Author Topic: TD/Incomplete/Interception?  (Read 4664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2017, 09:36:38 AM »
Tough play. I agree with the concept of this being a TD under NFHS rules (if you judge the WR had possession). I also agree with the concept that using such a strict definition for catches will lead to more fumbles in the middle of the field (i.e. what Magician said).

Real time, this feels more like an incompletion than anything. It's hard for me to argue the WR had possession if the defender ended up with it so quickly. And it's hard for me to say the defender had possession while inbounds if the WR sort of had it milliseconds earlier.

Offline NoVaBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-6
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2017, 09:27:55 AM »
It is only a TD if philosophies are not used.

As has been drilled into my Association's heads several times (including once in response to an excellent video of yours shown at a meeting), philosophies have no standing in the NFHS code. Your mileage may vary in Hawaii and mine probably should, but I have a simultaneous catch and a touchdown.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3671
  • FAN REACTION: +284/-541
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2017, 09:50:45 AM »
I expect the opposite is true. Equally across the spectrum provides consistency with coaches, fans, players and officials. Also not sure what a philosophy is compared to a lasting philosophy. Catch process has been around for just about 20 years.

Even sunshine, taken to the extreme, can become a problem.  Philosophies are fine and generally are beneficial to the understanding and application of the "intent" and purpose of rules.

Even the quest for "consistency", however, when taken to an extreme of "one size MUST fit all", ignoring the reality that's actually being observed, can go too far.

"Catch process" has been around for a long time, but this notion of "surviving the ground" is a fairly recent interpretation, that keeps expanding and stumbling over itself, negating what, for most of that "long time" had been considered some of the greatest plays  produced by this game. 

Too far, too precise may be fine for video games, but football is a game played by humans, and exact, minute precision is really not the primary objective.  I'm not sure who advised us, "We should not allow the pursuit of perfectionto prevent, or impede the delivery of excellence", but it makes sense.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 410
  • FAN REACTION: +172/-40
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2017, 03:15:24 PM »
It is only a TD if philosophies are not used. So without philosophy its a TD in EZ and fumble on 50. Letter of the rule is not the intent of the rule. Even the definition has the words "while maintaining possession of the ball". That line was added around five years ago to allow for philosophy, mainly surviving the ground.

Sorry Matt but facts are facts!

"...while maintaining possession of the ball."
  is included in the 2001 NFHS Rules Book (and likely earlier that.
As such, you will have to then agree,  in 2001, "Surviving the ground" was not even a pipe dream, at any level, of this game we all love.

I've got 4 hands on the football and 4 feet on the ground, in the end zone, by rule (4-2-2c) the ball becomes dead at that point, and,
until an unlikely huge definition change occurs in NFHS, this meets the requirements of 2-4-3, resulting in a touchdown awarded to Team A.

In other news, your Signal 48 should become official in another month!
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 12:40:44 AM by KWH »