Punt at the GL (video)

[TXMike]

Let's say #21 never loses possession and continues to "Plunge" into the Endzone and lands with ball clearly in control.

That has to be a TOUCHBACK.    No way he could be deemed in possession and dead immediately in that milli-second of time on the 1yd line when he is leaning into the endzone.

It is immaterial where he is leaning.  All that matters is where the ball is. And that being said we are screwed because we do not have a definitive view of where the ball is.  Heck he could have been standing in the end zone and if he grasped the ball before it broke the plane, it should be dead wherever it was when he got a firm grasp and control of the ball

[TXMike]

What's  your call on this, Hoss?
An airborne Team A pass receiver grasps a forward pass,
touches down with both feet off balance at the B-2,
immediately falls forward,
extends his arm such that the ball breaks the plane of the GL,
as he hits the ground, the ball drops from his hand.

A bag on the ground when that spot is already marked is not needed if the only reason it is being dropped is to mark a spot.

As for your play, clearly the prevailing philosophy is to make this incomplete. But we are gettng back to what the involved player is trying to do.  In the case of the receiver, he is trying to demonstrate possession of a ball that has crossed the goal line.  In the case of the gunner, he is trying to demonstrate possession PRIOR to it crossing the goal line.

[Atlanta Blue]

There was no Television fixed GL camera but there might be one in the stadium system. If so it would only be seen by the Replay guys in the booth. Most D1 stadiums have their own Replay camera system in place. There are usually 5 cameras at a minimum (2 end zone cameras, 2 goalline cameras and 1 High 50 camera). Those 5 cameras feed into the Replay system. When TV comes to town to do a game the TV feed is connected to the Replay system through the High 50 port. The Replay guys have access to everything TV shows and the remaining stadium system cameras.

So.......Replay may have had a shot (GL) that TV didn't have access to. Not sure but they might have.

Not sure where that is true, it is NOT true in any SEC stadium.  Replay gets the cameras that are put in place by the production company, no more, no less.  There are no "permanent cameras" that are in the replay aresnal, there are no "permanent cameras" in place at all, with the exception of some web cameras for everyday, not game use.  The replays come from the production truck, not from any permanent cameras to which TV does not have access.

When Bobby Gaston was head of officials for the SEC, he requested that each stadium place permanent cameras on each goal line, and that the feeds be made available to TV.  He was told that the cost (over $50,000 per stadium) was too high, and that the configuration of some stadiums would make it impossible.  Having worked in the electronics industry, and with the SEC, I think $50,000 per stadium is WAY too high an estimate.  But even if it were true, for the cost of one or two commercials in the SEC Championship game, the entire conference could have been done.

[texref]

Not sure where that is true, it is NOT true in any SEC stadium.  Replay gets the cameras that are put in place by the production company, no more, no less.  There are no "permanent cameras" that are in the replay aresnal, there are no "permanent cameras" in place at all, with the exception of some web cameras for everyday, not game use.  The replays come from the production truck, not from any permanent cameras to which TV does not have access.

When Bobby Gaston was head of officials for the SEC, he requested that each stadium place permanent cameras on each goal line, and that the feeds be made available to TV.  He was told that the cost (over $50,000 per stadium) was too high, and that the configuration of some stadiums would make it impossible.  Having worked in the electronics industry, and with the SEC, I think $50,000 per stadium is WAY too high an estimate.  But even if it were true, for the cost of one or two commercials in the SEC Championship game, the entire conference could have been done.

I made too broad of a statement. Every Sun Belt Conference school has this set up and I am sure many others do as well. Conferences where every game is broadcast on TV (SEC, Big 10, Big XII, etc.) probably don't need permanent cameras and just depend on TV. I agree with Al that every stadium should have GL cameras in place for every game. It is the most important line in the game.

[chymechowder]

slo-mo replay I say the Team A player has control of the ball just outside the GL. and by rule the ball is dead at this point. doesnt matter what he does afterwards. whether he drops it, leans or takes the Nestea plunge (excellent metaphor btw).

but at live speed on the field, since the player DID fall into the EZ and the ball was on the GL, I think its awfully tough to split hairs and say he had possession at the 6 inch line.  I vote touchback.

isn't this kind of a corollary to the "no cheap scores, turnovers, etc." philosophy?  say this was a Team B player making an interception here. for argument sake, say the ball never came loose, but instead he fell on his rear in the EZ with the ball.  would we vote momentum exception and give Team B the ball at the 3 inch line?  or would we vote touchback?

[Rulesman]

I believe the words immediately before "off balance" established the receiver met the requirement of one foot down inbounds. I don't believe maintaining one's balance has anything to do with catch/no catch in this example. Once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line: 

[Diablo]

As for your play, clearly the prevailing philosophy is to make this incomplete. But we are gettng back to what the involved player is trying to do.  In the case of the receiver, he is trying to demonstrate possession of a ball that has crossed the goal line.  In the case of the gunner, he is trying to demonstrate possession PRIOR to it crossing the goal line.

I don't see anything in the rules or interpretations that even suggests we are to modify the criteria for catch (recovery) based upon what the receiver is trying to do - whether it be TD, TB, inbounds/OB, whatever.  I see this as a one-size-fits-all application.

BTW.  "When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed." 2-4-3-f

[TXMike]

I don't see anything in the rules or interpretations that even suggests we are to modify the criteria for catch (recovery) based upon what the receiver is trying to do - whether it be TD, TB, inbounds/OB, whatever.  I see this as a one-size-fits-all application.

BTW.  "When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed." 2-4-3-f

I am saying that we KNOW what the player is trying to do and his intent should be a part of our thought process, even at the subconscious level.

And the WIQ rule is only applicable WHEN IN QUESTION.  If I have no doubt it was possessed before it was PUT DOWN, then the WIQ is N/A

[Diablo]

I am saying that we KNOW what the player is trying to do and his intent should be a part of our thought process, even at the subconscious level.

And the WIQ rule is only applicable WHEN IN QUESTION.  If I have no doubt it was possessed before it was PUT DOWN, then the WIQ is N/A

I recall that intent, either stated or implied, appears in rule applications, e.g. targeting, illegal passes to conserve/consume time & simulated substitution/replacements.  Consequently, the rules makers do provide written support for factoring in intent.  The absence of "intent" in the written catch/recovery criteria says they don't want it.

The fact that the onfield ruling by the B was overturned by IR says the situation was questionable.    

[TXMike]

Interesting that it seems most of the argument in favor of calling this a TB requires the use of the "catch/no-catch" philosophy with regards to a pass.  Those wanting the TB say that as the player falls to the ground and loses the ball it demonstrates he did not have possession.  The reality is that whole philosophy is in the rulebook (AR's only I believe) and only addresses "airborne receivers".  This Team A player was not an airborne receiver.  He was already on the ground when he touched the ball.  Me thinks perhaps you are mixing oranges and tangerines

[Diablo]

Interesting that it seems most of the argument in favor of calling this a TB requires the use of the "catch/no-catch" philosophy with regards to a pass.  Those wanting the TB say that as the player falls to the ground and loses the ball it demonstrates he did not have possession.  The reality is that whole philosophy is in the rulebook (AR's only I believe) and only addresses "airborne receivers".  This Team A player was not an airborne receiver.  He was already on the ground when he touched the ball.  Me thinks perhaps you are mixing oranges and tangerines

Me thinks you not looking at the right video.
A12 jumps into the air and grasps the ball with both hands while airborne (~0:36).

[TXMike]

SUMBEECH!!  Right you are. Well....he did not intend to jump.   

I will just stick with original position...he came to the ground IN POSSESSION and then started a 2d act of PUTTING the ball down in the field of play.

[GrayGhost]

A little late, but what happens if #21 comes to the ground with his feet on the goal line?

[JasonTX]

A little late, but what happens if #21 comes to the ground with his feet on the goal line?

Nothing changes.  It is all about the status of the ball and its location.  Where the feet are has nothing to do with where the ball is.  The NFL is different than NCAA.  A lot of people get confused when the see an NFL player touching the end zone and then they touch the ball.  For NCAA the player can be in the end zone all he wants as long as the ball doesn't break the plane of the goalline.