Author Topic: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?  (Read 22259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NEWOFFICIAL

  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« on: March 03, 2020, 07:11:20 PM »
NCAA play please disregard commentary and NCAA rules. In Fed Rules do you have this as :

A ) Touchdown first foot in end zone and possession
or
B) No Touchdown for the Receivers failure to maintain possession of the ball

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebMSeLzQvWgZOCGC9tQF07EY4dtTJuD7/view?usp=sharing

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 3491
  • FAN REACTION: +133/-24
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2020, 08:30:44 PM »
2-4-ART. 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 or having the forward progress of the player who is in possession stopped while the opponent is carrying the player who is in possession and inbounds.

2-34-ART. 1 . . . A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.

8-2-ART. 1 . . . Possession of a live ball in the opponent's end zone is always a touchdown.
b. It is a touchdown when a loose ball is caught or recovered by a player while the ball is on or behind his opponent's goal line.

I think most HS officials would rule this a TD.  Surviving the ground is not an NFHS concept.  I understand why other levels would not.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2020, 09:47:47 PM »
NCAA play please disregard commentary and NCAA rules. In Fed Rules do you have this as :

The Rules that govern the game you're working are the only rules that matter, for that game. Touchdown.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2020, 11:23:21 PM »
He did not have possession long enough if you watch this in real time. You watch many passes in slow motion it appears he has it longer than he did. Survive the ground may not be applicable in HS, but it sure makes your calls much more consistent if you apply it as a philosophy. I'm sure there are states or interpreters who use it to help with consistency. This isn't even close to a catch in real time to me. It wouldn't be a catch in the middle of the field or the end zone.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2940
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2020, 06:48:51 AM »
I agree with Magician. No catch.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2936
  • FAN REACTION: +115/-27
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2020, 08:08:36 AM »
Count me in the “no catch” crowd.  Would you rule this a catch if it happened at the 50?  I don’t think so.

Offline Refmike22

  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2020, 09:42:58 AM »
5 man mechanic - wing probably is going to make it to the 5 and have the receivers back to him -  ^no  - in the EZ or the 50 still  ^no

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2020, 02:37:40 PM »
Count me in the “no catch” crowd.  Would you rule this a catch if it happened at the 50?  I don’t think so.

I agree. Would you call this a catch and fumble if this happened inbounds in the middle of the field at the 50? I would definitely not - I'd rule it incomplete there as well.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2020, 05:56:32 PM »
I agree. Would you call this a catch and fumble if this happened inbounds in the middle of the field at the 50? I would definitely not - I'd rule it incomplete there as well.

Presuming you agreed that the NFHS Rule requirements "establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball" were satisfied, what would be your (rule related) justification for ruling the pass incomplete?

Of course, if you judged that either player possession of a live ball in flight was not established nor subsequently maintained while "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball, your assessment, based on your judgment would be correct.

I was not aware that NFHS Rule 2-4-1 includes a specific duration requirement to establish "possession".
NFHS 2-34-1 advises, "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.".  Again, no specific duration requirement is stated.

It would seem the judgment confirming "possession" relates to it being established, rather than being maintained for any specified period of time, other than being continued, and maintained, through "FIRST contacting the ground inbounds"

Offline PABJNR

  • *
  • Posts: 201
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-3
  • When a whistle stops a play it is inadvertent
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2020, 06:55:29 PM »
Presuming you agreed that the NFHS Rule requirements "establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball" were satisfied, what would be your (rule related) justification for ruling the pass incomplete?

Of course, if you judged that either player possession of a live ball in flight was not established nor subsequently maintained while "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball, your assessment, based on your judgment would be correct.

I was not aware that NFHS Rule 2-4-1 includes a specific duration requirement to establish "possession".
NFHS 2-34-1 advises, "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.".  Again, no specific duration requirement is stated.

It would seem the judgment confirming "possession" relates to it being established, rather than being maintained for any specified period of time, other than being continued, and maintained, through "FIRST contacting the ground inbounds"

Al the definition indicates "first contacting the ground inbounds, while maintaining possession of the ball."  I would agree with you if the rule stated contacting the ground inbounds, while possessing the ball or contacting the ground having maintained possession of the ball.

That one little word maintaining adds something.

Maintain - to keep or keep up; continue in or with; carry on -- maintaining is the present participle of maintain.

Then by definition if the player does not come down in bounds and maintain, the act of keeping or continuing possession, it is not by definition a catch.  The rule does not say maintained, which is past tense.  I agree it is a gray area as to when maintaining possession is satisfied, but something that bang-bang the ball better not come out or I'm wiping it, and I believe I have rules support to do so, along with what I believe to be good common sense game management.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 06:57:30 PM by PABJNR »
You don't have to call everything you see...but you have to see everything you call!

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2116
  • FAN REACTION: +301/-25
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2020, 09:40:23 PM »
Hard to say you caught it when the ball is lying on the ground...

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2020, 10:02:35 PM »
Al the definition indicates "first contacting the ground inbounds, while maintaining possession of the ball."  I would agree with you if the rule stated contacting the ground inbounds, while possessing the ball or contacting the ground having maintained possession of the ball.

That one little word maintaining adds something.

Maintain - to keep or keep up; continue in or with; carry on -- maintaining is the present participle of maintain.

Then by definition if the player does not come down in bounds and maintain, the act of keeping or continuing possession, it is not by definition a catch.  The rule does not say maintained, which is past tense.  I agree it is a gray area as to when maintaining possession is satisfied, but something that bang-bang the ball better not come out or I'm wiping it, and I believe I have rules support to do so, along with what I believe to be good common sense game management.

I'm not questioning YOUR judgment, and clearly stated if YOU judge the received did NOT have possession of the ball when "FIRST touching the ground inbounds you can rightly consider the pass INCOMPLETE.  But, you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear with word-smithing.  2-4-1 clearly states," FIRST touches the ground while maintaining possession (which suggests he must have FIRST ESTABLISHED possession)before touches the ground inbounds". 

If you judge he HAS possession, and while doing so, FIRST touches the ground, inbounds, it's a CATCH (Whether at the 50 yl, or in the EZ), and BY NFHS RULE, that's a catch. 

If you are going to judge the pass incomplete, I would respectfully suggest it be because you DID NOT judge the loose ball IN POSSESSION when he FIRST touched the ground, inbounds, o rat some point thereafter.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 10:10:09 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2020, 08:37:36 AM »
I was not aware that NFHS Rule 2-4-1 includes a specific duration requirement to establish "possession".
NFHS 2-34-1 advises, "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.".  Again, no specific duration requirement is stated.

And this is where understanding the meaning and philosophy of the rule is very important. Maintains is the key word here and a very common philosophy is there needs to be a time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency. You are asking some good questions here to help people get through the process, and I understand you don't necessarily feel this immediate contact constitutes a catch. I encourage people to spend as much time understanding the rules and learning the philosophies will help you become an even better official.

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 1269
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2020, 09:41:43 AM »
Instant replay has allowed us all to start examining the pepper under a microscope.

Across the middle of the field at the 50, two players jump up for a ball, get hand(s) on it, and they both fall to the ground and the ball pops out -- philosophically, that's incomplete from me 100% of the time and NOBODY in the stadium is going to argue with that if it's just as bang-bang as this play was.

The alternative is catch and fumble, which is going to upset one sideline and make the other think you're an idiot even if they got the benefit of the play.

"Surviving the ground" and "act common to the game" are necessary terms when you can analyze every play like the Zapruder film because you shouldn't be over officiating plays like this.

TL;DR:  ^no

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2020, 10:13:06 AM »
And this is where understanding the meaning and philosophy of the rule is very important. Maintains is the key word here and a very common philosophy is there needs to be a time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency.

"Meaning and philosophy" are both important considerations to help in applying judgment and determining whether the action being observed does, or does not, satisfy the explicit rule. Different from other Football related Rule codes (NCAA, NFL) the NFHS rule regarding "catch" is both specific and instantaneous. 

When there is possession (as defined in NFHS 2-34-1) and concurrent "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (as defined in NFHS 2-4-1), by NFHS Rule, you have a "Catch".

Although what may be, " a very common (although somewhat recent) philosophy is that there needs to be time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency" has been deemed appropriate at other Rule Code levels, that application HAS NOT been adopted by the NFHS code.  It has, however, called greater attention to the stated requirements of establishing player possession and maintaining that possession through the FIRST touching of the ground, inbounds.

Both philosophies may well be helpful in confirming judgments as to establishing player possession and maintaining it through FIRST contact with the ground, inbounds, but ARE NOT additional requirements as included in other Rule Codes

At some point, NFHS Rules may choose to adopt the philosophy recommended by the other Football Rule codes, but until that actually happens the need for a, "time element or possibly an act common to the game" to confirm a completed "Catch" simply do not apply to the NFHS Rule.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 10:17:22 AM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2020, 10:43:32 AM »
"Meaning and philosophy" are both important considerations to help in applying judgment and determining whether the action being observed does, or does not, satisfy the explicit rule. Different from other Football related Rule codes (NCAA, NFL) the NFHS rule regarding "catch" is both specific and instantaneous. 

When there is possession (as defined in NFHS 2-34-1) and concurrent "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (as defined in NFHS 2-4-1), by NFHS Rule, you have a "Catch".

Although what may be, " a very common (although somewhat recent) philosophy is that there needs to be time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency" has been deemed appropriate at other Rule Code levels, that application HAS NOT been adopted by the NFHS code.  It has, however, called greater attention to the stated requirements of establishing player possession and maintaining that possession through the FIRST touching of the ground, inbounds.

Both philosophies may well be helpful in confirming judgments as to establishing player possession and maintaining it through FIRST contact with the ground, inbounds, but ARE NOT additional requirements as included in other Rule Codes

At some point, NFHS Rules may choose to adopt the philosophy recommended by the other Football Rule codes, but until that actually happens the need for a, "time element or possibly an act common to the game" to confirm a completed "Catch" simply do not apply to the NFHS Rule.

Philosophies by definition aren't included in the codes. Things like "survive the ground" and "act common to the game" aren't always codified. They are philosophies that existed before they were codified. The philosophies are often build on words that do exist in the rule. In this case, the key word is MAINTAIN. Poor officials stop at that word and take it literally and don't think more about what it means. Good officials attempt to better understand what the term means and how it's applied in the game. Great officials have such a good understanding of the intent and philosophy they can consistently apply it in real time play to play and game to game.

Another good example where common philosophies can be applied to HS rules but aren't specifically covered in the rules is holding. The rule uses the term restrain. Two common philosophies applied to that term are point of attack and back pedaling. If the restriction isn't at the point of attack it's often not considered holding. If the holder maintains good feet between the defender and the runner and gets the defender into a back pedal, he's beat already and there is very likely no hold. Most of us are aware of the 6 categories of holding and those categories exist nowhere in the rule book. If you stop your rule knowledge at the rule book, you will struggle as an official. Just because a philosophy initiated at the NFL or NCAA level doesn't mean it can't be applied to HS football.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2020, 11:33:17 AM »
Nobody is suggesting "Philosophies" aren't important in understanding and correctly applying rules, but,  "what's good for the goose isn't ALWAYS good for the gander", and regarding football rules, some "philosophies" are far more applicable to, and intended for, different levels of the game.

How YOU apply philosophies to YOUR judgments, is essentially up to YOU.  I'm suggesting that how YOU decide to apply certain philosophies is YOUR] choice, as well as YOUR responsibility to explain and/or defend if questioned. 

Concentrating on established and maintained possession at the time of FIRST touching the ground inbounds, seems a lot more appropriate to the execution and satisfaction of NFHS rules regarding whether a forward pass was complete or not[/i
], than some arbitrary, not all that well defined, or specific, concepts like either, "survive the ground" or "act common to the game". established and intended for, and documented by RULES governing other levels of the game.

There are significantly different skill levels inherent to each level of the game of Football, that often require specific adjustments in how "basic philosophies" apply to THAT level, which may, or may not, apply or be practical to other levels. "One size RARELY fits all, the same".

However, YOUR call is based on YOUR judgment, which is likely influenced by YOUR understanding and appropriate application of "philosophies", as they apply to the game YOU are working.  As long as YOU are comfortable with, and accept responsibility for explaining YOUR decision, it's YOUR call. 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 11:39:43 AM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2020, 12:01:30 PM »
Nobody is suggesting "Philosophies" aren't important in understanding and correctly applying rules, but,  "what's good for the goose isn't ALWAYS good for the gander", and regarding football rules, some "philosophies" are far more applicable to, and intended for, different levels of the game.

How YOU apply philosophies to YOUR judgments, is essentially up to YOU.  I'm suggesting that how YOU decide to apply certain philosophies is YOUR] choice, as well as YOUR responsibility to explain and/or defend if questioned. 

Concentrating on established and maintained possession at the time of FIRST touching the ground inbounds, seems a lot more appropriate to the execution and satisfaction of NFHS rules regarding whether a forward pass was complete or not[/i
], than some arbitrary, not all that well defined, or specific, concepts like either, "survive the ground" or "act common to the game". established and intended for, and documented by RULES governing other levels of the game.

There are significantly different skill levels inherent to each level of the game of Football, that often require specific adjustments in how "basic philosophies" apply to THAT level, which may, or may not, apply or be practical to other levels. "One size RARELY fits all, the same".

However, YOUR call is based on YOUR judgment, which is likely influenced by YOUR understanding and appropriate application of "philosophies", as they apply to the game YOU are working.  As long as YOU are comfortable with, and accept responsibility for explaining YOUR decision, it's YOUR call. 

You are starting to catch on! These philosophies are not mine. I didn't create them or choose to take a philosophy from a different level and personally apply it in my game only. These are philosophies the best among us (many included on this board) have decided do make sense and collectively apply them in their state/region/association at the high school level.

Your argument would be valid if I individually chose to use something from a different level. What I'm telling you is the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies and said I think they are applicable here as well. Maybe not exactly as they are interpreted or enforced at another level, but very similar. Why re-invent the wheel when something that is perfectly acceptable at this level has already been created.

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 669
  • FAN REACTION: +37/-47
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2020, 12:04:42 PM »
Philosophies by definition aren't included in the codes. Things like "survive the ground" and "act common to the game" aren't always codified. They are philosophies that existed before they were codified. The philosophies are often build on words that do exist in the rule. In this case, the key word is MAINTAIN. Poor officials stop at that word and take it literally and don't think more about what it means. Good officials attempt to better understand what the term means and how it's applied in the game. Great officials have such a good understanding of the intent and philosophy they can consistently apply it in real time play to play and game to game. 

Implies, but doesn't actually state, that officials can "do it my way" or not bother aspiring to greatness or even goodness.

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 542
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-30
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2020, 12:14:02 PM »
No TD.  Does not have control. ^no

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2020, 12:39:13 PM »
These are philosophies the best among us (many included on this board) have decided do make sense and collectively apply them in their state/region/association at the high school level.

Your argument would be valid if I individually chose to use something from a different level. What I'm telling you is the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies and said I think they are applicable here as well.

I'm sure, "the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies" whomever they may be, with the best of intentions, but all too often I consider, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". 

My understand is that, as frustrating as it all too often may seem, my role is to enforce and adhere to the Rules as they are written. Although I maintain we all have the opportunity to appeal to those given the responsibility of writing, and revising, the NFHS rules if and when we think revisions are appropriate, or necessary, we're expected to wait for their concurrence before adopting changes, on our own, even when they're applied to other levels.

Offline riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-19
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2020, 01:01:36 PM »
I'm sure, "the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies" whomever they may be, with the best of intentions, but all too often I consider, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". 

My understand is that, as frustrating as it all too often may seem, my role is to enforce and adhere to the Rules as they are written. Although I maintain we all have the opportunity to appeal to those given the responsibility of writing, and revising, the NFHS rules if and when we think revisions are appropriate, or necessary, we're expected to wait for their concurrence before adopting changes, on our own, even when they're applied to other levels.

Which begs the questions on the topic brought up earlier. Do you call holding on a WR on the far left side of the field near the sideline when he restricts the CB and the run is a sweep to the far right side of the field?

As you say the rules are the rules as written, it is a hold by definition in the rules, call it.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2020, 01:28:15 PM »
I'm sure, "the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies" whomever they may be, with the best of intentions, but all too often I consider, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". 

My understand is that, as frustrating as it all too often may seem, my role is to enforce and adhere to the Rules as they are written. Although I maintain we all have the opportunity to appeal to those given the responsibility of writing, and revising, the NFHS rules if and when we think revisions are appropriate, or necessary, we're expected to wait for their concurrence before adopting changes, on our own, even when they're applied to other levels.

This from the guy who used "common sense" to rule a receiver who touches out of bounds and then leaps up to touch the pass as being incomplete because the player is "out of bounds" when he touches it. So apparently you only choose to enforce the rules as written when it's convenient with your argument.

Do you recognize the fact that most of the officials commenting here understand the concept of philosophies that are built on the intent and wording of the rule? If you are the only one who has a position that is counter to everyone, don't you think maybe you should rethink your understanding?

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2020, 03:10:17 PM »
Do you recognize the fact that most of the officials commenting here understand the concept of philosophies that are built on the intent and wording of the rule? If you are the only one who has a position that is counter to everyone, don't you think maybe you should rethink your understanding?

Actually, I think I have a pretty good, and consistent, understanding of the concept of "philosophies" and their application.  I just don't happen to agree with YOUR assessment of this issue.  Are you really sure EVERYONE agrees with you, or that your conclusion is "perfectly acceptable" at this (NFHS) level?

Of course you're perfectly entitled to follow your own interpretation and conclusion, but until I hear something a little more specific, or explanatory from NFHS Rules makers, I'm going to stick with my understanding and limitation of "philosophies" as they apply to NFHS Rules exclusively.

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 542
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-30
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: FED RULES TOUCHDOWN OR NOT ?
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2020, 06:29:12 PM »
Which begs the questions on the topic brought up earlier. Do you call holding on a WR on the far left side of the field near the sideline when he restricts the CB and the run is a sweep to the far right side of the field?
If it is so blatant that even Helen Keller can see it, yeah, flag it.  If the kid did something that dumb that's on him, not us.  Most coaches will understand, and if they don't teach them.