CFO question 89

[Morningrise]

89. 3/4 @ B-24. B30 makes an acrobatic interception that has him going to the ground to complete the catch. B30 is airborne when he establishes firm control of the ball at the B-3, first touches the ground with his foot when the ball is at the B-1, and then falls to the ground with sustained firm control when the ball is fully in the end zone.
a. B, 1/10 @ B-1.
b. B, 1/10 @ B-3.
c. B, 1/10 @ B-20.

Is this a catch at the B-1 with momentum backward into the EZ, or a catch in the EZ?

And what if this happened in the other direction? Suppose receiver A88 runs a pattern into B's end zone and is coming back toward the goal line. He jumps for a forward pass (and no opponent touches him). He gains firm control 3 yards deep in the EZ. Then his foot comes down with the ball 1 yard deep in the EZ. Then he falls to the ground with sustained firm control when the ball is at the B-1 yard line.

Is that a catch in the end zone for a touchdown, or a catch at the B-1?

[dammitbobby]

Look up AR 7-2-4-I.  (ignore the fumble scenario, since it's clear he was down in the EZ.)

For your other scenario, he didn't have possession in the EZ since didn't contact the ground (2-4-1). Since no one contacted him, his forward progress isn't considered stopped until the ball is dead by rule (2-9-2). The ball's not dead until it is - and in this case, the ball was dead at the B-1.

Now, how someone contacted him, to stop his forward progress while he was airborne in the EZ, he is credited with progress to that point - in which case it would be a TD.

That's my logic at least.

[Morningrise]

By referring to AR 7-2-4-I are you suggesting that the answer to question 89 should be momentum? That's what I would have thought: Possession is gained where he comes to the ground with firm control. But my understanding is that the answer marked correct on the test is a touchback. Which would imply that possession is not gained at the B-1, but in the end zone.

That's a surprise to me which is why I'm asking about it as well as the opposite scenario.

In my scenario I intended to explain that the Team A receiver does contact the ground in B's end zone. Both he and the ball are in the end zone. But then he leaves the end zone while going to the ground in the process of completing the catch.

I've always understood this to be a touchdown. But maybe it's not.

I get AR 5-1-3-I and II, which deal with an airborne receiver who sails back out of the end zone before touching the ground. But in my scenario he touches the ground in the EZ and then leaves it while fulfilling the "element of time" for the catch. I thought the spot of the catch was still in the EZ, here. Where his foot touches down, not where he finishes the element of time.

[dammitbobby]

By referring to AR 7-2-4-I are you suggesting that the answer to question 89 should be momentum? That's what I would have thought: Possession is gained where he comes to the ground with firm control. But my understanding is that the answer marked correct on the test is a touchback. Which would imply that possession is not gained at the B-1, but in the end zone.

That's a surprise to me which is why I'm asking about it as well as the opposite scenario.

In my scenario I intended to explain that the Team A receiver does contact the ground in B's end zone. Both he and the ball are in the end zone. But then he leaves the end zone while going to the ground in the process of completing the catch.

I've always understood this to be a touchdown. But maybe it's not.

I get AR 5-1-3-I and II, which deal with an airborne receiver who sails back out of the end zone before touching the ground. But in my scenario he touches the ground in the EZ and then leaves it while fulfilling the "element of time" for the catch. I thought the spot of the catch was still in the EZ, here. Where his foot touches down, not where he finishes the element of time.

I put the answer as momentum as well, I've not seen/heard anything about a key being out yet, but tbh I bombed the first time taking it, badly. Haven't taken it the second time. (but I remember the question). I still think this is a momentum ruling. Maybe one of the experts here can weigh in or explain it.

So I completely missed in the second one, that he had a foot down in the EZ. He possesses the ball with a body part down in the EZ - I'm calling that a touchdown. Ball broke the plane, in Team A's possession, and the catch was completed, no matter where he wound up - at that instant, it's a TD... I don't see a difference in that, and running out the side of the EZ in the same manner - catch + foot down = TD, doesn't matter if he falls to the ground out of the EZ.

[Kalle]

I'm by no means an expert, but consider this. The same situation except that B30 runs towards the sideline, not the goal line. If he controls the ball airborne three yards from the sideline, has one foot inbounds one yard from the sideline, and then falls to the ground out of bounds, I have a completed interception, not player out of bounds. I fail to see any difference when running towards the goal line, thus I have momentum exception and ball belonging to team B at B-1. The interception is completed in the field of play and thus this can not be a touchback.

[peterparsons]

If this is being marked as a touchback, is this an Officiating Standards Interpretation question?

Section 7: 9. If an interception is near the goal line and there is a question as to whether possession is gained in the field of play or end zone, make the play a touchback.

Has the question been written so that we are supposed to be unsure as to where possession is gained, and therefore apply this interpretation?

If the answer marked as correct is a touchback, then that's my best guess as to what's going on here, but the question as written doesn't lead me towards being unsure and applying such an interpretation.

[Kalle]

I fully agree with the OSI 7.9, but I also agree that the question is not worded as there to be any question of where the interception was completed.

[wtagriffin]

Make sure to read and understand the question when taking these tests.  The first sentence tells us that he is "going to the ground to complete the catch".  Then it tells us that when he falls to the ground, the ball is in the end zone.  By definition of a catch, it is therefore completed in the end zone.  Touchback.

[Legacy Zebra]

That sounds great on the surface, but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Change the goal line to the sideline and try to apply the same logic.

3/4 @ B-24. B30 makes an acrobatic interception that has him going to the ground to complete the catch. B30 is airborne when he establishes firm control of the ball at the B-3, first touches the ground in bounds with his foot, and then falls to the ground with sustained firm control out of bounds.

Are you telling me you would rule that incomplete because he completed the process out of bounds? Obviously, that’s not the case. 100 times out of 100 we are calling that a catch. Why? Because he gained possession inbounds. The same thing should apply to the test question. He gained possession at the 1 even if he didn’t complete the process until the end zone. If this was supposed to be a question about the officiating standard, I think there should have been some indication that the spot was in question.

[ElvisLives]

Make sure to read and understand the question when taking these tests.  The first sentence tells us that he is "going to the ground to complete the catch".  Then it tells us that when he falls to the ground, the ball is in the end zone.  By definition of a catch, it is therefore completed in the end zone.  Touchback.

Going to the ground is relevant to maintaining firm grasp and control of the ball, after having gained firm grasp and control with a body part down in the field of play. If firm grasp and control are maintained throughout the process of going to the ground, then the catch is completed, and progress is awarded to the most forward point of the ball during that catch process. In the case of the interception, the catch was, technically, completed at the B-1, when the interceptor returned to the ground with grasp and control of the ball. Technically, momentum would apply and Team B would get the ball at the B-1. HOWEVER, philosophically (OS 7-9) we should rule touchback when the spot of the completion is in question as to being in the field of play or end zone. During my FBS days, that was always considered to be between the B-1 and the goal line. So, in this case, I would bet the correct answer will be Touchback.
As for Team A, the concept of progress also applies. If the catch is initially completed in the end zone (grasp/control of ball with body part down inbounds while ball is beyond/breaking the plane of the goal line, then Team A will get credited with a TD, even if the receiver falls to ground (or is driven back) in the field of play and maintains firm grasp and control of the ball.

I'm with Legacy in that, if they want a question that involves the standards, the questions should be more carefully composed. In this case, if they want us to consider OS 7-9, they should have said something like, "The covering officials could not positively verify that the interception was completed in the field of play or end zone."

[sj]

This might be the play that the question is about.

2022 CFO NCAA Training Video 7 - starts at 2:42

https://plus.refquest.com/videos/LwcgswiEpfmLWW13S5vf/m4eOZXQZDxWjLfXt2fUd

If you don't have access to that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfQOHh6twPg  @ the 4:20 mark

[ElvisLives]

This might be the play that the question is about.

2022 CFO NCAA Training Video 7 - starts at 2:42

https://plus.refquest.com/videos/LwcgswiEpfmLWW13S5vf/m4eOZXQZDxWjLfXt2fUd

If you don't have access to that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfQOHh6twPg  @ the 4:20 mark

I don’t see anything like that on the CFO video, but the YouTube video shows the defender completing the interception with the ball clearly inside the B-1, and then the defender’s momentum takes him into the end zone where he falls to the ground. During my FBS days, this would have been a touchback every time we saw it - easy. If the quiz answer is anything else, that will be very different than anything Nelson, Adams or Redding ever directed.

[peterparsons]

Having checked my answer grid, touchback was the expected correct answer to this question.

[ElvisLives]

Having checked my answer grid, touchback was the expected correct answer to this question.

 

[Morningrise]

The CFO video shows the player touching the ground with firm control while the ball is so close to the goal line that replay would not have indisputable evidence to overturn a touchback. The voiceover instructs onfield officials to WIQ make this a touchback. (I don't think I heard a similar instruction for ROs, though....)

So I don't think it's exactly the same as the test question, where they explicitly tell us that the ball was a whole yard inside the field of play.

So imagine that CFO video play happening one more yard to the "left." If they still would want us to rule that a touchback... then what's the purpose of the momentum rule? Isn't that exactly the kind of situation that the momentum rule would seem to cover?

Maybe the momentum rule is only for when the player staggers into the end zone and THEN falls down as a second action? Instead of staggering WHILE falling into the end zone? Is that the distinction?

[ElvisLives]

Maybe the momentum rule is only for when the player staggers into the end zone and THEN falls down as a second action? Instead of staggering WHILE falling into the end zone? Is that the distinction?

Well, the momentum rule is intended to apply to those situations in which a defending player secures an opponent's loose ball in the field of play - between his own 5 yard line and his goal line - then, unable to control his own movement toward his goal to the extent that the ball breaks the plane of the goal line before he can regain his balance, and the ball then becomes dead behind that goal line in his team's possession. Before this rule, this would have been ruled a safety. In the cases of players make great plays to secure the ball in their hand(s), then the momentum of their movement takes them into their end zone before they can regain control of their movement, a safety seemed to harsh of a result, so the Rules Committee developed the momentum exception. Once he gets into the end zone, it doesn't matter how it comes about that he doesn't get out, i.e., falls down (accidentally, or deliberately), gets tackled, runs OB - they still get the ball at the spot of possession (between the 5 and goal).