TD or Not?

[NCVAReferee]

A87 is one yard deep into B's end zone, jumps and possesses A14's pass.  B38 hits A87 while A87 is in the air with the ball and A87 comes down on the B-2 yard line, turns, and attempts to get back in the end zone.  A87 is subsequently tackled by a gang of B players at the B-1.

What is the ruling?

[Ump33]

Touchdown, see Case Book 2.15.2

[Curious]

Touchdown, see Case Book 2.15.2

+1 - since he was hit and driven back into the field of play by the defender = fwd progress = 

BUT...if the receiver possessed the pass while in the air and under his own momentum returned to the ground in the field of play, he would not have completed the catch in the EZ.  Therefore , to score, he would have to get back into the EZ or, the play would end wherever he was tackled.  It is "interesting, however, how 2.15.2 uses "contacted and carried".  Seems they might have used a better phrase.  Does this really mean that both acts have occur (contacted AND carried; or does it, as we all expect, mean contacted and driven back OR carried back?

[ECILLJ]

As it has been explained to me by some wily veterans. It is not a catch until the receivers feet are on the ground. But after the feet are on the ground, the progress the receiver achieved while in the air is given to him. Touchdown! 

[Atlanta Blue]

Not sure I agree, based on the initial post.

1.  Player jumps and while over the EZ, grasps the ball.
2.  Defense carries him out of the EZ to the B1.

If the play ended there, then yes, touchdown.  But the post says, "turns and attempts to get back in the end zone".  That phrase implies there was no forward progress, the receiver broke loose from the defense and was again on his own.  If so, he's down at the B1.

The case play assumes the receiver never regains his feet and attempts to advance on his own.  If you judged he did, there is no forward progress in the end zone.

If a player breaks loose from an attempted tackle in the field of play before forward progress is called, he doesn't get the spot of furthest advancement, he gets the spot where he is downed.  Nothing different here.

[Curious]

Not sure I agree, based on the initial post.

1.  Player jumps and while over the EZ, grasps the ball.
2.  Defense carries him out of the EZ to the B1.

If the play ended there, then yes, touchdown.  But the post says, "turns and attempts to get back in the end zone".  That phrase implies there was no forward progress, the receiver broke loose from the defense and was again on his own.  If so, he's down at the B1.

I don't think that phrase implies he broke loose nor do I think it matters with respect to the EZ/goal line.  The case book play referenced above - even with it's questionable wording - is clear that forward progress is given in the EZ and is supported by 2-15-2.

The case play assumes the receiver never regains his feet and attempts to advance on his own.  If you judged he did, there is no forward progress in the end zone.

If a player breaks loose from an attempted tackle in the field of play before forward progress is called, he doesn't get the spot of furthest advancement, he gets the spot where he is downed. 

Agreed.

Nothing different here.

Disagree:
The ball became dead when the receiver possessed (or, more precisely, when he was awarded possession due his forward progress) the ball in his opponent's EZ; so what happened after that is of no consequence. 

[AlUpstateNY]

Not sure I agree, based on the initial post.

1.  Player jumps and while over the EZ, grasps the ball.
2.  Defense carries him out of the EZ to the B1.

If the play ended there, then yes, touchdown. 

The play actually did end there, TD.

[FLAHL]

The play actually did end there, TD.

Good one Al.

[bkdow]

Even if the player turns and tries to get back in, it he is awarded a TD.  Because his progress established that this was a touchdown, the play is dead and a TD is awarded.

[Atlanta Blue]

I understand this is a FED board, but NCAA contradicts this and uses the logic I presented.

[SCHSref]

Thera was a question just like this in referee magazine.  No TD.he did not establish possession in the Endzone because feet were not down.  It also says the player hit him, not carried him.  If he carried, that is a different story.

[SCHSref]

Something to think about...A87 is near the sideline.   A2 throws a pass that A87 catches near the sideline.  He jumps off the ground, inbounds, catches the ball.  B1 hits A87 and knocks him out of bounds where his feet touch the ground past the sideline. 

What is the call?

[Curious]

Thera was a question just like this in referee magazine.  No TD.he did not establish possession in the Endzone because feet were not down.  It also says the player hit him, not carried him.  If he carried, that is a different story.

As has been chronicled here many times, don't believe everything you read in Referee Magazine  As I mentioned earlier, 2-15-2 does NOT support the magazine's ruling.  Are you sure you were reading the FED ruling - not the NCAA?

Something to think about...A87 is near the sideline.   A2 throws a pass that A87 catches near the sideline.  He jumps off the ground, inbounds, catches the ball.  B1 hits A87 and knocks him out of bounds where his feet touch the ground past the sideline. 

What is the call?

The call could be different, of course.  The catch or no catch on the sideline depends on whether the receiver returns first to the ground in bounds - regardless of contact (except being carried).  In this play, we are talking about the EZ (which the last I heard was still "in bounds").  This is all about forward progress.

[HLinNC]

+1 Curious
 

[SCHSref]

After consulting the rule book, I agree curious.

[Curious]

Nice to see that North and South Carolina agree

[bkdow]

Even if the player turns and tries to get back in, he is awarded a TD.  Because his progress established that this was a touchdown, the play is dead and a TD is awarded.