I don't like the new "possession while going to the ground" rule.

[Dave Gray]

1) Steve Young doesn't know what he's talking about.  All the crap he was saying doesn't mean jack, because he doesn't know the rule.

2) Who cares?  The rule is stupid.  According to the rule, the TD catch that the Raider guy got was not, in fact, a catch.  ...and the refs made the right call.  The only problem is: it was a catch.  The guy clearly catches the ball, rule or not.  Just because you're getting tackled at the time, why can't the ball wiggle in your arms while you're on the ground, after you've already gotten 2 feet and full control.

Bogus, and it takes away an otherwise great play.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

^^ Totally

As soon as both his feet touched the ground it should have been over.  He was well behind the "plane" the front of the goal-line creates that is always talked about whenever a RB barely crosses that line with the nose of the ball.  It's not like whenever a player dives in you have to wait for the rest of his body to hit the ground to see if the ball wiggles.  Why is it different for a WR catching it? 

As I have always understood it - you have .00001 seconds of possesion of the ball within the plane that is the endzone and it's a TD.

[Brian Fein]

I couldn't agree more.  I think the spirit of the rule is appropriate, but it must be applied correctly.  I think two feet down and possession should trump the "going to the ground" rule. 

Hypothetical: a guy catches the ball, takes 3 steps, and then falls down and the ball pops out of his hands.  What's the rule.

The "going to the ground" thing, as I believe it, is to make sure guys really have control of the ball when making diving or falling out of bounds catches.  In this instance, 2 feet down and possession of the ball should have been enough to give Louis Murphy the TD.  Especially since it was 2 feet, an ass-cheek and an elbow on the ground before the ball moved.  The play is supposed to be over the instant the second foot touches the end zone grass.

Its a terrible rule, and IMO, a blown call.

[BigDaddyFin]

The problem with this rule and a lot more of them on the books is that it's too "Open to interpretation."  I've cited the pass interference/defensive holding rule previously but this is just as good an illustration. 

[Phishfan]

Is this a new rule? For years a receiver has had to maintain possession after going to the ground I thought.

[Fau Teixeira]

the rule is right .. the call was right last night .. i think the confusion comes from steve young and mike & mike not knowing what the rules of football are

if you catch a ball in the middle of the field and it comes out before you are able to perform a football move even if you have both feet down then it's still incomplete

the rule also applies when you're going to the ground .. if the ball comes out .. then you have an incomplete pass.

that's what happened and that's what it was .. good call .. good rule.. bad commentary

[Brian Fein]

the rule is right .. the call was right last night .. i think the confusion comes from steve young and mike & mike not knowing what the rules of football are

if you catch a ball in the middle of the field and it comes out before you are able to perform a football move even if you have both feet down then it's still incomplete

the rule also applies when you're going to the ground .. if the ball comes out .. then you have an incomplete pass.

that's what happened and that's what it was .. good call .. good rule.. bad commentary

The "football move" thing was eliminated from the rules 3 or 4 years ago.

Point being the guy made a catch.  Throw the rules away - the guy CAUGHT the ball.  But, thanks to some technicality in the rule book, they took the guy's first NFL TD off the books.

I'm not saying the referee's ruling was wrong - by the rule it was absolutely right.  However, I think the rules kinda suck balls.

[fyo]

I'm probably in the minority, but I think it's a good rule.

Point being the guy made a catch.  Throw the rules away - the guy CAUGHT the ball.

If you don't want the refs making insane judgment calls ALL the time, you need to define what a "catch" is. Currently, the rules say that the receiver has to have full control of the ball and get two feet down. IF the player falls "in the process of catching the ball", he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground.

(And, like you said Brian, the "football move" rule was removed - before last season, IIRC).

This rule is good, I think. It makes sense, it's simple and about as straight-forward to apply as is possible.

The one aspect you have to consider in the context of the example in the Raiders game is: Did he fall to the ground "in the process of catching the ball" or did he catch the ball with two feet down, and THEN fall to the ground.

I'd have to see the scenario again to be able to judge it, but refs have *always* tended towards the "incomplete" ruling in situations like this.

[Dave Gray]

Throw the rules away - the guy CAUGHT the ball.

Exactly.  That's the problem.

[fyo]

Exactly.  That's the problem.

I have no clue what you guys are saying.

What if a player jumps up, CATCHES THE BALL and lands on his back, causing the ball to pop out. Is that a catch? You could make the EXACT same argument that you guys are making. "The guy CAUGHT the ball".

So what is catching the ball then? (I.e. what do you think it should be). Is it enough to have control of the ball somewhere above the field of play? Do you have to come down with the ball? One foot, two feet? Just some part of your body ever so gently touching the field?

Like I said, I like the current rules: Two feet down with the ball in control. If the player is falling down "in the process of making the catch", he needs to maintain control all the way down.

[Dave Gray]

I'm saying that the guy caught the ball.  Rules aside, I watched the guy catch the ball, fully possess it while he was in the air, then on his feet, and then the ball came out after he fell down.  I understand that in football, there has to be a clear definition of what that means, but I think the definition goes so far as to override someone who actually catches the ball.

How many steps do you have to take?  What counts as "going to the ground"?

If a guy catches the ball in the air and then lands on his back, where it pops out, I'd be okay with calling that a catch, as well, especially if he is getting hit.  The second your back touches the ground, the play is over.

I just think it's a bad rule.  Rules aside, the guy caught the ball and landed on his feet in the endzone.  The play should be OVER right there.

[jtex316]

If a guy catches the ball in the air and then lands on his back, where it pops out, I'd be okay with calling that a catch, as well, especially if he is getting hit.  The second your back touches the ground, the play is over.

This IS the rule. The ground cannot cause the fumble. Here in the Oakland / SD game, the receiver did not have his full back touching the ground. As the receiver is falling to the ground, he begins to lose control of the ball (it starts to "wiggle") and then ultimately the ball pops out when he hits the ground. Here, the ground isn't causing the fumble - the player has lost control of the ball before hitting the ground and the player lost the ball when he hit the ground.

By the way this is completely different then when a ruling has to be made on whether or not the ball crosses the goal line and "breaks the plane". In that situation, the player already has possession before crossing the goal-line. Here in the end-zone catch, the question is not if he is in the end-zone but whether or not he has possession of the football.

So this rule should be applied everywhere on the field, not just in the end-zone.

I get the ruling on the field and after I saw it on instant replay i agreed that it should be called incomplete.

[Dave Gray]

This IS the rule. The ground cannot cause the fumble. Here in the Oakland / SD game, the receiver did not have his full back touching the ground. As the receiver is falling to the ground, he begins to lose control of the ball (it starts to "wiggle") and then ultimately the ball pops out when he hits the ground. Here, the ground isn't causing the fumble - the player has lost control of the ball before hitting the ground and the player lost the ball when he hit the ground.

This didn't happen, nor is it how the play was called.  The receiver had full possession all the way TO the ground.  Only when he hits the ground, does the ball move at all.  They showed it on the reverse angle.  The rule is that you have to maintain possession all the way through your fall and landing, essentially.  If you catch the ball in the air and then land on your back and it pops out, it will be ruled no catch.  The "ground causing a fumble" thing only applies AFTER possession has been established.  But this new rule states that possession isn't established until you land on the ground without the ball moving.

[Phishfan]

This IS the rule. The ground cannot cause the fumble.

Another misstated rule in football. The ground can indeed cause a fumble as long as a defender has not caused the player in possession of the ball to go to the ground.

[fyo]

This IS the rule. The ground cannot cause the fumble.

This isn't a question of fumble / no fumble, but rather catch or incomplete. The ground can certainly cause an incomplete, with the current rules.