Question on rule re: Moss' would-be TD

[BradyManny]

Here's something I've never fully understood, I remember it happening to Deion Branch in a regular season game against Denver in 05. Deion caught the ball, came down hard on his back and the ball popped out.

This is essentially what happened to Moss against the Cowboys on his would-be highlight reel grab.

My question is this:

If "the ground causing a fumble" negates said fumble, why doesn't the ground causing an incompletion negate said incompletion and result in a catch. If Moss catching that ball and getting two feet in bounds = possession and a catch, doesn't his landing on the ground and having the ball pop out as a result of the ground essentially = "ground causing a fumble"? I know that it's not the case, I guess I'm questioning why it's not the case.

 

[FrontSeven]

I think that that he didn't have possession before he landed. So the ground didn't cause a fumble, it caused the play to be whistled dead before he got possession.

If that's not the case, then I'm confused too because that would mean that there is a different interpretation for out-of-bounds catches, which just doesn't make sense to me. Basically, as soon as you touch the ground that ends the play, so if you have possession (and Randy did not) then kapoof - no catch.

 

[sieglo]

When the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule, the player already has possession before the ball comes out.

In the Moss situation, possession never happened. The receiver has to retain control of the ball through the end of the play.

 

[BradyManny]

In the Moss situation, possession never happened. The receiver has to retain control of the ball through the end of the play.

Look at the Gay play from last week on Winslow, Winslow got two feet down and Gay knocked him. Ball squirts out, ruled a fumble. So couldn't you argue that Moss having two feet down and with control of the ball is possession?

 

[PatsSteve1]

Look at the Gay play from last week on Winslow, Winslow got two feet down and Gay knocked him. Ball squirts out, ruled a fumble. So couldn't you argue that Moss having two feet down and with control of the ball is possession?

On a catch in the field of play a guy has to catch it and make a football move. It's less of getting 2 feet down than taking 2 steps. On a play where the guy is going out of bounds he has to keep possesion even after he hits the ground and after he gets 2 feet in. He can't really make a football move. He doesn't have room or the time. His only football move is to hold onto the ball.

 

[ALP]

yea, im pissed the incompletion didnt count too, cuz it looked like a catch for the ages

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Very misunderstood rule. I've posted about it frequently. The rule is that if the receiver (or, in the case of an interception, a defender) is engaged by a defender simultaneously with the catch, he must maintain possession "through the ground." But if he is in the clear when he touches it, he only needs to make a football move.

In Arizona this year, player caught the ball momentarily, and was thereafter drilled, dislodging the ball. Ruling: TD. In this case, I guess, Carey ruled he was engaged by the defender so had to maintain through the ground.

Or, it was ruled a juggle the whole way.

There can't ever be a fumble in the end zone by a receiver, by the way. Only two possible rulings: Catch or no catch. A fumble in the end zone by the receiver is a touchdown, because in order to be a fumble there must be possession and once there's possession, the play is over. A defender can fumble an interception in the end zone, though, since the play is still live.

 

[emoney_33]

Here's something I've never fully understood, I remember it happening to Deion Branch in a regular season game against Denver in 05. Deion caught the ball, came down hard on his back and the ball popped out.

This is essentially what happened to Moss against the Cowboys on his would-be highlight reel grab.

My question is this:

If "the ground causing a fumble" negates said fumble, why doesn't the ground causing an incompletion negate said incompletion and result in a catch. If Moss catching that ball and getting two feet in bounds = possession and a catch, doesn't his landing on the ground and having the ball pop out as a result of the ground essentially = "ground causing a fumble"? I know that it's not the case, I guess I'm questioning why it's not the case.

I asked the exact same thing to my brother during the game. It doesn't make any sense to me either. I understand the bobbling, maintaining possession AS you hit the ground, but the ground causing the ball to come loose making it an incomplete makes 0 sense to me.

 

[reflexblue]

To me moss didn't look like he was bobbling it when he first grabbed it. So why isn't that the same as a running back breaking the PLANE of the goal line.
In that instant when moss had the ball both feet in bounds it shpould be the same as a RB breaking the plane of the GL.

 

[FreakGoDeep]

If a reciever is jumping or diving or stretching out to get a ball and while catching it he is falling he has to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground and after hitting the ground.

The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass.
It's not considered a catch till he lands and still has the ball. I'm surprised the ref called it touch down considering the ball was clearly loose.

 

[Bostonian1962]

I think that that he didn't have possession before he landed. So the ground didn't cause a fumble, it caused the play to be whistled dead before he got possession.

If that's not the case, then I'm confused too because that would mean that there is a different interpretation for out-of-bounds catches, which just doesn't make sense to me. Basically, as soon as you touch the ground that ends the play, so if you have possession (and Randy did not) then kapoof - no catch.

No, ref said he did catch the ball, but that he lost it hitting the ground, therefore it's an incomplete pass.

I know it's a rule, but it's one of those that makes zero sense. I mean, if a player crosses the plain of the endzone and fumbles the ball, they call it a TD. Yet, if a player catches the ball in the endzone, and loses the ball when he hits the ground, it's incomplete? I know it's the rule, but it contradicts itself.

 

[nowayback]

on one replay it looked like he bobbled the ball when he brought it in to his body before hitting the ground. would have been great if it counted...but heck..it was a great play anyhow.

 

[Bostonian1962]

on one replay it looked like he bobbled the ball when he brought it in to his body before hitting the ground. would have been great if it counted...but heck..it was a great play anyhow.

Agreed. It was one of the best plays that wasn't a catch, that I've ever seen. Moss is a freak of nature, and of course I mean that as a compliment. His hands are the best in the game. The way he positions himself and how he gets his feet inbounds, not to mention just his physical skills.................I'm enjoying this alot!

 

[Amnorix]

On a catch in the field of play a guy has to catch it and make a football move. It's less of getting 2 feet down than taking 2 steps. On a play where the guy is going out of bounds he has to keep possesion even after he hits the ground and after he gets 2 feet in. He can't really make a football move. He doesn't have room or the time. His only football move is to hold onto the ball.

Correct, although the second part applies to whether he's going out of bounds or not. Simply put, on a play where the player falls to the ground immediately after making the catch (regardless of out of bounds or not), he must maintain control through the fall, AND not let the ball touch the ground in the process.

 

[buile]

> The rule is that if the receiver is engaged by a defender

The only problem I had was Moss wasn't engaged by the defender. The defender never touched him, so I didn't understand why he needed to maintain possession to the ground. There must be another rule I don't know.

> on a play where the player falls to the ground immediately after making the catch

Ah, ok, that's it then, thx.

 

[Amnorix]

To me moss didn't look like he was bobbling it when he first grabbed it. So why isn't that the same as a running back breaking the PLANE of the goal line.
In that instant when moss had the ball both feet in bounds it shpould be the same as a RB breaking the plane of the GL.

Because you need more to have a valid catch. It's MORE than 2 feet inbounds and holding the ball for a second or two.

 

[Amnorix]

No, ref said he did catch the ball, but that he lost it hitting the ground, therefore it's an incomplete pass.

I know it's a rule, but it's one of those that makes zero sense. I mean, if a player crosses the plain of the endzone and fumbles the ball, they call it a TD. Yet, if a player catches the ball in the endzone, and loses the ball when he hits the ground, it's incomplete? I know it's the rule, but it contradicts itself.

No, it doesn't, IMHO.

 

[Amnorix]

To recap:

1. the ground cannot cause a fumble. This is axiomatic because as soon as any part of the player's body other than the feet and hands touch the ground, the play is dead. This ONLY APPLIES where the player has already established possession of the ball.

2. To establish possession of the ball, on a catch, the player must (1) have control of the ball, (2) have both feet in bounds (unless forced out by a defensive player), and (3) make a "football move" with the ball, thereby demonstrating his control.

2A. Where a "football move" is impossible because the player is falling to the ground (for whatever reason, regardless of "engaged by defender", regardless of inbounds or out of bounds), then he must continue to maintain control of the ball through the fall, and the ball must not touch the ground.

 

[Michigan Dave]

No, ref said he did catch the ball, but that he lost it hitting the ground, therefore it's an incomplete pass.

I know it's a rule, but it's one of those that makes zero sense. I mean, if a player crosses the plain of the endzone and fumbles the ball, they call it a TD. Yet, if a player catches the ball in the endzone, and loses the ball when he hits the ground, it's incomplete? I know it's the rule, but it contradicts itself.

It makes sense for this reason. Look at the two situations. In the former situation, Moss' scenario, the receiver is in the act of making the catch. The most important thing is establishing possession. Possession is established in a case like this at the moment you have full control of the ball. Moss never had full control of the ball, because he couldn't hold it all the way through to the ground.

In the latter case, possession has already been established. The receiver caught the pass, and is running. The back took the handoff and is running. Therefore, the act of possessing the ball and holding it over the plane of the goalline is sufficient enough for a TD. Period. Assume he doesn't go over the goalline, but is tackled and the ball becomes loose as it hits the ground. Again, possession was established and the ground cannot cause a fumble.

They are two different rules. One is in regard to establishing possession on a catch, the other is distinguishing a fumble following possession. That is why you would be confused.

 

[Amnorix]

One last thought -- the Moss play, while an awesome display of athleticism to even come as close as he did, was clearly NOT a catch because the ball rolled away when he hit the ground.

The more interesting question is what would be the call IF he had held the ball at the very end of the play.

My ruling would be that it still wasn't a catch because he had a mid-fall juggle (after his feet were out of bounds) when he temporarily re-shifted his hold on the ball. You are allowed to reposition the ball, etc. but it looked to me like he may have let go with both hands and "re-caught" it, which I don't think is allowed.

In any event, I think that is a close one...