Latest from Ohio

[maven]

I don't believe this is as much of a problem that the Case Book plays were rule misinterpretations as they are outdated rulings that haven't been removed/updated following the rule changes. Further disclosure at the top of the same page indicates this can happen, and should be reported to the NFHS.

Not disagreeing with your "inside info," but NFHS's characteristic slowness to revise or delete old, outdated cases cannot explain the existence of 4.3.3B, which is NEW for 2012.

[Atlanta Blue]

Not disagreeing with your "inside info," but NFHS's characteristic slowness to revise or delete old, outdated cases cannot explain the existence of 4.3.3B, which is NEW for 2012.

Correct.  But in this case, the rule committee wrote the rule with a clear intent and wording.  After the rule was published, "someone" not on the committee (rules editor, officie assistant, summer intern, janitorial staff, who knows) wrote a new case play, and it got an asterisk because it wasnt' there last year.

Doesn't make it right, it makes for poor editing and fact checking for letting be published.

[maven]

Correct.  But in this case, the rule committee wrote the rule with a clear intent and wording.  After the rule was published, "someone" not on the committee (rules editor, officie assistant, summer intern, janitorial staff, who knows) wrote a new case play, and it got an asterisk because it wasnt' there last year.

Doesn't make it right, it makes for poor editing and fact checking for letting be published.

Got it. I expect we'll have this play Friday night, and we'll call it by the (rule!) book.

[waltjp]

I'll throw in a different twist.  We all agree on the push OOB, but the NJ interpretation is that if an airborne receiver is grabbed and carried backwards and dropped OOB, it's a catch because his forward progress was stopped.  If he's carried forward and dropped OOB, it's not a catch.

[Rulesman]

...if an airborne receiver is grabbed and carried backwards and dropped OOB, it's a catch because his forward progress was stopped.

And I think we'll all agree that's not what 2-4-1 says, either.

[Atlanta Blue]

I'll throw in a different twist.  We all agree on the push OOB, but the NJ interpretation is that if an airborne receiver is grabbed and carried backwards and dropped OOB, it's a catch because his forward progress was stopped.  If he's carried forward and dropped OOB, it's not a catch.

Forward progress of what?  He hasn't made a catch yet!

2-15-2:

When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the
furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a
defender.

Since he hasn't come back to the ground inbounds, as required by 2-4-1, he hasn't made a catch, and forward progress can't apply, because by definition, that can only apply to a player that has already made a catch.

[AFSST]

Forward progress of what?  He hasn't made a catch yet!

2-15-2:

When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the
furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a
defender.

Since he hasn't come back to the ground inbounds, as required by 2-4-1, he hasn't made a catch, and forward progress can't apply, because by definition, that can only apply to a player that has already made a catch.

Don't agree with your interpretation.  What if a receiver catches the ball while airborne in the EZ, then is shoved backward to the 1 yard line where he is downed.  Touchdown.  So forward progress absolutely applies.  Don't confuse the concept of forward progress with the concept of catch vs no catch.  They are two separate issues.

[bama_stripes]

Don't agree with your interpretation.  What if a receiver catches the ball while airborne in the EZ, then is shoved backward to the 1 yard line where he is downed.  Touchdown.  So forward progress absolutely applies.  Don't confuse the concept of forward progress with the concept of catch vs no catch.  They are two separate issues.

I believe AB's point was that you have to have a legal catch before you can determine forward progress.  In your play, the receiver does complete the catch by touching inbounds; in his play, he doesn't.

[Atlanta Blue]

I believe AB's point was that you have to have a legal catch before you can determine forward progress.  In your play, the receiver does complete the catch by touching inbounds; in his play, he doesn't.

Exactly.  Forward progress is determined by the foremost point after POSSESSION, but not until a catch has been made.  A player that never lands inbounds hasn't made a catch, and isn't entitled to forward progress.

Take your "catch" in the end zone.  Diving (airborne) receiver possesses a pass while in the air over the end zone.  He lands on his belly and the ball, which is under him, pops loose.  Are you going to call a TD because he possessed the ball over the end zone?  Or a leaping receiver jumps and possesses the ball over the end zone, but lands beyond the end line.  Touchdown?  Of course not, the passes were incomplete, because the receiver never touched inbounds, thus completing the catch.

Same with your play.  It's not a TD when the ball was possessed, it didn't become one until he completed the catch.  Under FED rules, a player that never hits inbounds, whether pushed or carried, hasn't completed the catch.  The rules committee had a clear intent when making the rule: eliminate the judgment of whether a player WOULD have landed inbounds.  They did NOT want to duplicate the NCAA rule, then wanted a clear, less judgmental issue: either he did or he didn't land inbounds.  HOW he did or didn't wasn't supposed to matter, until the writer of the case play muddied the waters, against the wishes of the rules committee.

[Rulesman]

I believe AB's point was that you have to have a legal catch before you can determine forward progress.  In your play, the receiver does complete the catch by touching inbounds; in his play, he doesn't.

You beat me to it, bama and Blue!

[ECILLJ]

In the spirit of the rule. If a receiver is being carried, rather than being hit, out of bounds. The legs of the defender are almost like an extension of the receiver. Illinois is telling us to give them the forward progress, they do not want to see a player carried three yards to the OOB line and us giving the 'by the book' interpretation and calling the play incomplete / OOB. The Federation will more than likely clean this rule up next year.

[Rulesman]

The Federation will more than likely clean this rule up next year.

There is no reason the Rules Editor cannot clean it up THIS year.

[bama_stripes]

There is no reason the Rules Editor cannot clean it up THIS year.

I'm guessing that being the NFHS Rules Editor isn't a full-time job.......

Does anyone here know or have contact with Bob Colgate?

[FBUmp]

The play in the case book is wrong. That's been established previously.

Really?  Where can I read this?

[Rulesman]

I'm guessing that being the NFHS Rules Editor isn't a full-time job.......

Does anyone here know or have contact with Bob Colgate?

I'm sure it isn't as his title is NFHS Director of Sports and Sports Medicine. To get to him you are supposed to work through your state office. Bama, in your case I would call Greg Brewer.

[bama_stripes]

I'm sure it isn't as his title is NFHS Director of Sports and Sports Medicine. To get to him you are supposed to work through your state office. Bama, in your case I would call Greg Brewer.

Actually, I was just wondering if someone on the board knew him well enough in an unofficial capacity to ask him (off the record) about some of these "rogue" case plays.

[Atlanta Blue]

The Federation will more than likely clean this rule up next year.

I believe you may be giving them far too much credit.

Or as they taught us in law school:  assuming facts not in evidence.