One last thing about Murphy's "NO TD" ruling last night (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparent touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE (For the record, I am not the whining Raider fan who posted this)

 

[Short Corner]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

With the runner, possession has already been established.HTH

 

[Raider Nation]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

With the runner, possession has already been established.HTH

Wow, that really did help. Thanks!Catch.

One foot. Second foot.

The rule about maintaining possession after rolling around on the ground should be abolished.

 

[Comer]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

With the runner, possession has already been established.HTH

Wow, that really did help. Thanks!Catch.

One foot. Second foot.

The rule about maintaining possession after rolling around on the ground should be abolished.

Nope you are wong sir and I hope the keep the rule as is. If you are an NFL reciever and you can't hold the ball through the ground you don't deseve the catch. There are 2 many DHB and Troy Williamson's in the league already who can't catch.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

Let me ask you this:

When a receiver catches a ball in bounds, and ground causes fumble on tackle, why do they mark the ball down and award the yardage and catch? How come it is terribly inconsistent in the end zone?

This rule is blatantly unfair. There is no good argument for justification that catch is ok for ground causing fumble everywhere between the pylons, just not in the end zone.

Think about this a sec. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR RULE

 

[dparker713]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

Dont see anything at all contradictory. The rule defines when possession occurs on a pass reception. So the receiver does not have possession in that case until he completes the fall to the ground. Ostensibly the runner has already established possession.That said, Im not in favor of the rule either.

 

[dparker713]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

Let me ask you this:

When a receiver catches a ball in bounds, and ground causes fumble on tackle, why do they mark the ball down and award the yardage and catch? How come it is terribly inconsistent in the end zone?

This rule is blatantly unfair. There is no good argument for justification that catch is ok for ground causing fumble everywhere between the pylons, just not in the end zone.

Think about this a sec. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR RULE

The rule is the same for receptions everywhere. You must hold onto the ball all the way to the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of the catch. It applies in the endzone, on the sideline, in the middle of the field.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.

And all the new "protect the QB" calls.

And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

 

[Raider Nation]

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

That's another negative byproduct of the rule. It's far too arbitrary. As I wrote in the game thread last night, do you REALLY think the refs would have overturned that exact play if it was Randy Moss or Reggie Wayne or Hines Ward or Larry Fitzgerald who just made that same play at home? Honest to God, I'm not crying "The League is Screwing the Raiders Again!"... just asking what I think is a fair question.

 

[Short Corner]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

2 runners can be in motion, they just have to reset.

 

[GoBirds]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

With the runner, possession has already been established.HTH

Wow, that really did help. Thanks!Catch.

One foot. Second foot.

The rule about maintaining possession after rolling around on the ground should be abolished.

Nope you are wong sir and I hope the keep the rule as is. If you are an NFL reciever and you can't hold the ball through the ground you don't deseve the catch. There are 2 many DHB and Troy Williamson's in the league already who can't catch.

It's a horrible rule. Some of these rules are completely ridiculous.

 

[moondog]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

Let me ask you this:

When a receiver catches a ball in bounds, and ground causes fumble on tackle, why do they mark the ball down and award the yardage and catch? How come it is terribly inconsistent in the end zone?

This rule is blatantly unfair. There is no good argument for justification that catch is ok for ground causing fumble everywhere between the pylons, just not in the end zone.

Think about this a sec. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR RULE

The contrast with the Holmes catch is obvious. Holmes had possession, toe of each foot down in the end zone and then maintained possession of the ball the whole way to the ground. The Steeler / Titan game had excellent replays of his catch from many different angles.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

Let me ask you this:

When a receiver catches a ball in bounds, and ground causes fumble on tackle, why do they mark the ball down and award the yardage and catch? How come it is terribly inconsistent in the end zone?

This rule is blatantly unfair. There is no good argument for justification that catch is ok for ground causing fumble everywhere between the pylons, just not in the end zone.

Think about this a sec. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR RULE

The rule is the same for receptions everywhere. You must hold onto the ball all the way to the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of the catch. It applies in the endzone, on the sideline, in the middle of the field.

Maybe I haven't seen the rule changes. If the WR has possession, or makes a football move and then fumbles, he gets credit for the catch, no?So the question is: does he have possession? It looked to me that he had the ball, cradled it in his forearm, squeezed the ball a little too much and as he is getting up, the ball pops out. In my admittedly biased view, Murphy catches the ball, and has possession prior to the ball coming out. I've seen much quicker "bang bang" type plays not be reviewed at all.

So, and this is the assumption that is critical, does he have possesion prior to the ground causing the fumble? Either a football move or a step, or some evidence that is subjective.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

2 runners can be in motion, they just have to reset.

this is what i mean. you can have 1 runner in motion at the snap now, i think you should be allows to have 2 runners in motion at the snap.

 

[Short Corner]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

Let me ask you this:

When a receiver catches a ball in bounds, and ground causes fumble on tackle, why do they mark the ball down and award the yardage and catch? How come it is terribly inconsistent in the end zone?

This rule is blatantly unfair. There is no good argument for justification that catch is ok for ground causing fumble everywhere between the pylons, just not in the end zone.

Think about this a sec. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR RULE

The rule is the same for receptions everywhere. You must hold onto the ball all the way to the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of the catch. It applies in the endzone, on the sideline, in the middle of the field.

Maybe I haven't seen the rule changes. If the WR has possession, or makes a football move and then fumbles, he gets credit for the catch, no?So the question is: does he have possession? It looked to me that he had the ball, cradled it in his forearm, squeezed the ball a little too much and as he is getting up, the ball pops out. In my admittedly biased view, Murphy catches the ball, and has possession prior to the ball coming out. I've seen much quicker "bang bang" type plays not be reviewed at all.

So, and this is the assumption that is critical, does he have possesion prior to the ground causing the fumble? Either a football move or a step, or some evidence that is subjective.

You are using the term possession way too loosely here and in a way that doesn't agree with the rule.

 

[CalBear]

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

That's another negative byproduct of the rule. It's far too arbitrary. As I wrote in the game thread last night, do you REALLY think the refs would have overturned that exact play if it was Randy Moss or Reggie Wayne or Hines Ward or Larry Fitzgerald who just made that same play at home? Honest to God, I'm not crying "The League is Screwing the Raiders Again!"... just asking what I think is a fair question.

The rule is not arbitrary at all. To establish possession, you have to control the ball when you hit the ground. Doesn't matter if it's in the end zone or anywhere else on the field, and doesn't matter who the receiver is. If it's third and 10, and Randy Moss jumps in the air 11 yards past the line of scrimmage, catches the ball but doesn't hang onto it when he hits the ground, it's not a catch and not a first down. Do you really think they should rule it a catch and a fumble? This kind of play happens on sideline passes all the time, and to me it looks pretty consistently called; either you maintain possession of the ball when you hit the ground, or it's ruled incomplete.

 

[Interseptopus]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

The football move rule was abolished I think last year or the year before (if I remember correctly, if not my mistake), since it was such a subjective requirement. The current rule is completely legit. If you cannot hold onto the ball in the air and come down with it you do not deserve a catch. You must establish possession, 2 feet.People who argue this rule from last night and say "it is clear he had possession..." sure, with your homer glasses on. It is clear he got one foot down, his second foot comes down and what do we see- exactly what ESPN pointed out this afternoon- you see a silhouette of the bottom half of the ball sticking out from under his arms. How can you, with 100% certainty, say that he had 100% possession of that ball? Clearly he did not. He caught the ball, brought it to his chest, and in the process of bringing it to his chest the ball slipped 50% under his arms. If the ball is moving it is NOT deemed to be in possession of the WR. From that point on, you CANNOT assume that the player obtained 100% possession of the ball by the time he hit the ground. It's clear the ball moved. It is not clear that the ball was secure. End of story, go cry somewhere else. You won't change the call. People get paid lots of moneys to make these decisions, I highly doubt you qualify

 

[Interseptopus]

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

That's another negative byproduct of the rule. It's far too arbitrary. As I wrote in the game thread last night, do you REALLY think the refs would have overturned that exact play if it was Randy Moss or Reggie Wayne or Hines Ward or Larry Fitzgerald who just made that same play at home? Honest to God, I'm not crying "The League is Screwing the Raiders Again!"... just asking what I think is a fair question.

The rule is not arbitrary at all. To establish possession, you have to control the ball when you hit the ground. Doesn't matter if it's in the end zone or anywhere else on the field, and doesn't matter who the receiver is. If it's third and 10, and Randy Moss jumps in the air 11 yards past the line of scrimmage, catches the ball but doesn't hang onto it when he hits the ground, it's not a catch and not a first down. Do you really think they should rule it a catch and a fumble? This kind of play happens on sideline passes all the time, and to me it looks pretty consistently called; either you maintain possession of the ball when you hit the ground, or it's ruled incomplete.

 

[Comer]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

2 runners can be in motion, they just have to reset.

this is what i mean. you can have 1 runner in motion at the snap now, i think you should be allows to have 2 runners in motion at the snap.

Why not just be like the Arena League and have all the recievers run at full speed up to the line at the snap

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby. Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

Let me ask you this:

When a receiver catches a ball in bounds, and ground causes fumble on tackle, why do they mark the ball down and award the yardage and catch? How come it is terribly inconsistent in the end zone?

This rule is blatantly unfair. There is no good argument for justification that catch is ok for ground causing fumble everywhere between the pylons, just not in the end zone.

Think about this a sec. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR RULE

The rule is the same for receptions everywhere. You must hold onto the ball all the way to the ground if you are going to the ground in the act of the catch. It applies in the endzone, on the sideline, in the middle of the field.

Maybe I haven't seen the rule changes. If the WR has possession, or makes a football move and then fumbles, he gets credit for the catch, no?So the question is: does he have possession? It looked to me that he had the ball, cradled it in his forearm, squeezed the ball a little too much and as he is getting up, the ball pops out. In my admittedly biased view, Murphy catches the ball, and has possession prior to the ball coming out. I've seen much quicker "bang bang" type plays not be reviewed at all.

So, and this is the assumption that is critical, does he have possesion prior to the ground causing the fumble? Either a football move or a step, or some evidence that is subjective.

You are using the term possession way too loosely here and in a way that doesn't agree with the rule.

How am I using "possession" loosely? Either you have possession or you don't. Assume the player catches the ball and runs with the ball a step or two, is tackled and ball squirts out. Is this a touchdown? I think yes. So it all hinges on the definition of possession, and I don't see that interpretation as "loose". Please explain this to me.

 

[CalBear]

Maybe I haven't seen the rule changes. If the WR has possession, or makes a football move and then fumbles, he gets credit for the catch, no?

There's no "football move" rule anymore.

 

[underdogx3]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

With the runner, possession has already been established.HTH

Wow, that really did help. Thanks!Catch.

One foot. Second foot.

The rule about maintaining possession after rolling around on the ground should be abolished.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

2 runners can be in motion, they just have to reset.

this is what i mean. you can have 1 runner in motion at the snap now, i think you should be allows to have 2 runners in motion at the snap.

Why not just be like the Arena League and have all the recievers run at full speed up to the line at the snap

Often, when an illegal shift penalty is called for having 2 players in motion, one is a receiver and the other is a TE setting for a block or a back moving to the other side of the QB to change blocking side. How about allowing 1 receiver and 1 TE/RB/FB to be in motion so as to eliminate these silly penalties?

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

Dont see anything at all contradictory. The rule defines when possession occurs on a pass reception. So the receiver does not have possession in that case until he completes the fall to the ground. Ostensibly the runner has already established possession.That said, Im not in favor of the rule either.

The fall to the ground ends after the WR's butt hits the ground. He clearly had possesseion when his butt hit the ground. That should be the end of it

 

[SSOG]

Think about this a sec. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR RULE

Nope. The definition of an unfair rule is a rule that does not apply to all parties equally. This is the definition of a fair rule, although some people would say it's a stupid and/or pointless rule. While it might seem stupid in the end zone, I think the rule makes a lot of sense in the middle of the field.

 

[Raider Nation]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

The football move rule was abolished I think last year or the year before (if I remember correctly, if not my mistake), since it was such a subjective requirement. The current rule is completely legit. If you cannot hold onto the ball in the air and come down with it you do not deserve a catch. You must establish possession, 2 feet.People who argue this rule from last night and say "it is clear he had possession..." sure, with your homer glasses on. It is clear he got one foot down, his second foot comes down and what do we see- exactly what ESPN pointed out this afternoon- you see a silhouette of the bottom half of the ball sticking out from under his arms. How can you, with 100% certainty, say that he had 100% possession of that ball? Clearly he did not. He caught the ball, brought it to his chest, and in the process of bringing it to his chest the ball slipped 50% under his arms. If the ball is moving it is NOT deemed to be in possession of the WR. From that point on, you CANNOT assume that the player obtained 100% possession of the ball by the time he hit the ground. It's clear the ball moved. It is not clear that the ball was secure. End of story, go cry somewhere else. You won't change the call. People get paid lots of moneys to make these decisions, I highly doubt you qualify

Who's crying, Francis? I don't know whether he caught it or not. I just think the rule is faulty. And it WAS initially ruled a touchdown, so the refs thought they saw "possession" with the naked eye. But after watching 75 super slo-mo replays, the refs evidently deemed that the ball moved a half inch 24 seconds after the catch when he was walking back to the sidelines.

50) (Shotgun) 2-J.Russell pass deep middle to 18-L.Murphy for 19 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) 2-J.Russell pass incomplete deep middle to 18-L.Murphy.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

With the runner, possession has already been established.HTH

Wow, that really did help. Thanks!Catch.

One foot. Second foot.

The rule about maintaining possession after rolling around on the ground should be abolished.

Well if the rule is what it is, I don't have a case to argue. My opinion is that it is unfair, and it takes away from the game. They ought to change this rule in the offseason. And not just because it was significant in the outcome of my teams game. The Raiders lost that game because they played with intenisty for 3 and 7/8s quarters. They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[dparker713]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

Dont see anything at all contradictory. The rule defines when possession occurs on a pass reception. So the receiver does not have possession in that case until he completes the fall to the ground. Ostensibly the runner has already established possession.That said, Im not in favor of the rule either.

The fall to the ground ends after the WR's butt hits the ground. He clearly had possesseion when his butt hit the ground. That should be the end of it

Physics and the rule book disagree.The vector of his motion and likely his acceleration include a component perpendicular to the field and towards the field.

The rule book requires the WR to hold onto the ball for the entire time, not just when his butt touches the ground.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

With the runner, possession has already been established.HTH

Wow, that really did help. Thanks!Catch.

One foot. Second foot.

The rule about maintaining possession after rolling around on the ground should be abolished.

Well if the rule is what it is, I don't have a case to argue. My opinion is that it is unfair, and it takes away from the game. They ought to change this rule in the offseason. And not just because it was significant in the outcome of my teams game. The Raiders lost that game because they played with intenisty for 3 and 7/8s quarters. They have no one to blame but themselves.

there's no need to cange the rule. They just need to educate the refs.The football move was never a rule, but an interpretation of the coming down with possession rule that stated that a football move establishes "possession when coing down" as is stated in the rule book. in the 2007-2008 offseason they made the interpretation more lenient (or so they thought_, saying that a football move wasn't required -- just come down to the ground with the ball.

Once the second foot lands, the WR has come down with the ball. Add in a knee and a butt and ge hasd come down with the ball.

In the Santonio Holmes play v the ravens, he made about 5 football moves and they still didn'y give him the catch.

By making the rule more lenient, they've really confused the refs and made it so you almost have to cradle the ball all the way to the sideline.

 

[gonzobill5]

My problem is that anytime the football comes in contact with the ground it is going to move. It is simple physics. Why does the rule allow that to become a part of the decision? Obviously you can't trap it - but if you have the ball against your body and it just shifts a little, why isn't that a catch? I guess the wording of the rule prevents a variety of judgements, but it also prevents what appear to be legitimate catches.

 

[dparker713]

How am I using "possession" loosely? Either you have possession or you don't. Assume the player catches the ball and runs with the ball a step or two, is tackled and ball squirts out. Is this a touchdown? I think yes. So it all hinges on the definition of possession, and I don't see that interpretation as "loose". Please explain this to me.

Possession cannot be established by a WR that is falling to the ground until AFTER the fall is complete. He was still in the act of trying to establish possession when he dropped the ball.

 

[dparker713]

My problem is that anytime the football comes in contact with the ground it is going to move. It is simple physics. Why does the rule allow that to become a part of the decision? Obviously you can't trap it - but if you have the ball against your body and it just shifts a little, why isn't that a catch? I guess the wording of the rule prevents a variety of judgements, but it also prevents what appear to be legitimate catches.

The ball can move, it can not hit the ground.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

Dont see anything at all contradictory. The rule defines when possession occurs on a pass reception. So the receiver does not have possession in that case until he completes the fall to the ground. Ostensibly the runner has already established possession.That said, Im not in favor of the rule either.

The fall to the ground ends after the WR's butt hits the ground. He clearly had possesseion when his butt hit the ground. That should be the end of it

Physics and the rule book disagree.The vector of his motion and likely his acceleration include a component perpendicular to the field and towards the field.

The rule book requires the WR to hold onto the ball for the entire time, not just when his butt touches the ground.

Please post the exact text of the rule and then we can debate the meaniung of the words "to the ground."Once my butt touches (I'd even say my two feet) I've made it all the way from the air to ground.

 

[conan2]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

The football move rule was abolished I think last year or the year before (if I remember correctly, if not my mistake), since it was such a subjective requirement. The current rule is completely legit. If you cannot hold onto the ball in the air and come down with it you do not deserve a catch. You must establish possession, 2 feet.People who argue this rule from last night and say "it is clear he had possession..." sure, with your homer glasses on. It is clear he got one foot down, his second foot comes down and what do we see- exactly what ESPN pointed out this afternoon- you see a silhouette of the bottom half of the ball sticking out from under his arms. How can you, with 100% certainty, say that he had 100% possession of that ball? Clearly he did not. He caught the ball, brought it to his chest, and in the process of bringing it to his chest the ball slipped 50% under his arms. If the ball is moving it is NOT deemed to be in possession of the WR. From that point on, you CANNOT assume that the player obtained 100% possession of the ball by the time he hit the ground. It's clear the ball moved. It is not clear that the ball was secure. End of story, go cry somewhere else. You won't change the call. People get paid lots of moneys to make these decisions, I highly doubt you qualify

My problem is that the original call was a touchdown and it was overturned on replay. The requirement for that is the opposite of what you say. Replay does not need to make us certain he had 100% possession of the ball...it needs to make us certain that he did NOT have possession. I don't think the replay showed that.

 

[dparker713]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place. They are not uniform. His view:

When a runner is approaching the end zone, assume he leaves his feet, dives head-first and sticks the ball over the plane of the goal line. Once the ball crossed the goal line, the play is OVER. It's a touchdown. Doesn't matter if a defender smacks the ball out of his hands once the ball broke the plane. It's a touchdown.

Why doesn't that apply to receivers? In the game last night, Murphy caught the ball... he clearly had possession... he got one foot down, then he got his second foot down, then he was tackled and the ball moved a bit after he hit the ground. Why can a runner dive and break the plane of the goal line with a football, and it's called a touchdown? But when a WR has possession even longer than that, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. Makes no sense if you think about it.

I'm not arguing whether Murphy bobbled the ball or not when he hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what Fricke pointed out. Why are the rules different from one circumstance to the next?

Dont see anything at all contradictory. The rule defines when possession occurs on a pass reception. So the receiver does not have possession in that case until he completes the fall to the ground. Ostensibly the runner has already established possession.That said, Im not in favor of the rule either.

The fall to the ground ends after the WR's butt hits the ground. He clearly had possesseion when his butt hit the ground. That should be the end of it

Physics and the rule book disagree.The vector of his motion and likely his acceleration include a component perpendicular to the field and towards the field.

The rule book requires the WR to hold onto the ball for the entire time, not just when his butt touches the ground.

Please post the exact text of the rule and then we can debate the meaniung of the words "to the ground."Once my butt touches (I'd even say my two feet) I've made it all the way from the air to ground.

The instant your butt touches, there will be compression of the fabric, then fat, then muscle, then slight compression of the bone. The rest of your body will continue to the ground. I just cant see any type of logical argument that would support your position that the fall stops the instant a butt or any other non foot body part initially touches the ground.And if you want the exact text, how about you not be lazy and find it yourself?

ETA: And by your definition, someone that jumps from a building doesnt die of the fall, afterall, the fall ended at the instant a body part just touches the ground - the massive injuries that happen milliseconds later are therefore due to something other than the fall, no?

 

[jackdubl]

I hate this rule, and the "football move" rule.And all the new "protect the QB" calls.And the illegal shift rules. Let 2 runners be in motion...

The "football move" rule was taken out last season. Don't listen to announcers when it comes to rules, they're always several seasons behind the curve. Watch Mike Perrera on NFL Network Wednesdays go through the rules if you want to keep up.Listening to Steve Young and the others talk about how that was a catch must have been embarrassing for the NFL. Demonstrated how the announcers don't even know the standard rules. The call wasn't even close.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

The instant your butt touches, there will be compression of the fabric, then fat, then muscle, then slight compression of the bone. The rest of your body will continue to the ground. I just cant see any type of logical argument that would support your position that the fall stops the instant a butt or any other non foot body part initially touches the ground.And if you want the exact text, how about you not be lazy and find it yourself?

so does he have to roll around on the ground and make sure every part of his body makes it to the ground? Maybe lay as flat as possible? getting the backs of his knees and his neck to the ground might be tough....

 

[switz]

Was listening to John Fricke after the games last night on FSR. He was going nuts over the fact that the refs overturned Murphy's apparant touchdown catch. Not because he was disputing that the ball came loose after he hit the ground, but because the rules do not make sense in the first place.

Not only that, but in the earlier game, the second Ben Watson TD, the announcers said, "he had his finger on the tip of the ball so he had possession" even though the ball hit the ground. From what I could tell, Murphy "had his finger on the tip of the ball" as well, and it didn't come lose until he hit the ground.I do'nt care whether they call them TDs or not TDs, call them uniformly. One can't be a TD while there other one isn't.

 

[Raider Nation]

I actually do argue the fact of whether or not he bobbled the ball. He clearly caught the ball, 2 feet down, knee then butt down. Then as he is getting up to celebrate the ball squirts free. The current rule almost requires the WR to cradle the ball to the bench like a baby.

Contrast this to Santonio Holmes "one foot down" super bowl catch, which was robbery. The league refs interpret calls based on the opponent. It's a terrible rule...

That's another negative byproduct of the rule. It's far too arbitrary. As I wrote in the game thread last night, do you REALLY think the refs would have overturned that exact play if it was Randy Moss or Reggie Wayne or Hines Ward or Larry Fitzgerald who just made that same play at home? Honest to God, I'm not crying "The League is Screwing the Raiders Again!"... just asking what I think is a fair question.

The rule is not arbitrary at all. To establish possession, you have to control the ball when you hit the ground. Doesn't matter if it's in the end zone or anywhere else on the field, and doesn't matter who the receiver is. If it's third and 10, and Randy Moss jumps in the air 11 yards past the line of scrimmage, catches the ball but doesn't hang onto it when he hits the ground, it's not a catch and not a first down. Do you really think they should rule it a catch and a fumble? This kind of play happens on sideline passes all the time, and to me it looks pretty consistently called; either you maintain possession of the ball when you hit the ground, or it's ruled incomplete.

I hear ya, but I'm talking "arbitrary" in the sense that refs are human. Take that *EXACT* play involving Murphy last night. I am indeed saying that were it a marquee receiver (like Moss/Wayne/Ward/Fitz), and not some nameless rookie, the ref might be inclined to award the touchdown. Why did Michael Jordan get all the foul calls, and Greg Ostertag never did? Referees will always have more factors to deal with than just black and white issues.

 

[tomarken]

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

 

[dparker713]

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

Digest of Rules

This Digest of Rules of the National Football League has been prepared to aid players, fans, and members of the press, radio, and television media in their understanding of the game.

It is not meant to be a substitute for the official rule book. In any case of conflict between these explanations and the official rules, the rules always have precedence.

In order to make it easier to coordinate the information in this digest, the topics discussed generally follow the order of the rule book.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Explanation from the NFL:

Rule Explanation from the San Diego Chargers-Oakland Raiders Game

In last night’s game between the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, the Raiders faced a 3rd-and-5 from the Chargers’ 19 with 0:50 remaining in the second quarter. The ruling on the field was a completed pass for a touchdown.

The instant replay assistant stopped the game for an instant replay review to determine if the receiver maintained possession of the ball after he hit the ground.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with 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.”

The instant replay review determined that Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy did not maintain possession of the ball after he hit the ground. Thus, the on-field ruling of a touchdown was reversed by referee Carl Cheffers to an incomplete pass.

 

[Raider Nation]

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

Okay, so nobody would argue that Murphy had both feet down. Seeing that he was in the end zone at the time, the same "play is dead after the ball breaks the plane of the goal line" rule should apply as with the runner who dives across the goal line in the play I described in the OP. I guess I would sunsequently be in favor of two sets of rules for pass catchers: one in the field of play, and one in the end zone.... IF they insist on keeping the "possession all the way to the ground" stipulation.

 

[jackdubl]

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

The same rule list still says the push out rule applies, under Forward Passes. The push out rule was taken out several seasons ago. That list is outdated and isn't exhaustive.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I guess "after he touches the ground" means throughout the entire course of his fall.

Murphy had control when his feet hit. He still had control when his butt hit. When his forearm hit (the one holding the ball), that's when the ball popped all the way out for a moment.

 

[tomarken]

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

Digest of Rules

This Digest of Rules of the National Football League has been prepared to aid players, fans, and members of the press, radio, and television media in their understanding of the game.

It is not meant to be a substitute for the official rule book. In any case of conflict between these explanations and the official rules, the rules always have precedence.

In order to make it easier to coordinate the information in this digest, the topics discussed generally follow the order of the rule book.

I saw that - I don't have a dog in this fight, I was just trying to help. Do you have a link to the official rule book?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

Just so you know, the digest of rules is worthless in these kinds of discussions. It's good on the really obvious stuff, like how many points a field goal is worth. But on any contested issue it won't be precise enough.

 

[Raider Nation]

I guess "after he touches the ground" means throughout the entire course of his fall.

Murphy had control when his feet hit. He still had control when his butt hit. When his forearm hit (the one holding the ball), that's when the ball popped all the way out for a moment.

I would think most sane people would tell you this is good enough to award a touchdown. They make rules just for the sake of making rules.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I will start a thread with the 2009 Official Rulebook attached . . .

 

[tomarken]

Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

Just so you know, the digest of rules is worthless in these kinds of discussions. It's good on the really obvious stuff, like how many points a field goal is worth. But on any contested issue it won't be precise enough.

I figured as much (see the post directly above yours).Like I said, I don't have an opinion, I didn't see the play, but I'd be interested to see a link to the full official rule book.