't the play have ended once he broke the goal line?

Just curious...I don't get how there can be 2 rules--one set for plays originating outside the endzone, and another set for playing occurring completely within the endzone.

[rkmsuf]

I believe Randle El had the ball in mid-air, crossing the goal line. When he hit the ground (in the end zone), the ball moved...but several yards deep in the endzone.

Based on that, shouldn't the play have ended once he broke the goal line?

Just curious...I don't get how there can be 2 rules--one set for plays originating outside the endzone, and another set for playing occurring completely within the endzone.

So he possessed the ball mid air? Wow. No more two feet down I guess.

[JonInMiddleGA]

edit to remove accidental double post
(I didn't think it went through the first time)

[st.cronin]

I believe Randle El had the ball in mid-air, crossing the goal line. When he hit the ground (in the end zone), the ball moved...but several yards deep in the endzone.

Based on that, shouldn't the play have ended once he broke the goal line?

Just curious...I don't get how there can be 2 rules--one set for plays originating outside the endzone, and another set for playing occurring completely within the endzone.

The ruling was that it was an incomplete pass, right? Therefore, he never caught the ball - even if he did have it in his hands for a second or whatever, if he didn't have possesion, it's the same as if he had broke off the pattern and the ball was bouncing around in the end zone with nobody anywhere near it.

[Suburban Rhythm]

So he possessed the ball mid air? Wow. No more two feet down I guess.

OK...so the instant he hits the ground in the end zone he has possession. At that instant, similar to the instant a runner breaks the plane of the goal line, the play should end. Using the same logic as a running play...

[JonInMiddleGA]

I believe Randle El had the ball in mid-air, crossing the goal line. When he hit the ground (in the end zone), the ball moved...but several yards deep in the endzone.

Based on that, shouldn't the play have ended once he broke the goal line?

Just curious...I don't get how there can be 2 rules--one set for plays originating outside the endzone, and another set for playing occurring completely within the endzone.

I believe rkmsuf got it -- the difference is establishing possession of the ball (which has to happen in order for the "dead once plane is broken" situation to apply) which is different for receiving a forward pass vs a rushing play.

[rkmsuf]

OK...so the instant he hits the ground in the end zone he has possession. At that instant, similar to the instant a runner breaks the plane of the goal line, the play should end. Using the same logic as a running play...

No, same play, middle of the field. Guy jumps, comes down, hits the ground and loses the ball and it's incomplete. No possession at any point.

[Maple Leafs]

OK...so the instant he hits the ground in the end zone he has possession. At that instant, similar to the instant a runner breaks the plane of the goal line, the play should end. Using the same logic as a running play...
No... according to the rule, he has to hit the ground and maintain control in order to have possession. If he hits the ground and the ball comes out, he never had possession.

The problem here is with saying things like "similar to the instant a runner breaks the plane of the goal..." They're not similar. They're completely different things.

Is it the best rule? Not necessarily, but it is pretty clear.

[FrogMan]

The rule is fine. In order to have possesion in the endzone you must possess the ball. A catch is defined a certain way to determine possession. Way different than rushing a ball over the goalline.
I think it all revolves around this definition of what possession is when you catch the ball...

FM

[KWhit]

You can't compare a catch in the endzone to someone rushing the ball in. On a rushing play, the player already has possession of the ball. There is no question of possession, so as soon as the plane is broken, it's a TD. But on a pass play possession must be established which is why there is more required.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Is it the best rule? Not necessarily, but it is pretty clear.

That probably best sums up my frustration with the rule. Similar to the force out rule, subjective to the officials interpretation.

[Ramzavail]

to me, it was visable that he had possession and when he hit the ground, the ball came loose.

But I guess that isn't possession in the endzone, but isn't that possession on the 40 yard line? because the ground can't cause a fumble?

[rkmsuf]

to me, it was visable that he had possession and when he hit the ground, the ball came loose.

But I guess that isn't possession in the endzone, but isn't that possession on the 40 yard line? because the ground can't cause a fumble?

no, it's not possession at the 40.

[KWhit]

to me, it was visable that he had possession and when he hit the ground, the ball came loose.

But I guess that isn't possession in the endzone, but isn't that possession on the 40 yard line? because the ground can't cause a fumble?
But it's not a question of fumble or not. The question is catch or incompletion. Very different according to the rules.

[BrianD]

to me, it was visable that he had possession and when he hit the ground, the ball came loose.

But I guess that isn't possession in the endzone, but isn't that possession on the 40 yard line? because the ground can't cause a fumble?

The ground can't cause a fumble...which would be the loss of possession of the ball...because the play would be dead when the player hit the ground.

To be a completed pass, the player must maintain possession after contact with the ground.

[Ksyrup]

No... according to the rule, he has to hit the ground and maintain control in order to have possession. If he hits the ground and the ball comes out, he never had possession.
I think the confusion comes from the fact that what we usually see with endzone/sideline catches is just the opposite - the receive is juggling the ball while trying to establish that he is in bounds (i.e., feet, knees, elbows, butt in bounds), and the question becomes whether he had possession of the ball while in bounds.

On this type of play, however, the receiver is clearly in bounds, but possession of the ball can't be fully established until the play ends. He may have had a firm grasp of the ball while getting both feet down, but unless he continues to possess the ball while he hits the ground, it's not a catch. So it's really the opposite situation from the typical catch review - it's not trying to determine whether the juggle became possession, but whether the possession continued until the end of the play.

Not sure if that makes any sense to anyone other than me...

[Maple Leafs]

I think the confusion comes from the fact that what we usually see with endzone/sideline catches is just the opposite - the receive is juggling the ball while trying to establish that he is in bounds (i.e., feet, knees, elbows, butt in bounds), and the question becomes whether he had possession of the ball while in bounds.
But even in that situation, he still needs to come down with the ball. If he has it, dots the i, and then lands and loses the ball it's still no catch.

I guess the strange part is: if he loses it when he hits the ground, he never had possession. If he keeps it when he hits the ground, the possession is considered to have started once he had control. So keeping it when you hit the ground doesn't really create possession, it confirms it.

[Samdari]

I believe Randle El had the ball in mid-air, crossing the goal line. When he hit the ground (in the end zone), the ball moved...but several yards deep in the endzone.

Based on that, shouldn't the play have ended once he broke the goal line?

Just curious...I don't get how there can be 2 rules--one set for plays originating outside the endzone, and another set for playing occurring completely within the endzone.

There's really not two rules - the rules for establishing a catch are the same regardless. The difference between someone scoring a TD when crossing the plane with the ball is that in that case, he has already established possession before carrying the ball across the goal line.

Its not two different rules, its two different situations, that in which someone has made a catch and that in which someone has not. If that same play were to occure anywhere else on the field, the ruling would have been the same - incomplete pass.

[Ksyrup]

But even in that situation, he still needs to come down with the ball. If he has it, dots the i, and then lands and loses the ball it's still no catch.

I guess the strange part is: if he loses it when he hits the ground, he never had possession. If he keeps it when he hits the ground, the possession is considered to have started once he had control. So keeping it when you hit the ground doesn't really create possession, it confirms it.
That's right. I think that's what I was trying to say!

[Suburban Rhythm]

Its not two different rules, its two different situations, that in which someone has made a catch and that in which someone has not. If that same play were to occure anywhere else on the field, the ruling would have been the same - incomplete pass.

I guess I am basing on this-- if he hits the ground, in the end zone, and has the ball secured, he has possession and broken the goal line at that instant. Any further play (DB dislodging the ball, etc) shouldn't matter.

Just as we've all seen...a RB lunging the ball across the goal line, and as it crosses, a defensive player knocks the ball from his hands. But, if the ball has broken the plane, any subsequent play is AFTER the TD has been scored.

I do agree though that the WR needs to establish possession. If he's bobbling the ball as he falls, no catch.

I guess I'm trying to see how much of an instant (if that makes any sense) is needed to determine possession in the endzone.

[Mr. Wednesday]

On this type of play, however, the receiver is clearly in bounds, but possession of the ball can't be fully established until the play ends. He may have had a firm grasp of the ball while getting both feet down, but unless he continues to possess the ball while he hits the ground, it's not a catch. So it's really the opposite situation from the typical catch review - it's not trying to determine whether the juggle became possession, but whether the possession continued until the end of the play. It's something that is also an issue on the in/out of bounds reviews -- they can also call it incomplete if the player loses the ball when he hits the ground.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I guess I am basing on this-- if he hits the ground, in the end zone, and has the ball secured, he has possession and broken the goal line at that instant. Any further play (DB dislodging the ball, etc) shouldn't matter.It comes down to the definition of "has the ball secured". By the definition in the rules, Shepherd did not have the ball secured, because it came loose when he hit the ground. The same rule applies anywhere on the field -- if it had been at the 40 yd line, it still would have been ruled incomplete.

[Maple Leafs]

I do agree though that the WR needs to establish possession. If he's bobbling the ball as he falls, no catch.
Based on the current rule, if the receiver is falling in the act of making a catch he has to hold the ball after he hits the ground. If not, he never had possession.

Now, if he catches it in stride or while standing, then the normal "football move" rule applies -- he has to demonstrate possesion, and if he gets popped or goes out of bounds after that then it's still a catch. (Otherwise it would be open season on any WR who caught a ball in the end zone... which would be kind of entertaning, come to think of it.)

[Suburban Rhythm]

Based on the current rule, if the receiver is falling in the act of making a catch he has to hold the ball after he hits the ground. If not, he never had possession.

Now, if he catches it in stride or while standing, then the normal "football move" rule applies -- he has to demonstrate possesion, and if he gets popped or goes out of bounds after that then it's still a catch. (Otherwise it would be open season on any WR who caught a ball in the end zone... which would be kind of entertaning, come to think of it.)

I guess what I am looking for can't be answered...how long is needed to determine a catch?

I see where 5 seconds may not be enough if a player continues to juggle the ball, etc.

But in the Randle El play, say he held the ball on the ground, secured, in the endzone, for 1 second. Is that enough to establish possession? Then the DB falls on him, the ball moves, and eventually is dislodged. Is it 2 seconds of "control"? 3? I don't think there is answer to that...and that's what makes it so frustrating I suppose.

[BrianD]

I guess what I am looking for can't be answered...how long is needed to determine a catch?

I see where 5 seconds may not be enough if a player continues to juggle the ball, etc.

But in the Randle El play, say he held the ball on the ground, secured, in the endzone, for 1 second. Is that enough to establish possession? Then the DB falls on him, the ball moves, and eventually is dislodged. Is it 2 seconds of "control"? 3? I don't think there is answer to that...and that's what makes it so frustrating I suppose.

It has nothing to do with time. If the ball doesn't come dislodged after he hits the ground, it is a catch. If a player is being hit as he hits the ground in the end zone, it becomes a judgement call.

[Suburban Rhythm]

It has nothing to do with time. If the ball doesn't come dislodged after he hits the ground, it is a catch. If a player is being hit as he hits the ground in the end zone, it becomes a judgement call.

I realize the ref isn't giving the WWE style 3-count...but IMO, Randle El had the ball, secured, hitting the ground. Once the DB hit him, the ball was dislodged. Was his possession of the ball on the ground enough, prior to contact by the DB enough????

I do agree it comes down to a judgement call...just curious.

[GrantDawg]

I realize the ref isn't giving the WWE style 3-count...but IMO, Randle El had the ball, secured, hitting the ground. Once the DB hit him, the ball was dislodged. Was his possession of the ball on the ground enough, prior to contact by the DB enough????

I do agree it comes down to a judgement call...just curious.

It should be. I hate the "football move" crap. If the player has the ball in control and two feet on the ground, it should be a catch. Now he has to have control, two feet, and dance a jig. It is ridiculous.

[Samdari]

I guess what I am looking for can't be answered...

Actually, it can be - you just don't like the answer, so keep asking the question, hoping someone will tell you that should have been a catch.

[wishbone]

It has nothing to do with time. If the ball doesn't come dislodged after he hits the ground, it is a catch. If a player is being hit as he hits the ground in the end zone, it becomes a judgement call.

A receiver has to have 2 feet down to establish possession. If the ball slips out before the 2nd foot comes down, he does not have a possession and the pass is incomplete.

[BrianD]

It should be. I hate the "football move" crap. If the player has the ball in control and two feet on the ground, it should be a catch. Now he has to have control, two feet, and dance a jig. It is ridiculous.

I also dislike the "football move" addition to the rule. It was put in as an attempt to replace a subjective 'did he have control?' call with a subjective site of criteria, but really the "football move" is also subjective. Trying to define a catch in such terms seems like needless complication.

[sabotai]

I realize the ref isn't giving the WWE style 3-count...but IMO, Randle El had the ball, secured, hitting the ground. Once the DB hit him, the ball was dislodged. Was his possession of the ball on the ground enough, prior to contact by the DB enough????

I do agree it comes down to a judgement call...just curious. Not a judgement call at all. He was in the process of falling to the ground (not on the ground) when he was hit by the DB and the ball came out. That's by definition not a catch. Not a judgement call.

EDIT: Actually, I think I'm thinking of the Edell Sheppard incompletion. Not sure if I saw the Randle El one or not.

[BrianD]

A receiver has to have 2 feet down to establish possession. If the ball slips out before the 2nd foot comes down, he does not have a possession and the pass is incomplete.

Unless I mis-read the discussion, the issue was a player with his body on the ground, not standing.

[bselig]

To me(Steeler fan), the Randle-El catch was a really obvious TD. He had the ball on the ground for a really long time before it came out, it's not like he hit the ground and it popped out. The PI call was a break for the Bengals, otherwise the play would've been challenged and overturned, at least they got a chance to stop them.

[JW]

I think the biggest problem here is that the refs do not make this call consistently, and that confuses people. If you see that play on the 40 yardline in a regular season game, I think it is as likely to be ruled a catch as an incompletion.

I think in this case, if I recall correctly, he caught the ball and his feet hit first, though I don't think he took a step, then his knee, and then when his torso hit the ball 'jiggled'. I could see it being ruled incomplete, but I have seen the same thing ruled complete.

[wade moore]

I'm pretty confidant that the Randle El play would have been overturned if reviewed, but due to the PI we didn't get a chance to find out...

So I agree, Randle El was a catch by the rules... Shepherd's most definately was not.

[stevew]

Yet another "football move play." I cannot believe they called Troy's interception an incompletion.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I love how Dan Dierdorf said "He clearly made a football move!" Have we yet figured out what a football move IS?

[Easy Mac]

I thought this thread said football movie.