Author Topic: TD/Incomplete/Interception?  (Read 2400 times)

Offline clyde

  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« on: December 02, 2017, 03:57:05 PM »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-483
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2017, 04:12:13 PM »
The replay is a little choppy, but it appears there was possession of the pass, maintained while the receiver touched the ground in the End zone, which is all that is required to be a TD, under NFHS rules.  Considering from where the backjudge enters the video, he was in a perfect position to assess the necessary sequence and make the correct call.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2224
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-24
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2017, 07:34:16 AM »
Looks like an INT to me. (Pretend that White is on offense when you watch)

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1216
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2017, 11:30:40 AM »
I agree with 'Bama INT.

Although both players' feet were inbounds, IMO both players did not have POSSESSION; so no simultaneous catch (if that was what the officials ruled).











.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • FAN REACTION: +68/-39
TD - UNDER CURRENT NFHS RULES
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2017, 11:35:38 AM »
I have to agree with Alf. UNDER CURRENT NFHS RULES:
The touchdown occurs when the offensive player touches the ground in the end zone in possession of the ball.  The play is over and a TD is awarded to Team A at that point
Subsequently, ie, After the ball is dead, Team B player hand on the ball and other things may or may not occur but this is merely action during a dead ball.

Ruling on Field - TD
After review - The ruling on the field is confirmed.  ^good

This may not be a touchdown in other codes.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 11:40:47 AM by KWH »

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 507
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2017, 12:24:16 PM »
It's hard to say based on the video quality -- hard to rewind and look at it slowly without it jumping around -- however, my take:

Blue catches the ball around the helmet of the defender and lands in bounds. The defender then rips the ball away from the receiver and ends up with possession after the hit the ground. However, since the receiver had possession of the ball in the end zone, everything after that point is moot.

I could be convinced that the receiver did not have full control/possession of the ball before the defender ripped it away, but it's hard to tell on the video.

I'm 95% certain that the defender did not have control of the ball until after he was out of bounds (or at least, after his feet were back up in the air). I would be hard pressed to rule it as an interception in any case. So if the receiver was ruled not to have control initially, I've got an incomplete pass.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 499
  • FAN REACTION: +101/-4
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2017, 12:46:27 PM »
If you are going to say the receiver had it when he initially controlled the ball and one foot on the ground then you would have a lot of catch/fumbles in the middle of the field on passes that should be ruled complete. People argue the NFHS doesn't have "survive the ground" in the rule book, but it's a good philosophy to apply in some cases. This is a good one. Does he really have control in this case? I would argue not. Let it play out and see what happens. If he doesn't maintain control and it hits the ground it's incomplete. If the defender comes out with it, it's an interception. If he does maintain it, it's a catch. The benefit of this philosophy is you will be much more consistent play to play, game to game, and crew to crew.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-483
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2017, 02:47:09 PM »
People argue the NFHS doesn't have "survive the ground" in the rule book, but it's a good philosophy to apply in some cases. This is a good one. Does he really have control in this case? I would argue not. Let it play out and see what happens. The benefit of this philosophy is you will be much more consistent play to play, game to game, and crew to crew.

"Survive the ground"  is one of the most confusing, misinterpreted, inconsistent philosophies I've seen deployed, at any level.  It sounds simple, but in practice seems to mean many different things to many different people.  Officiating consistency is a desirable, but elusive objective perhaps caused by the harsh reality that NO TWO FOOTBALL PLAYS EVER HAS, NOR EVER WILL BE EXACTLY ALIKE. 

Perhaps the best levels of consistency we can realistically hope for is a combination of consistent excellence in understanding the intentions of the rule being applied, by the calling official, along with that official being in the best possible (unobstructed) position to observe the action that official is ruling on.

Consistent, absolute perfection is a laudable objective,  as well as a fool's demanded expectation.


Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 542
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-39
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2017, 04:15:32 PM »
NO TWO FOOTBALL PLAYS EVER HAS, NOR EVER WILL BE EXACTLY ALIKE. 

If you take into account the space time continuum, you are of course correct.  For two plays to be exactly alike, they would have to happen at the same time and in the same place.  BUT are you completely ruling out the "parallel universe" theory? 

Remember that TIME is something that was invented to keep everything from happening all at once.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-483
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2017, 07:05:09 PM »
I'll go as far as agreeing No two plays have EVER been observed the EXACT SAME WAY from opposing parallel sidelines.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 499
  • FAN REACTION: +101/-4
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2017, 09:29:40 PM »
"Survive the ground"  is one of the most confusing, misinterpreted, inconsistent philosophies I've seen deployed, at any level.  It sounds simple, but in practice seems to mean many different things to many different people.  Officiating consistency is a desirable, but elusive objective perhaps caused by the harsh reality that NO TWO FOOTBALL PLAYS EVER HAS, NOR EVER WILL BE EXACTLY ALIKE. 

Perhaps the best levels of consistency we can realistically hope for is a combination of consistent excellence in understanding the intentions of the rule being applied, by the calling official, along with that official being in the best possible (unobstructed) position to observe the action that official is ruling on.

Consistent, absolute perfection is a laudable objective,  as well as a fool's demanded expectation.
I disagree with this. I feel this philosophy has made catch/no catch calls significantly more consistent. If you only listen to fans and announcers you may think it has been inconsistent. There are a few rare instances that don't seem to meet the understood philosophy, but that's to be expected when you are dealing with subject. I heard Rogers Redding speak once, and he used the term "reducing the gray". The more concisely we can define philosophies the less gray area there will be. I remember in study groups and clinics a lot more debate about catch/no catch situations. The more the catch philosophy has evolved the easier it is to be consistent with these plays.

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-9
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2017, 03:00:19 AM »
In no way is this a TD because we do not work football with still shots. Even with replay this is not a TD as both players are going to the ground. A strong case can be made for an interception but would need at least one more view to confirm.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2224
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-24
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2017, 07:05:13 AM »
The replay is a little choppy, but it appears there was possession of the pass, maintained while the receiver touched the ground in the End zone, which is all that is required to be a TD, under NFHS rules.  Considering from where the backjudge enters the video, he was in a perfect position to assess the necessary sequence and make the correct call.

But the BJ didn't make the call!

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2840
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2017, 08:19:53 AM »
But the BJ didn't make the call!
I disagree - the BJ immediately had a discussion with his crew mate and clearly did not disagree with the TD call.  He did exactly what he should, and the call stood.  IMHO that is making the call.

Additionally, in NFHS there is no continuation and/or "going to the ground" component.  In the opponent's EZ if a player is determined to have possession of the ball we have a TD and the ball is immediately dead by rule.  Here the receiver has both hands on the ball before the defender gets his hands in and comes back to the ground with the ball in his possession, still while the defender does not have both hands on the ball.  Under NCAA rules might be ruled incomplete (or an interception if out in the field of play) , but I've got no issues with the call here.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2532
  • FAN REACTION: +309/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2017, 08:31:18 AM »
with our slow-mo, stop action replay, we are unsure. May I suggest...

  "WHEN IN QUESTION ??? "

-Catch or not...................no catch

Source : NFHS Officials Manual

  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???  (5 man-crew)

 ^no ^no ^no ^no ^no

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 499
  • FAN REACTION: +101/-4
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2017, 09:17:11 AM »
I disagree - the BJ immediately had a discussion with his crew mate and clearly did not disagree with the TD call.  He did exactly what he should, and the call stood.  IMHO that is making the call.

Additionally, in NFHS there is no continuation and/or "going to the ground" component.  In the opponent's EZ if a player is determined to have possession of the ball we have a TD and the ball is immediately dead by rule.  Here the receiver has both hands on the ball before the defender gets his hands in and comes back to the ground with the ball in his possession, still while the defender does not have both hands on the ball.  Under NCAA rules might be ruled incomplete (or an interception if out in the field of play) , but I've got no issues with the call here.
I agree the words "survive the ground" does exist in the NFHS rules, but it's a great philosophy to apply to confirm the receiver has clear possession of the ball. How do you know he has clear possession if it comes out that quickly? Whatever you would consider a catch or no catch in the middle of the field you should apply in the end zone as well. It provides the best consistency play to play and game to game and crew to crew. This has become a very common philosophy with most high school officials I talk to around the country. And it still fits well within the definition of a catch in the rule.

Online CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 429
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-17
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2017, 09:24:47 AM »
I disagree - the BJ immediately had a discussion with his crew mate and clearly did not disagree with the TD call.  He did exactly what he should, and the call stood.  IMHO that is making the call.

Additionally, in NFHS there is no continuation and/or "going to the ground" component.  In the opponent's EZ if a player is determined to have possession of the ball we have a TD and the ball is immediately dead by rule.  Here the receiver has both hands on the ball before the defender gets his hands in and comes back to the ground with the ball in his possession, still while the defender does not have both hands on the ball.  Under NCAA rules might be ruled incomplete (or an interception if out in the field of play) , but I've got no issues with the call here.

The BJ didn't have a clue what to call. The SF/FJ/LJ/HL (whatever) clearly made the call. the BJ came over, the SJ explained what he thought he saw, and the BJ didn't argue with him. That is not making the call. If he had made the call, he would have given the appropriate signal once he determined what he had.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-483
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2017, 10:31:09 AM »
The BJ didn't have a clue what to call. The SF/FJ/LJ/HL (whatever) clearly made the call. the BJ came over, the SJ explained what he thought he saw, and the BJ didn't argue with him. That is not making the call. If he had made the call, he would have given the appropriate signal once he determined what he had.

"Upon Further Review" the observation, that the initial indication was made by the Wing Official is correct, however your FAST conclusion about the Back Judge ("didn't have a clue"), was not as quick, let's call it "Half Fast".

NVFOA's assessment if far closer to the appropriate speed.  In situations like this, converging Officials should visually check with each other to confirm (support, question) their judgment PRIOR TO SIGNALLING, to provide them the opportunity of discussing their observations BEFORE signalling.  The "further review" seems to confirm the BJ was in the proper position to observe the action.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2224
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-24
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2017, 11:15:31 AM »
I disagree - the BJ immediately had a discussion with his crew mate and clearly did not disagree with the TD call.  He did exactly what he should, and the call stood.  IMHO that is making the call.

Are we watching the same film?

The BJ moves toward the two players, looks toward the official at the pylon, and gives the "stop the clock" signal.  At no time does he indicate TD/INT/INC.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2840
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2017, 11:44:53 AM »
Are we watching the same film?

The BJ moves toward the two players, looks toward the official at the pylon, and gives the "stop the clock" signal.  At no time does he indicate TD/INT/INC.

My point is that he did what he's supposed to do.  Immediately go to his crew mate and discuss.  IMHO it's clear that he did not have an INC or an INT and agreed with the TD call since there was no change after the discussion.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-9
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2017, 12:06:47 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.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-483
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2017, 01:13:22 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.

Are you certain, "surviving the ground" isn't a standard that actually. originated during a TV Halftime Show, on a Sunday afternoon.

Generally, lasting "Philosophies" are not a problem, but presuming they can be applied equally across the entire spectrum of rules codes can be very problematic.

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-9
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2017, 02:04:59 PM »
Are you certain, "surviving the ground" isn't a standard that actually. originated during a TV Halftime Show, on a Sunday afternoon.

Generally, lasting "Philosophies" are not a problem, but presuming they can be applied equally across the entire spectrum of rules codes can be very problematic.

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.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-483
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2017, 04:04:30 PM »
In general agreed, "surviving the ground" is a much more recent addition.  "Lasting philosophies" are the ones that stay around and weather the test of time, as opposed to what might seem like a great idea, but fizzles.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 04:07:06 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline SouthGARef

  • *
  • Posts: 255
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-15
Re: TD/Incomplete/Interception?
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2017, 02:53:42 PM »
The major thing I don't like is the sideline official signaling before even discussing the play with the deep official. Take your time. Get together. Have a face to face discussion. Then make a consensus ruling together. Once he puts those hands up in the air it's really tough to come back from that.