Question on rule re: Moss' would-be TD

[Amnorix]

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.

100% agreed.

 

[Amnorix]

On my piont re: the Moss "adjustment", see the 3:53 - 3:55 mark on this video:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80347888


That's not the best angle, however. As I recall, NBC had a serious close up of his hands showing how he reshifted the ball, essentially letting it go for a half-second and readjusting his hold.

I've no idea what the correct ruling on that should be, but suspect that it makes it an incompletion.

 

[Michigan Dave]

On my piont re: the Moss "adjustment", see the 3:53 - 3:55 mark on this video:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80347888


That's not the best angle, however. As I recall, NBC had a serious close up of his hands showing how he reshifted the ball, essentially letting it go for a half-second and readjusting his hold.

I've no idea what the correct ruling on that should be, but suspect that it makes it an incompletion.

Yes, a re-shifting of the ball in the act of making the catch (ie, prior to the establishment of possession) would require re-establishment of the player in-bounds. So, if the ball moved in his arms after his feet were in-bounds, he would have to re-establish his feet- which was impossible here. On sideline catches, the ball essentially cannot move unless the player's feet are still in bounds, as the "catch" begins when the ball is securely in the player's grasp. The NFL has defined movement as not being secured possession in these instances.

 

[Amnorix]

Yes, a re-shifting of the ball in the act of making the catch (ie, prior to the establishment of possession) would require re-establishment of the player in-bounds. So, if the ball moved in his arms after his feet were in-bounds, he would have to re-establish his feet- which was impossible here. On sideline catches, the ball essentially cannot move unless the player's feet are still in bounds, as the "catch" begins when the ball is securely in the player's grasp. The NFL has defined movement as not being secured possession in these instances.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking as well. So I think the play would properly be called incomplete even if he had held the ball firmly at the end of the play, due to the mid-fall juggle (not really a juggle, but a regrip, I guess). The ball can MOVE while being held, but what he did was beyond just moving it a bit.

 

[PromisedLand]

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.

Wasn't the "football move" part removed last off-season? I thought I heard that was one of the off-season rule changes (brought about because "football move" is so subjective). I think the rule now is just that a player must maintain control of the ball and get both feet down, anywhere on the field.

 

[Michigan Dave]

Wasn't the "football move" part removed last off-season? I thought I heard that was one of the off-season rule changes (brought about because "football move" is so subjective). I think the rule now is just that a player must maintain control of the ball and get both feet down, anywhere on the field.

The "football move" is essentially maintaining control of the ball. If I'm flatfooted and catch the ball, but am immediately popped by a defender, there's no question my feet are in bounds and I caught the ball, but it's a question of possession. By tucking the ball away, turning upfield, whatever, I'm establishing possession. At that point, if I'm hit, it's a fumble. Call it a "football move" or not, it's essentially the same thing being looked for.

 

[Ring 6]

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?

Thats it though, he didnt have control. The ball was moving.
The best way to look at it is like this:
When does he have FINAL and COMPLETE control. Were 2 feet in at or after that point?

In Moss' case, when he got the feet down, he did not have complete and final control.
I was calling it one of the 5 best catches I have ever seen before the replay was obvious it wasnt a catch.

 

[Oswlek]

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.

Not any more. They changed that rule.

 

[Ring 6]

The "football move" is essentially maintaining control of the ball. If I'm flatfooted and catch the ball, but am immediately popped by a defender, there's no question my feet are in bounds and I caught the ball, but it's a question of possession. By tucking the ball away, turning upfield, whatever, I'm establishing possession. At that point, if I'm hit, it's a fumble. Call it a "football move" or not, it's essentially the same thing being looked for.

I think the intention of the 'football move' is that you have COMPLETED THE CATCH. If you haven't made a 'football move' yet, you are still completing the catch.
I think it is pertinent in a ton fewer cases than the announcers make it out to be.
Therein is part of the issue. The commentators DO NOT know and understand the rules. They cite, use, and apply them incoorectly to begin with, but also in many cases they apply the wrong rule to the situation.

There is a reasonable judgment that when the commentator describes the rule, or which one applies to the situation that they know what they are talking about. But they do not. How often do the commentators look at a reviewed play and get it wrong? Often.

 

[PromisedLand]

As I said, I think the "football move" rule was removed last off-season. Here is the current definition of a catch from the Digest of Rules on nfl.com:

1. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

Nothing about a football move.

edit: However, I haven't been able to find any web source to corroborate my recollection.

edit #2: here it is: http://www.bigben7.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2897

edit #3: here is another link: http://www.atlantafalcons.com/News/...Officials_outline_rules_changes_for_2007.aspx

 

[Michigan Dave]

I think the intention of the 'football move' is that you have COMPLETED THE CATCH. If you haven't made a 'football move' yet, you are still completing the catch.
I think it is pertinent in a ton fewer cases than the announcers make it out to be.
Therein is part of the issue. The commentators DO NOT know and understand the rules. They cite, use, and apply them incoorectly to begin with, but also in many cases they apply the wrong rule to the situation.

There is a reasonable judgment that when the commentator describes the rule, or which one applies to the situation that they know what they are talking about. But they do not. How often do the commentators look at a reviewed play and get it wrong? Often.

Yes. It is completing the catch, finalizing that act of possession. I like that description.

As for commentators, I think it isn't necessarily them getting it wrong as a different interpretation from a different person. How many times do we see the same replay and disagree with the commentators or officials? Sure, they are wrong sometimes, but I've seen some pretty blatant (to me) calls overruled by the officials. I wouldn't necessarily call out the commentators. For the most part, they apply the correct rule, they just have a different interpretation than the official, who's judgment is binding.

 

[godef]

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.

OK, here is the most misunderstood aspect of the-ground-causing-a-fumble... in fact, the ground CAN cause a fumble IF the player is NOT knocked to the ground by an opponent.

Think about it... you're running with the ball, you trip and fall, no opponent has touched you. In the NFL you get back up and keep running. So if you're allowed to get back up, then if in fact you lose the ball when you hit the ground by your own doing, THIS IS A FUMBLE.

On Moss's catch, he is not knocked to the ground by an opponent. Therefore, he must maintain possession of the ball when he hits the ground to complete the play.

OTOH, if he had caught the ball and then a player shoved him out, then he's instantly down by contact (TOUCHDOWN) before he ever hits the ground.

 

[BradyManny]

OK, here is the most misunderstood aspect of the-ground-causing-a-fumble... in fact, the ground CAN cause a fumble IF the player is NOT knocked to the ground by an opponent.

Think about it... you're running with the ball, you trip and fall, no opponent has touched you. In the NFL you get back up and keep running. So if you're allowed to get back up, then if in fact you lose the ball when you hit the ground by your own doing, THIS IS A FUMBLE.

On Moss's catch, he is not knocked to the ground by an opponent. Therefore, he must maintain possession of the ball when he hits the ground to complete the play.

OTOH, if he had caught the ball and then a player shoved him out, then he's instantly down by contact (TOUCHDOWN) before he ever hits the ground.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way, and that makes some sense to me.

Thanks to all for weighing in on this play. I still think it's a tricky rule and a mildly convoluted one, but there are plenty of those in the NFL.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

The changes documented by Promised Land prove that hitting the ground had nothing to do with the ruling, or that a mistake was made. If Moss had solid possession of the ball in his hands and both feet in, it should have been a TD regardless of whether he hit the ground afterward - i.e., it should have been a TD before he hit the ground.

I also saw the ball shifting in Moss's hands as he was falling, and that was what caused it to be incomplete. But I'm not sure that's what the official said when explaining the call - does anyone have the game on DVR and can tell us what the ref said after the review?

 

[godef]

The changes documented by Promised Land prove that hitting the ground had nothing to do with the ruling, or that a mistake was made. If Moss had solid possession of the ball in his hands and both feet in, it should have been a TD regardless of whether he hit the ground afterward - i.e., it should have been a TD before he hit the ground.

Not true! What if he's at the 20 yard line, catches the ball, falls to the ground in the same mtion (ie no post football-moves) and the ball pops out, all inbounds? It's an incompletion. It would be no different falling out of bounds and/or in the endzone. What you say would only be true if there was contact with an opposing player.

 

[PromisedLand]

Not true! What if he's at the 20 yard line, catches the ball, falls to the ground in the same mtion (ie no post football-moves) and the ball pops out, all inbounds? It's an incompletion. It would be no different falling out of bounds and/or in the endzone. What you say would only be true if there was contact with an opposing player.

That's true. I remember some discussion on ESPN or somewhere, when they were talking about the rule change, that it made the definition of a catch consistent whether the receiver came down in bounds or out of bounds.

 

[Mayday Malone]

I've always had a problem with this, and the Harrison catch that burned us last year v. the Colts is similar. I don't have any video of it, but it was a nail in the coffin catch.

My thought is, and it's been brought up. If a RB can get across the goal line with a pubes length worth of football and have it be called a TD, why aren't the receivers granted the same leeway? When I was watching the replay, I looked,as did the commentators, to see if there was possession at the time of catch. There was possession. What happens after should be unquestionable. I understand this may open up Pandora's box, but if there's a plane rising skyward at the goal line, then there should be one on all ends of the goal line.

 

[godef]

I've always had a problem with this, and the Harrison catch that burned us last year v. the Colts is similar. I don't have any video of it, but it was a nail in the coffin catch.

My thought is, and it's been brought up. If a RB can get across the goal line with a pubes length worth of football and have it be called a TD, why aren't the receivers granted the same leeway? When I was watching the replay, I looked,as did the commentators, to see if there was possession at the time of catch. There was possession. What happens after should be unquestionable. I understand this may open up Pandora's box, but if there's a plane rising skyward at the goal line, then there should be one on all ends of the goal line.

Again, if he was shoved out of bounds, it would have been a touchdown. But since no one touched him, he had to retain possession after hitting the ground. He didn't. No touchdown.