RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: BigWill on July 09, 2014, 08:42:46 AM
-
Player established possession of a live ball left foot comes down followed by the right then falls to the ground and the ball comes out what do you have Catch or no Catch ? ::)
-
No catch. If a player controls the ball while airborne but loses possession when he lands, there is no catch. Put another way, the ground can cause an incomplete pass. (According to Redding's)
-
2-4-1: A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball
which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining
possession of the ball. (emphasis added)
In other words, you have to survive contact with the ground. Is there some judgment here? Of course! But the NFL and NCAA and making it more and more clear that possession has to be maintained throughout the contact with the ground, that's it's not an instantaneous thing. While I don't usually advocate applying NFL or NCAA standards to HS football, this is one that is gravitating that way. It's what coaches and players are expecting, call it that way and it will be more accepted.
-
Incomplete. We do this for the sake of consistency. If we show a play and say "it's up to you," then we'll have half the room rule catch and half the room rule incomplete. If we tell you to wipe these out when they lose it going to the ground, then we will have greater consistency.
-
Incomplete. We do this for the sake of consistency. If we show a play and say "it's up to you," then we'll have half the room rule catch and half the room rule incomplete. If we tell you to wipe these out when they lose it going to the ground, then we will have greater consistency.
Good point ,Bossman. Page82 of 2014-15 Officials Manual has a guide for "When in question" and catch or no catch ??? ???= no catch ^no
-
Bossman so are we creating a rule on this only to be consistent ? the rule needs to be more clear on this do you agree should it say," establishing procession all the way to the ground"...food for thought I think its open for interpretation our rules interpeter says its a catch so here we go.... I disagree with him
-
Incomplete. We do this for the sake of consistency. If we show a play and say "it's up to you," then we'll have half the room rule catch and half the room rule incomplete. If we tell you to wipe these out when they lose it going to the ground, then we will have greater consistency
. Does anyone think this is a catch? ...... hEaDbAnG
-
If you rule that a catch (which I wouldn't), then don't you have to rule fumble when the ball comes out? That's going to lead to problems. I think there's rule support (see AB's post above) and Redding's clearly says No Catch. I know Redding's isn't the rule book, but I think the two are in sync here.
-
I think there's rule support (see AB's post above) and Redding's clearly says No Catch. I know Redding's isn't the rule book, but I think the two are in sync here.
Additional support can be found from someone on the Rules Committee: Ralph. See post #4 above.
-
food for thought I think its open for interpretation our rules interpeter says its a catch so here we go.... I disagree with him
Exactly my point. This is why we're taught on close plays like this going to the ground or "bang bang" plays, rule them incomplete.
-
The thing about "Bang-Bang" plays is that no two are EXACTLY alike. Each one merits it's own evaluation and judgment and it's YOUR approach and judgment that should be consistent, not necessarily the result.
-
I don't know if this belongs on this thread or a new one, but since it says Catch or No Catch, it can fit. What would you rule (NFHS) if an airbourne player (assumingly prone to the ground) secures possession but when he hits the ground the ball clearly touches the ground but the player maintains control? If you have an answer, what is your support? Specific rule or judgemental experience?
-
airbourne player (assumingly prone to the ground)
Do you mean parallel? You can't be prone and airborne at the same time.
-
yes
-
I don't think we're reading the play correctly.
He FIRST contacted the ground when his foot touched the ground. He then touched the ground with his second foot.
If he possessed the ball when his foot touched the ground, then this is a catch. It makes no difference what happened after he fell to the ground, other than he is now down. It's NOT a fumble.
If he jumps for the ball, his first ground contact is with his body and the ball comes out, YES, that's an incomplete pass.
-
If you rule that a catch (which I wouldn't), then don't you have to rule fumble when the ball comes out? That's going to lead to problems. I think there's rule support (see AB's post above) and Redding's clearly says No Catch. I know Redding's isn't the rule book, but I think the two are in sync here.
When he possesses the ball while standing and then hits the ground, he is DOWN in NFHS football. It's not a fumble. The play is over.
-
Do you mean parallel? You can't be prone and airborne at the same time.
You have obviously never seen a David Copperfield show.
-
So in High School football even though it doesn't say it the player needs to maintain possession all the way through the catch ?... is this what we are going with ?........ ^no
-
So in High School football even though it doesn't say it the player need to maintain possession all the way through the catch ?... is this what we are going with this........ ^no
It's a good philosophy that fits with the rule. If he didn't maintain possession he didn't have firm grasp of the ball.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
So in High School football even though it doesn't say it the player need to maintain possession all the way through the catch ?... is this what we are going with this........ ^no
I guess some might, I would not.
You tell me if I'm wrong but I believe you're saying that:
1) A1 possesses the ball
2) Comes down with one foot inbounds (By rule, we now have a catch).
3) Comes down with his second foot (Now having taken two steps).
4) Falls to the ground (He is now down).
5) The ball comes out. (This is not a fumble as the receiver is DOWN!)
Only under NCAA and NFL rules does the receiver have to maintain possession all the way to the ground. I have no idea why we would apply those rules in NFHS play.
If he doesn't have control of the ball from the time his first foot touches until he hits the ground, then obviously it's incomplete.
Under no circumstances will it be a fumble if he loses control after he hits the ground, so I don't know why that's being suggested.
My two cents.
-
I guess some might, I would not.
You tell me if I'm wrong but I believe you're saying that:
1) A1 possesses the ball
2) Comes down with one foot inbounds (By rule, we now have a catch).
3) Comes down with his second foot (Now having taken two steps).
4) Falls to the ground (He is now down).
5) The ball comes out. (This is not a fumble as the receiver is DOWN!)
Only under NCAA and NFL rules does the receiver have to maintain possession all the way to the ground. I have no idea why we would apply those rules in NFHS play.
If he doesn't have control of the ball from the time his first foot touches until he hits the ground, then obviously it's incomplete.
Under no circumstances will it be a fumble if he loses control after he hits the ground, so I don't know why that's being suggested.
My two cents.
Instead of going to the ground the receiver gets hit when the foot touches and the ball comes out, are you going to rule fumble? That's a cheap catch/fumble. Until last year the NCAA rule wording was very similar to the NFHS wording. The "survive contact with the ground" and "bang-bang" aspects were more philosophy. Using this philosophy creates a lot more consistency and prevents cheap turnovers. And the philosophy still fits with the spirit and wording in the rule at the high school level. Hopefully this is what your supervisors and rule interpreters are saying as well. If not you need to follow what they say.
-
Instead of going to the ground the receiver gets hit when the foot touches and the ball comes out, are you going to rule fumble? That's a cheap catch/fumble.
You have to make a determination whether he possessed the ball or not. But that's not the original play. The original play had him catching the ball, taking two strides, falling to the ground and then the ball coming out, which by the way can never be a fumble.
The original play is not a fumble scenario. When the receiver hits the ground with the ball, you either have an incomplete pass OR the receiver is down, depending on whether he possessed the ball or not after his foot initially touches the ground. Either way, it's not going to be a fumble.
Until last year the NCAA rule wording was very similar to the NFHS wording. The "survive contact with the ground" and "bang-bang" aspects were more philosophy. Using this philosophy creates a lot more consistency and prevents cheap turnovers.
How is the original play going to result in a turnover?
And the philosophy still fits with the spirit and wording in the rule at the high school level. Hopefully this is what your supervisors and rule interpreters are saying as well. If not you need to follow what they say.
I haven't heard anyone suggest this was an incomplete pass until reading this thread.
Please look at my post you quoted and tell me what is incorrect in those 5 points I posted. Always ready to learn.
-
This is what happens when an association begins to be influenced a bit it too much by their college level officials. Without going into an Al-like epistle, always remember that we need to take into account the level of play, which NFHS rules tend to do.
The scenario described, when broken down step by step as was done, reads like a catch to me. If one's own superiors want you to rule differently, it is up to them to explain it to their officials AND their coaches they serve.
-
FBUmp.... I don't know if this is gon'na change your thought process one foot down then the other its only 1 stride not 2....
-
FBUmp.... I don't know if this is gon'na change your thought process one foot down then the other its only 1 stride not 2....
In the air.
One foot down, one step, one stride completed.
Second foot down, two feet, two strides.
One stride or two strides, it doesn't matter. Only the first foot touching the ground is required to complete the catch. So no, it doesn't change my thought process or the rule. ;)
-
Holding NCAA and/or NFL "Philosophies" aside for the moment, there is some clarification built into existing NFHS Rules regarding "Catch" and (Player) "Possession" worth considering. "Catch" (NF: 2-4-1) speaks to "the act of establishing player possession"..."and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaing possession of the ball".
NF: 2-34-1 advises, "a ball is in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player.....after he has caught or recovered it".
As suggested above, a judgment is required to determine whether a player actually does "hold" or "control" a ball (passed to him) and if that holding or controling is established when the player is airborne, he is required to maintain it when, "first contacting the ground inbounds".
There are 3 basic levels of football rules, for good and practical reasons, (NFHS, which includes most Youth level, NCAA, collegiate and MA and TX HS and NFL, professional) and sometimes "philosophies" created at one level can be helpful in establishing judgment criteria, at other levels, but not to the extent they contradict, or expand beyond the intent, rules at other levels
If the judgment of the covering official is that a catch was completed, and subsequent loss of possession is either loss of a dead ball, or a fumble. If the judgment is that a catch was NOT completed, the pass is incomplete or subsequently caught or someone else catching, or intercepting, it.
-
In the air.
One foot down, one step, one stride completed.
Second foot down, two feet, two strides.
One stride or two strides, it doesn't matter. Only the first foot touching the ground is required to complete the catch. So no, it doesn't change my thought process or the rule. ;)
If you are using that philosophy, if the receiver has possession, 1 foot touches the ground, and he's hit causing the ball to come out, you have to rule a fumble. This is why I think the NCAA philosophy works well. It makes it so much easier to be consistent.
-
You have to make a determination whether he possessed the ball or not. But that's not the original play. The original play had him catching the ball, taking two strides, falling to the ground and then the ball coming out, which by the way can never be a fumble.
Coming down and having both feet touch is very different than taking two strides. The philosophy I'm seeing some state is possession, foot on the ground = catch. If he catches the ball in stride and then takes two steps, he's likely not going to the ground as part of the catch.
The original play is not a fumble scenario. When the receiver hits the ground with the ball, you either have an incomplete pass OR the receiver is down, depending on whether he possessed the ball or not after his foot initially touches the ground. Either way, it's not going to be a fumble.
I agree. It has to be incomplete or down. The other scenario I threw out there was for a catch/hit which is similar in philosophy.
How is the original play going to result in a turnover?
It's not. I'm saying the original play is incomplete. And to be consistent, the bang-bang control/hit that causes the ball to come loose is also incomplete.
I haven't heard anyone suggest this was an incomplete pass until reading this thread.
I didn't either until I started learning more rules philosophies. It has been part of my evolution as an official. The more I learn the more I realize how to officiate the game rather than strictly follow the rule book. Now when I watch NFL and NCAA games or very well officiated HS games, I see those philosophies applied very consistently.
Please look at my post you quoted and tell me what is incorrect in those 5 points I posted. Always ready to learn.
I wouldn't say incorrect. I would say against the philosophy I've been taught. If you are told by your supervisor/assigner to be very literal with the rules then you are correct. But then every grasp outside the frame of the body had better be a hold as well. It is important to KNOW the rules, UNDERSTAND the philosophies and APPLY them with sound judgement. That is true from the NFL to the lowest level of youth football.
-
Mag and Ump,
+1000
-
This is what happens when an association begins to be influenced a bit it too much by their college level officials. Without going into an Al-like epistle, always remember that we need to take into account the level of play, which NFHS rules tend to do.
The scenario described, when broken down step by step as was done, reads like a catch to me. If one's own superiors want you to rule differently, it is up to them to explain it to their officials AND their coaches they serve.
I think that HLinNC has summed it up pretty well.
If you are tempted to rule the OP an incompletion, how are you going to explain your ruling when you run into a coach who knows the NFHS rule and how it differs from NCAA/NFL?
-
I think that HLinNC has summed it up pretty well.
If you are tempted to rule the OP an incompletion, how are you going to explain your ruling when you run into a coach who knows the NFHS rule and how it differs from NCAA/NFL?
The coaches can understand this philosophy as well. And they appreciate consistency. This helps accomplish that. The rules aren't that different. "Survive the ground" was a philosophy until it was codified in NCAA last year. It's a solid philosophy in HS if you chose to apply it.
-
If you are using that philosophy, if the receiver has possession, 1 foot touches the ground, and he's hit causing the ball to come out, you have to rule a fumble. This is why I think the NCAA philosophy works well. It makes it so much easier to be consistent.
Again, you keep bring up an entirely different play. I have no idea why. It has nothing to do with the original play. :(
-
The philosophy I'm seeing some state is possession, foot on the ground = catch.
It's not a philosophy.
It's the NFHS rule.
Here, possession, two steps, hitting the ground, the ball coming out is a catch, a receiver down and the end of the play. I've never seen an NFHS interpretation or case play that states any different.
Thanks for the discussion.
-
...Only the first foot touching the ground is required to complete the catch.
Correct...so long as he is in CONTROL of the football. Both elements are required and you're being paid to make that decision.
-
Correct...so long as he is in CONTROL of the football. Both elements are required and you're being paid to make that decision.
This is why I keep bringing up the bang bang hit at the catch. If you are using the rule literally you have a catch/fumble. If not you aren't being consistent. The plays are different but they are related. If you apply them both the same way you are being consistent but literally applying the rule you'll have a lot of cheap fumbles.
I know several high school officials around the country who subscribe to this philosophy.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
-
Perhaps the best way to deal with the differces is to apply NCAA Rules and philosophies when working games governed by NCAA Rules, and when working rules governed by NFHS Rules and philosophies, abide by NFHS Rules.
There are over 200 differences between the codes, most of which are relatively minor, but there are several MAJOR differences, and we really don't have an option as which code WE choose to apply..
-
Check out the Aloha Clinic videos on this Catch no Catch philosophies on this play all vids they explain and RULE as no catch ^no
-
Perhaps the best way to deal with the differces is to apply NCAA Rules and philosophies when working games governed by NCAA Rules, and when working rules governed by NFHS Rules and philosophies, abide by NFHS Rules.
There are over 200 differences between the codes, most of which are relatively minor, but there are several MAJOR differences, and we really don't have an option as which code WE choose to apply..
Thank you! That is exactly the issue. We can't apply NCAA rules to an NFHS situation.
-
Correct...so long as he is in CONTROL of the football. Both elements are required and you're being paid to make that decision.
Totally agree. Control with both feet on the ground and a loss of control AFTER the player's body hits the ground is still a catch and never a fumble.
-
Check out the Aloha Clinic videos on this Catch no Catch philosophies on this play all vids they explain and RULE as no catch ^no
The unfortunately, as great as their videos normally are, they are incorrect in applying an NFL/NCAA rule in an NFHS situation.
However, since they are an island until themselves, they are free to do so. :)
-
The unfortunately, as great as their videos normally are, they are incorrect in applying an NFL/NCAA rule in an NFHS situation.
However, since they are an island until themselves, they are free to do so. :)
Hmmm .... They are incorrect interesting. hEaDbAnG
-
Perhaps your insistence on clarification should be directed to the Aloha Clinic Videos
-
IMHO, (1)If a receiver landed and took steps with the ball in his possession and then dropped the ball = complete pass & fumble. (2) If the receiver landed and took steps with the ball in his possession and fell down losing the ball as he contacted the ground = complete pass & forward progress stopped. (3)Airborne receiver drops the ball as he lands = incomplete pass. (4) Airborne receiver drops the ball when he lands prone on the ground = incomplete pass. This is usually a split-second call (the ones we get paid the big $$ for :)) and applying our "When In Question" guide, should be incomplete. Note that a reoccurring theme thru the "When In Question" lists is to make the call that has the LEAST impact on the game.
-
Player established possession of a live ball left foot comes down followed by the right then falls to the ground and the ball comes out what do you have Catch or no Catch ? ::)
Ralph, to me the original post sounds like your case 3. Feet touch then he falls to the ground. Which I would say is incomplete.
The original post does not sound like a player taking two steps to me.
-
Ralph, to me the original post sounds like your case 3. Feet touch then he falls to the ground. Which I would say is incomplete.
It seems, Stryker, your analysis is incomplete, at least relating to NFHS rules. The issue you fail to address is whether the received had possession, because if the covering official judged the receiver to have had possession of the ball, and subsequently maintained possession through his "initial contact with the ground inbounds", by NFHS rule definition that is exactly a catch. One foot or two has nothing to do with it.
If the receiver was contacted after "initially touching the ground inbounds" while possessing the ball, you are most certainly dealing with a catch followed by a fumble, at least according to the NFHS rule. The salient point is whether the covering official judged him to be in possession, when he touched the ground. If not, the pass, again by definition, is incomplete.
The problem with any Bang-Bang call is that the answer is not obvious, and depends on the details of what was actually seen. Under the NFHS "A ball in player possession of a live ball held or controlled by a player after he has caught or recovered it" (2-34-1) and "a catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball" (2-4-1).
I think it fair to suggest the determining factor, far more often in judging whether a catch was successfully completed is deciding if possession was actually achieved, and subsequently maintained while initially contacting the ground inbounds, or the subsequent contact prevented the receiver from gaining possession, and completing a catch. Whether there was one step or two, has no significance if there was no possession.
-
We had alot of good input on this subject and by the sounds of things NO CATCH seems to be the answer ^no
-
We had alot of good input on this subject and by the sounds of things NO CATCH seems to be the answer ^no
Not sure I agree with your assessment of the participants' input; but, if you are going to adopt this philosophy, you are going to waive off a TD when the situation occurs in the EZ. Neither the FED catch definition nor the description of a TD (8-2-1) specify any "duration" or "process" for the catch. A player needs only to establish possession and return to the ground inbounds while controlling (not juggling - my emphasis) the ball. That can be as little as one step or count IMHO.
The tough call we have to step up to and be ready to defend either way 'cause somebody ain't gonna be happy; but I believe a catch is best supported by rule.
-
Let's put it this way.
If you call close plays like this incomplete, there will be no problems. Everyone will understand, there will be not complaints and life will be good.
If you try to sell this as a catch, you'll get second-guessed and criticized by coaches, fans and your fellow crew members. Life will turn dark and sorrow will follow you.
I learned this lesson a long time ago, and it's served me well. If it's at all close on a catch - no catch, call it incomplete and move on. Everyone sees the ball laying on the ground, and expects the incomplete signal.
-
I think this is the problem when you put Black and White together on paper you get GREY and that is the problem with the wording in this rule cRaZy The last few words of the rule leave it open: While maintaining possession of the BALL
-
I think this is the problem when you put Black and White together on paper you get GREY and that is the problem with the wording in this rule cRaZy The last few words of the rule leave it open: While maintaining possession of the BALL
Which is "open" to the observation and judgment of the field official ruling on that specific play, which is exactly, and exclusively, where that decision belongs.
-
I think this is the problem when you put Black and White together on paper you get GREY and that is the problem with the wording in this rule
The official training me always made sure to wear a grey shirt to class so he could say that the rulebook is in black and white, but football is played in shades of grey. The more shades of grey you can see, the better of an official you'll be.
Ultimately, this boils down to a judgment call by the official on the spot as to whether the receiver has completed a catch. And that is why we get paid the big bucks, to be the ones who make that judgment call.
For your consideration: if you've got the official's manual this year, page 82 has some "when in question" scenarios. The fourth one is "catch or no catch.... no catch."