Arian Foster TD reversal (1 Viewer)

[Judge Smails]

Sorry if this is a honda - didn't see a thread on it.

Didn't have the sound on. How the hell did they overturn this? No question of possession. Dude caught the ball, took 2 full huge strides with possession, reached out 1 handed with full control over the goal line and landed in the end zone. Ruled a TD on the field. He was not in the motion of catching a pass and going down to the ground. Horrific call. How many steps with possession does a receiver have to take for it not to matter if the ball pops out when they hit the ground? 2? 10? 50? WTF is this league coming to?

 

[benm3218]

You miss the Calvin Johnson TD a few weeks ago?

 

[pantherclub]

You miss the Calvin Johnson TD a few weeks ago?

Sortof different since he caught it, ran into the endzone, defender touched him and his knee was down. Even the announcers were saying this is getting a little out of hand.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

its a terrible rule.

 

[Urlacher54]

Sorry if this is a honda - didn't see a thread on it.Didn't have the sound on. How the hell did they overturn this? No question of possession. Dude caught the ball, took 2 full huge strides with possession, reached out 1 handed with full control over the goal line and landed in the end zone. Ruled a TD on the field. He was not in the motion of catching a pass and going down to the ground. Horrific call. How many steps with possession does a receiver have to take for it not to matter if the ball pops out when they hit the ground? 2? 10? 50? WTF is this league coming to?

Had the Calvin Johnson play in week 1 been ruled a TD, this would have also. They could not give him the TD when he held on to it even less than CJ especially after CJ's TD was so controversial and was so widely debated. It is a dumb rule, both should have been TDs, but it is a rule.

 

[ckl81]

its a terrible rule.

Although it definitely helped out the Chargers today, it is a horrible rule. Like the Calvin Johnson non-TD earlier this season, it should have been a TD, but according to the letter of the law, if he goes to the ground in the end zone, he must retain possession throughout the whole process of the catch.

 

[Urlacher54]

You miss the Calvin Johnson TD a few weeks ago?

Sortof different since he caught it, ran into the endzone, defender touched him and his knee was down. Even the announcers were saying this is getting a little out of hand.

I think he caught it in the endzone, which made all the difference.

 

[Glatty]

As I understand it, the difference is really him being a receiver vs being a runner. Had he been a runner, he could have dropped the ball immediately upon breaking the plane; but since he was a receiver on that play, he needed to "complete the process of a catch" as well, which involves him maintaing control of the ball even after he is down. Since the ball came out after he reached across the goal line, he did not complete that process.

Stupid rule? IMO, yes. It was the correct call though, according to the rule.

 

[Papa Georgio]

To me him reaching out with the ball equalled a 2nd move thus it should have been a TD. I never heard it brought up this time but it was talked about a ton when Calvin had his reversal. I don't see the plays beeing the same but I guess the refs did.

FWIW both should be TD's in a fair and just world.

 

[Wombat1]

You miss the Calvin Johnson TD a few weeks ago?

Sortof different since he caught it, ran into the endzone, defender touched him and his knee was down. Even the announcers were saying this is getting a little out of hand.

He caught it in the endzone

 

[Dazed and Confused]

If he crosses the goal line and gets gets hit and fumbles, it's a td. But if he touches the ball to ground and loses control it is not a TD ? Yup, makes sense to me. (angry mega and foster owner. still won both games ).

 

[Mello]

I thought it was a bad call. Looked to me like he had possession and broke the plane before contact occurred. It was close enough where I didn't think too much about it though. This rule seriously needs to be changed.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Anyone have a video link to the play?

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Foster's TD

Foster TD, starting around 1:15

 

[rzrback77]

I would also appreciate a link to the particular wording of that rule. I "thought" that the receiver had to take steps to complete the process of the catch, but on the play where Collie got hurt, he took two steps with the ball and lowered his head to absorb the blow and then dropped the ball and that was ruled incomplete.

I did not see the Foster TD, but it sounds similar in that he had completed the catch, but did not maintain possession going down. I did not think that he had to maintain possession if he had taken steps after the catch.

Nice thread topic!

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I would also appreciate a link to the particular wording of that rule. I "thought" that the receiver had to take steps to complete the process of the catch, but on the play where Collie got hurt, he took two steps with the ball and lowered his head to absorb the blow and then dropped the ball and that was ruled incomplete.I did not see the Foster TD, but it sounds similar in that he had completed the catch, but did not maintain possession going down. I did not think that he had to maintain possession if he had taken steps after the catch.Nice thread topic!

However, the NFL maintained that a catch ruling as it was stated in the rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I would also appreciate a link to the particular wording of that rule. I "thought" that the receiver had to take steps to complete the process of the catch, but on the play where Collie got hurt, he took two steps with the ball and lowered his head to absorb the blow and then dropped the ball and that was ruled incomplete.I did not see the Foster TD, but it sounds similar in that he had completed the catch, but did not maintain possession going down. I did not think that he had to maintain possession if he had taken steps after the catch.Nice thread topic!

However, the NFL maintained that a catch ruling as it was stated in the rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

I think that wording applies to the Calvin situation, but not in this case. He caught it with two hands, took two steps with the ball secured, THEN put it on the ground. Crazy...

 

[SieteCinco]

I was going to say if anything it could have been ruled a fumble, but he:

1) Caught the ball, had full possession of it. Wasn't even questionable

2) Took two full steps, reached out with his arm to get the ball across the line although his whole body was already across the line. Never juggled the ball

I think this one is even worse than the Calvin non-TD call. Being an owner of them both, I don't like this rule.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I would also appreciate a link to the particular wording of that rule. I "thought" that the receiver had to take steps to complete the process of the catch, but on the play where Collie got hurt, he took two steps with the ball and lowered his head to absorb the blow and then dropped the ball and that was ruled incomplete.I did not see the Foster TD, but it sounds similar in that he had completed the catch, but did not maintain possession going down. I did not think that he had to maintain possession if he had taken steps after the catch.Nice thread topic!

However, the NFL maintained that a catch ruling as it was stated in the rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

I think that wording applies to the Calvin situation, but not in this case. He caught it with two hands, took two steps with the ball secured, THEN put it on the ground. Crazy...

I think it applies here as well due it being a passing play. IIRC, Calvin Johnson did the same thing. Catch, two feet down, put the ball on the ground and started celebrating.

 

[vinwinephans]

I would also appreciate a link to the particular wording of that rule. I "thought" that the receiver had to take steps to complete the process of the catch, but on the play where Collie got hurt, he took two steps with the ball and lowered his head to absorb the blow and then dropped the ball and that was ruled incomplete.I did not see the Foster TD, but it sounds similar in that he had completed the catch, but did not maintain possession going down. I did not think that he had to maintain possession if he had taken steps after the catch.Nice thread topic!

However, the NFL maintained that a catch ruling as it was stated in the rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

The question to me is how many steps does a player need to take before he not catching and falling down at the same time? If a player takes 2, 3, 5, 10? If a player takes 10 steps after catching the ball in the wide open... clearly noone will catch him, trips on his own two feet and fumbles... is it incomplete?The issue here, and I see where rzrback77 is coming from here, is that both Collie and Foster took steps with possession before falling and fumbling... That's where this differs from Calvin's situation, iirc... calvin took no steps...For Foster it all comes down to where he caught the ball too... in the endzone or outside of it? I haven't seen a clear shot on that as of yet.

 

[footballnerd]

The rule is seriously lame, but I don't see why these players keep using the ball the keep themselves up. It's an unnecessary variable that just adds to the possibility of losing the TD. Get both hands on the ball and roll the to ground if you can't keep your balance, not gonna hurt you.

 

[Lobary]

You miss the Calvin Johnson TD a few weeks ago?

Sortof different since he caught it, ran into the endzone, defender touched him and his knee was down. Even the announcers were saying this is getting a little out of hand.

I think he caught it in the endzone, which made all the difference.

NO, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.I don't know why this keeps being said, but field position has no bearing on anything with regards to the process of a completed catch.

 

[Lobary]

The rule is seriously lame, but I don't see why these players keep using the ball the keep themselves up. It's an unnecessary variable that just adds to the possibility of losing the TD. Get both hands on the ball and roll the to ground if you can't keep your balance, not gonna hurt you.

Agree. As a Foster owner and Texans fan, I'd love to say he got screwed but the rule (as dumb as it is) is the rule and he has been coached to be aware of it. Foster should've put both hands on the ball after he crossed the goal line instead of pulling a Calvin.

 

[footballnerd]

You miss the Calvin Johnson TD a few weeks ago?

Sortof different since he caught it, ran into the endzone, defender touched him and his knee was down. Even the announcers were saying this is getting a little out of hand.

I think he caught it in the endzone, which made all the difference.

NO, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.I don't know why this keeps being said, but field position has no bearing on anything with regards to the process of a completed catch.

Exactly, kid could of caught it in bounds and ended up out of bounds, he just needs it to be a full possession throughout

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I would also appreciate a link to the particular wording of that rule. I "thought" that the receiver had to take steps to complete the process of the catch, but on the play where Collie got hurt, he took two steps with the ball and lowered his head to absorb the blow and then dropped the ball and that was ruled incomplete.I did not see the Foster TD, but it sounds similar in that he had completed the catch, but did not maintain possession going down. I did not think that he had to maintain possession if he had taken steps after the catch.Nice thread topic!

However, the NFL maintained that a catch ruling as it was stated in the rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

Calvin landed on 2 feet, then went down. Foster caught the ball with 2 feet already on the ground, then took 2 additional steps. Completely different IMO.I think that wording applies to the Calvin situation, but not in this case. He caught it with two hands, took two steps with the ball secured, THEN put it on the ground. Crazy...

I think it applies here as well due it being a passing play. IIRC, Calvin Johnson did the same thing. Catch, two feet down, put the ball on the ground and started celebrating.

 

[Judge Smails]

So I ask you. How many steps does a receiver have to take with possession before it becomes a non-issue if the ball comes loose on the ground?

 

[banjomatic]

From what I saw, Arian caught the ball prior to crossing the goal line, took two steps over the goal line with the ball in possession, then stumbled and used the ball in his hand to keep him from tumbling over, resulting in the ball being jarred loose. The issue I had was that the play should have died at the moment the ball crossed the plane of the goal line. The fact that he "fumbled" it after entering the end zone is completely irrelevant. This was a terrible call and completely different from Calvin's play, since Calvin made no move after the catch and instead fell to the ground with the ball touching the ground.

Still won my game, but the call was god awful.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

This "catch" is Exhibit B in the offseason Rules Committee meeting when they overturn this "catch all the way to the ground" ruling. CJ was exhibit A. Almost identical plays except CJ's was a W.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

The issue I had was that the play should have died at the moment the ball crossed the plane of the goal line.

Bingo. It does look like the NFL rulebook went through a local zoning ordinance focus group to completely frack up an obvious call.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo]

So I ask you. How many steps does a receiver have to take with possession before it becomes a non-issue if the ball comes loose on the ground?

My thoughts as well. According to the rule, "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass", he must maintain control after touching the ground. The thing is, in my opinion, he was no longer "in the act of catching a pass". Watch the video. He catches the ball at the :12 mark with both feet on the ground, has control, and is already crossing the goalline. He takes a 3rd step, while still in possession of the ball. Simultaneously he reaches out with his right hand, which is holding the ball, and lands on the ball, causing it to come out. He was no longer in the act of catching the pass. He caught it with two hands, and then seemed to make an effort to extend the ball past the goal line, not realizing he was already in the end zone.

I guess "the act of catching a pass" is the key part of this one. Seems like a bad call though.

 

[shortbow]

They had a Referee on my local sports radio channel and he discussed the CJ td scenario and the AF td scenario, he said he couldnt go in to specifics because they arent allowed to but he said in both of those specific situations (this is his interpretation so who knows if its actually the correct interpretation).

Ref: "In both scenarios the players didnt make a football motion"

Caller: "How do you make a football motion once you're already in the endzone?"

Ref: "These are probably the closest calls in the NFL, but to answer your question - a football motion in the endzone would have simply been to get off of the ground with the ball, if either of the players would have stood up and maintained control they would have been touchdowns"

Just got the refs name, it was Larry Nemmers, no idea how longs hes been in the league.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo]

They had a Referee on my local sports radio channel and he discussed the CJ td scenario and the AF td scenario, he said he couldnt go in to specifics because they arent allowed to but he said in both of those specific situations (this is his interpretation so who knows if its actually the correct interpretation).Ref: "In both scenarios the players didnt make a football motion"Caller: "How do you make a football motion once you're already in the endzone?"Ref: "These are probably the closest calls in the NFL, but to answer your question - a football motion in the endzone would have simply been to get off of the ground with the ball, if either of the players would have stood up and maintained control they would have been touchdowns"Just got the refs name, it was Larry Nemmers, no idea how longs hes been in the league.

Interesting. Seems like the rule is broken though if he is accurate.What if Foster took 4 steps and then the same thing happened? What about 5 steps? What if he caught the ball, ran all the way across the endzone, and then fell and the ball came out? What if he caught the ball with two hands and then took another step, and then flipped the ball in the air to celebrate? He obviously caught the ball and had control of it in the endzone. Dumb rule. I hope they revisit this one during the offseason.

 

[pantherclub]

As I understand it, the difference is really him being a receiver vs being a runner. Had he been a runner, he could have dropped the ball immediately upon breaking the plane; but since he was a receiver on that play, he needed to "complete the process of a catch" as well, which involves him maintaing control of the ball even after he is down. Since the ball came out after he reached across the goal line, he did not complete that process.

Stupid rule? IMO, yes. It was the correct call though, according to the rule.

Actually it wasnt since Foster had caught the ball, crossed the goalline then went down. He caught the ball, took a 2 steps into the endzone. Play should have ended there. The only thing I can imagine is that the refs didnt think he had complete possession but that is weak at best. Especially considering he caught it before the gl and they even reviewed it.

FULL DISCLOSURE:

Matt Schuab owner that is going to lose by 4 points.

 

[CalBear]

It's easy to look at a play and say the rule should be different, but it's hard to write rules in a way that matches our intuitive understanding of the sport. The reason the rule is written this way is to deal with the situation where a receiver falling out of bounds catches the ball, taps his toes down inside the line, but fails to maintain control when he lands. Most observers would expect that to be ruled as an incomplete pass. Most observers would want Johnson's and Foster's catches to be ruled as complete. It's easy to complain, but it's hard to write a rule that works for both situations.

 

[knickstorm]

the issue for me is where did he catch the ball.....if he caught it in the endzone then yes it's like the CJ play

but he didnt, he clearly caught it at about the half yard line and brought it in, play over end of story........let's say they throw a quick screen from the one, andre johnson catches it at half yard line, leans into the endzone, someone pops him and the ball loose after he's crossed the plane, is that a fumble? or is the play dead already cause he gets the touchdown?

 

[pantherclub]

It's easy to look at a play and say the rule should be different, but it's hard to write rules in a way that matches our intuitive understanding of the sport. The reason the rule is written this way is to deal with the situation where a receiver falling out of bounds catches the ball, taps his toes down inside the line, but fails to maintain control when he lands. Most observers would expect that to be ruled as an incomplete pass. Most observers would want Johnson's and Foster's catches to be ruled as complete. It's easy to complain, but it's hard to write a rule that works for both situations.

But it was complete, he caught it, took steps with the ball and crossed into the endzone. I still dont know what the argument is.

 

[Shutout]

Bad call. Difference in this case is:

Calvin caught the ball in the end zone and was subject to the rule.

Foster, however, caught the ball and then stepped into the end zone. By that action (stepping into the end zone), he makes a football move with possession. By THAT action, he becomes a runner. By THAT action, the play is complete the instant that any part of the ball breaks the plane of the end zone. Its a TD, and thats that.

We see it all the time (saw it yesterday actually), a guy dives for the pylon, touches it with football, lands on the ground and the ball pops sideways 10 feet. Signaled a TD. So, IMO, if a runner does that, its a TD and foster, ahving caught, made a football move, and breaking the plane, should have been awarded a TD.

It was bad luck for FF owners but really looks like it may have cost the texans the game. That play would have brought them close enough to where later in the game, they could have went for A field goal and won. Instead they turned the ball over trying to go for the TD.

 

[CalBear]

It's easy to look at a play and say the rule should be different, but it's hard to write rules in a way that matches our intuitive understanding of the sport. The reason the rule is written this way is to deal with the situation where a receiver falling out of bounds catches the ball, taps his toes down inside the line, but fails to maintain control when he lands. Most observers would expect that to be ruled as an incomplete pass. Most observers would want Johnson's and Foster's catches to be ruled as complete. It's easy to complain, but it's hard to write a rule that works for both situations.

But it was complete, he caught it, took steps with the ball and crossed into the endzone. I still dont know what the argument is.

The argument is that it wasn't complete as the rule is written, which is why the pass was ruled incomplete. You can disagree with that ruling, but it clearly can be argued (and was, by the professional officials in charge of the game) that he was still in the process of making the catch, and therefore he needed to maintain possession while going to the ground.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJrShabadoo]

It's easy to look at a play and say the rule should be different, but it's hard to write rules in a way that matches our intuitive understanding of the sport. The reason the rule is written this way is to deal with the situation where a receiver falling out of bounds catches the ball, taps his toes down inside the line, but fails to maintain control when he lands. Most observers would expect that to be ruled as an incomplete pass. Most observers would want Johnson's and Foster's catches to be ruled as complete. It's easy to complain, but it's hard to write a rule that works for both situations.

But it was complete, he caught it, took steps with the ball and crossed into the endzone. I still dont know what the argument is.

The argument is that it wasn't complete as the rule is written, which is why the pass was ruled incomplete. You can disagree with that ruling, but it clearly can be argued (and was, by the professional officials in charge of the game) that he was still in the process of making the catch, and therefore he needed to maintain possession while going to the ground.

And that is the whole problem here, IMO. Whoever decided that he was still in the process of making a catch was wrong. You don't catch the ball with both hands and then change it over to one hand if you don't have control of the ball.

 

[PR Sparty]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010110703/2...:cat-post-watch

1:50ish mark

 

[bjabrad]

He caught it in the end zone.

His knee was never down despite what the announcers said.

The defender tripped him after the catch and instead of falling and rolling on his side/back he used the ball with one hand to brace his fall and it fumbled out of his hand.

Foster made a lazy move considering he could have simply protected the ball and rolled on his back and considering that it's his job to know the rule.

The officials had no choice and made a good call of a bad rule.

The rule should be end zone plus possession is a TD. Period.

 

[CalBear]

The rule should be end zone plus possession is a TD. Period.

So what about the guy who taps his toes down while falling out the back of the end zone, who loses the ball when he hits the ground?

 

[Lobary]

Bad call. Difference in this case is:

Calvin caught the ball in the end zone and was subject to the rule.

Huh? To repeat, since you didn't get it the first time: THE END ZONE IS IRRELEVANT. The relevant issue is whether the player is going to the ground in the process of making a catch, regardless of where it happens on the field. I really don't understand why this is so hard for so many to grasp. You all are confusing different rules.

Foster, however, caught the ball and then stepped into the end zone. By that action (stepping into the end zone), he makes a football move with possession. By THAT action, he becomes a runner. By THAT action, the play is complete the instant that any part of the ball breaks the plane of the end zone. Its a TD, and thats that.

We see it all the time (saw it yesterday actually), a guy dives for the pylon, touches it with football, lands on the ground and the ball pops sideways 10 feet. Signaled a TD. So, IMO, if a runner does that, its a TD and foster, ahving caught, made a football move, and breaking the plane, should have been awarded a TD.

It was bad luck for FF owners but really looks like it may have cost the texans the game. That play would have brought them close enough to where later in the game, they could have went for A field goal and won. Instead they turned the ball over trying to go for the TD.

The homer in me wants badly to agree with you, but having watched my dvr replay of the play in question numerous times, I have to agree that the refs applied this stupid rule correctly. Foster caught the ball with two feet on the ground and immediately turned and stepped with his left foot into the end zone, but as his right foot is coming up the defender tripped him up, thereby causing him to stumble forward and down to the ground. He was, therefore, a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. Simple solution is for the players to get their hands on the ball instead of using the ball to brace their fall.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So what about the guy who taps his toes down while falling out the back of the end zone, who loses the ball when he hits the ground?

The reason the rule is written this way is to deal with the situation where a receiver falling out of bounds catches the ball, taps his toes down inside the line, but fails to maintain control when he lands. Most observers would expect that to be ruled as an incomplete pass.

I agree with everything you're saying in here, except this part.I think that should be a catch. "Ground can't cause a fumble" and all that. I don't like the whole "must maintain possession through the ground" stuff - if you make the catch by possessing the ball (i.e. holding the ball firmly in hand(s), not a strict rulebook definition of possession) and getting both feet down in bounds, that should be a catch, even if the ball pops loose when you hit the ground.

 

[jackdubl]

If he crosses the goal line and gets gets hit and fumbles, it's a td. But if he touches the ball to ground and loses control it is not a TD ? Yup, makes sense to me. (angry mega and foster owner. still won both games ).

It's not that it's not a TD, it's that it's not a catch. You don't score a TD as soon as you see the pass in the endzone, you don't score a TD as soon as your finger touches that ball in the air. You score the TD if you CATCH THE BALL. You didn't catch the ball if you dropped it. Both Calvin and Arian dropped the ball at the end of their plays. It's painfully simple and I actually think it's a good rule. I guess just me and the NFL think it's good, though.I'm a Foster owner and I right when I saw the play I said, "Uh-oh. He dropped it at the end. Well, everyone's acting like it's a TD so maybe nobody will notice." Then they challenged and that was that. These players have to stop using the ball like it's some piece of equipment and treat it like it's the ball. What you should have argued was had he or Calvin spiked the ball, it would have been a TD. But right there, spiking the ball demonstrates control, while dropping the ball demonstrates a lack of control. So any way you cut it, neither play was a catch, and therefore, neither play was a TD. Luckily, I also still won.

 

[Lobary]

It's easy to look at a play and say the rule should be different, but it's hard to write rules in a way that matches our intuitive understanding of the sport. The reason the rule is written this way is to deal with the situation where a receiver falling out of bounds catches the ball, taps his toes down inside the line, but fails to maintain control when he lands. Most observers would expect that to be ruled as an incomplete pass. Most observers would want Johnson's and Foster's catches to be ruled as complete. It's easy to complain, but it's hard to write a rule that works for both situations.

But it was complete, he caught it, took steps with the ball and crossed into the endzone. I still dont know what the argument is.

He took one step in the act of catching the pass and got tripped as his right foot was coming up for the second step, causing him to fall down. Incomplete pass by (dumb) rule.

 

[pantherclub]

Did I mention that I am started Schuab and I am going to lose by 4 points?

 

[Lobary]

He caught it in the end zone. His knee was never down despite what the announcers said.The defender tripped him after the catch and instead of falling and rolling on his side/back he used the ball with one hand to brace his fall and it fumbled out of his hand. Foster made a lazy move considering he could have simply protected the ball and rolled on his back and considering that it's his job to know the rule. The officials had no choice and made a good call of a bad rule. The rule should be end zone plus possession is a TD. Period.

He DID NOT catch it in the end zone. I don't know what game you were watching but it wasn't this one.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

In my opinion Foster established possession before getting into the endzone. He established and then crossed the goalline. Anything that happens after should be irrelevant.

This was totally different than the Calvin play because Calvin had to establish possession while already in the endzone and he did not complete the catch (according to the rule book).

If I were a ball carrier I'd hold the ball until the PAT is complete to ensure that the play can't be reversed. lol

 

[Lobary]

In my opinion Foster established possession before getting into the endzone. He established and then crossed the goalline. Anything that happens after should be irrelevant.

This was totally different than the Calvin play because Calvin had to establish possession while already in the endzone

and he did not complete the catch (according to the rule book).

If I were a ball carrier I'd hold the ball until the PAT is complete to ensure that the play can't be reversed. lol

Hello, is this thing on?

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control

of the ball after he touches the ground,

whether in the field of play or the end zone.

If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,

the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground,

the pass is complete.