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

[footballsavvy]

This thread is ridiculous. Silhouettes of the football? Really? Analyzing instant replay with cameras that shoot 2000 frames per second really makes football a joy to watch...

 

[jackdubl]

I think it's time to stop giving the Raiders homers the stage to keep yelling about this play. The rule is clear and unambiguous and has been used for several seasons. It was clearly not a catch when the play was shown on replay. I'm bummed for the Raiders losing that one, but let's get over this play already. This was no Tuck Rule situation.

 

[Raider Nation]

I think it's time to stop giving the Raiders homers the stage to keep yelling about this play.

Let me make this clear again, and people can either believe me or they won't.I'd be pissed about that TD being reversed if it happened to the Dolphins, Packers, Cowboys or anyone else.

 

[Short Corner]

I think it's time to stop giving the Raiders homers the stage to keep yelling about this play.

Let me make this clear again, and people can either believe me or they won't.I'd be pissed about that TD being reversed if it happened to the Dolphins, Packers, Cowboys or anyone else.

Link?

 

[tommyGunZ]

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.

Why even require the receiver to get his feet down under this line of thinking? Runners who are flying through the air and tough the pylon often don't have their feet down, why should receivers?This thread should have been over after post #2, where your question was answered.

 

[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.

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.

I see why the rule exists.Let's say this happened at the five yard line, and Murphy fell to the ground on his own (i.e., not by contact).

If he catches the ball, his feet hit the ground, his butt hits the ground, and then the ball pops out when his forearm hits the ground . . . suppose the Chargers recover it. Was that a fumble? Now it's the Chargers' ball?

I don't think that would be a good rule. I think that should be incomplete.

But if it's incomplete at the five, it should be incomplete in the end zone as well.

I was initially against the rule because it just looked like a touchdown to me. But thinking about the implications if it happened at the five -- if I had to choose between calling it an incompletion or calling it a fumble, it seems more like an incompletion.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

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.

That's way the ref interpreted it, but by most definitions of the English language two feet, a forearm and a butt is maintaining possession to the ground.

 

[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.

I see why the rule exists.Let's say this happened at the five yard line, and Murphy fell to the ground on his own (i.e., not by contact).

If he catches the ball, his feet hit the ground, his butt hits the ground, and then the ball pops out when his forearm hits the ground . . . suppose the Chargers recover it. Was that a fumble? Now it's the Chargers' ball?

I don't think that would be a good rule. I think that should be incomplete.

But if it's incomplete at the five, it should be incomplete in the end zone as well.

I was initially against the rule because it just looked like a touchdown to me. But thinking about the implications if it happened at the five -- if I had to choose between calling it an incompletion or calling it a fumble, it seems more like an incompletion.

In your scenario, assuming the receiver had not been touched before falling, it is definitely a fumble... correct?In that case, you have a fair point. But in Murphy's specific case, he was certainly touched before hitting the ground.

 

[Otis]

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

Awesome insta-ownage right here.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

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.

I see what they did here...He clearly maintined possession after touching the ground several times. Bad call.

 

[Tau837]

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.

I see why the rule exists.Let's say this happened at the five yard line, and Murphy fell to the ground on his own (i.e., not by contact).

If he catches the ball, his feet hit the ground, his butt hits the ground, and then the ball pops out when his forearm hits the ground . . . suppose the Chargers recover it. Was that a fumble? Now it's the Chargers' ball?

I don't think that would be a good rule. I think that should be incomplete.

But if it's incomplete at the five, it should be incomplete in the end zone as well.

I was initially against the rule because it just looked like a touchdown to me. But thinking about the implications if it happened at the five -- if I had to choose between calling it an incompletion or calling it a fumble, it seems more like an incompletion.

In your scenario, assuming the receiver had not been touched before falling, it is definitely a fumble... correct?In that case, you have a fair point. But in Murphy's specific case, he was certainly touched before hitting the ground.

What does being touched before hitting the ground have to do with anything? Maurile's scenario shows why control must be maintained all the way through hitting the ground in order to establish possession. Being touched by a defender does nothing to change possession.

 

[Toomuchnv]

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.

I see why the rule exists.Let's say this happened at the five yard line, and Murphy fell to the ground on his own (i.e., not by contact).

If he catches the ball, his feet hit the ground, his butt hits the ground, and then the ball pops out when his forearm hits the ground . . . suppose the Chargers recover it. Was that a fumble? Now it's the Chargers' ball?

I don't think that would be a good rule. I think that should be incomplete.

But if it's incomplete at the five, it should be incomplete in the end zone as well.

I was initially against the rule because it just looked like a touchdown to me. But thinking about the implications if it happened at the five -- if I had to choose between calling it an incompletion or calling it a fumble, it seems more like an incompletion.

In your example it should be a fumble...since he wasn't touched and had posession...in the endzone once you have posession you have crossed the plane and its a touchdown....at least it should be

 

[Tau837]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

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.”

Acording to the rule, as Maurile posted it, this is clearly a catch.Not hard to understand at all.

 

[Toomuchnv]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

I understand the rule completely...and I disagree that it should be a rule at all...what if in the field of play a rb catches it takes 2 steps, falls to the ground on his own and the ball pops out...is it a catch and a fumble or incomplete? what if the rb takes 3 steps and falls to the ground on his own and it pops out...catch and fumble or incomplete?? And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete? Just because something is in a rulebook doesn't make it right...otherwise the NFL wouldn't change and add rules every year...

 

[Raider Nation]

What does being touched before hitting the ground have to do with anything?

MT specifically asked me about a fumble scenario. If the receiver was touched before hitting the ground, a fumble recovered by the other team is the only thing which CAN'T be ruled. It'll either be ruled a completed pass... then down by contact, or an incomplete pass.Are we arguing two different things here? I've been drinking.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

I understand the rule completely...and I disagree that it should be a rule at all...what if in the field of play a rb catches it takes 2 steps, falls to the ground on his own and the ball pops out...is it a catch and a fumble or incomplete? what if the rb takes 3 steps and falls to the ground on his own and it pops out...catch and fumble or incomplete?? And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete? Just because something is in a rulebook doesn't make it right...otherwise the NFL wouldn't change and add rules every year...

The rule, as posted by maurile covers s scenario where a receiver dives for a ball and loses possesion as he lands. In the Murphy scenario he lands on his feet and maintains possession therefore it's a catch. The rule clearly states that he must maintain possession after he touches, which he clearly did.

 

[dparker713]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

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.”

Acording to the rule, as Maurile posted it, this is clearly a catch.Not hard to understand at all.

AFTER he touches the ground. That would mean he needs to hold onto the ball until he gets to his feet. The refs are a bit less strict than that, but they're much closer to a literal reading of the rule than you are.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

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.”

Acording to the rule, as Maurile posted it, this is clearly a catch.Not hard to understand at all.

AFTER he touches the ground. That would mean he needs to hold onto the ball until he gets to his feet. The refs are a bit less strict than that, but they're much closer to a literal reading of the rule than you are.

One foot down, two feet down -- possession maintained -- checkthe rule clearly states he must maintain after he touches the ground. He touched the ground several times while maintaining posssesion = catch per Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51).

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

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.”

Acording to the rule, as Maurile posted it, this is clearly a catch.Not hard to understand at all.

Really read that rule again and the only conclusion you can come to is that it was indeed a catch. At least three parts of the receiver touched the ground in the endzone while he was possessing the ball. Touchdown. In no way does it state that the receiver must possess the ball after the ball hits the ground.

I have no dog in this fight (unfortunately I'm a Bills fan), but I don't want any part of an NFL where that play is not a TD.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete?

The ground can cause a fumble.It can't cause a fumble when the player is down by contact, but it can cause a fumble if he's down because he tripped over his own feet.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

what if in the field of play a rb catches it takes 2 steps, falls to the ground on his own and the ball pops out...is it a catch and a fumble or incomplete? what if the rb takes 3 steps and falls to the ground on his own and it pops out...catch and fumble or incomplete??

If he takes steps, the rule quoted above doesn't apply. That rule applies if the player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass.If he's taking steps, he's not going to the ground in the act of catching the pass. In that situation, it's a catch once he secures control of the ball and touches the ground in bounds with both feet or any other part of his body besides his hands.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

I understand the rule completely...and I disagree that it should be a rule at all...what if in the field of play a rb catches it takes 2 steps, falls to the ground on his own and the ball pops out...is it a catch and a fumble or incomplete? what if the rb takes 3 steps and falls to the ground on his own and it pops out...catch and fumble or incomplete?? And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete? Just because something is in a rulebook doesn't make it right...otherwise the NFL wouldn't change and add rules every year...

The rule, as posted by maurile covers s scenario where a receiver dives for a ball and loses possesion as he lands. In the Murphy scenario he lands on his feet and maintains possession therefore it's a catch. The rule clearly states that he must maintain possession after he touches, which he clearly did.

I think you're reading that section kind of strangely.It says that if a player "goes to the ground" in the act of catching a pass, he has to maintain control of the ball afterwards."Goes to the ground" doesn't mean touching the ground with your feet. It means falling to the ground.So the player has to maintain control of the ball after falling.In Murphy's case, his fall didn't end until after his forearm hit the ground, and he didn't maintain possession after that.

 

[Chaka]

Second worst call ever.

 

[Toomuchnv]

what if in the field of play a rb catches it takes 2 steps, falls to the ground on his own and the ball pops out...is it a catch and a fumble or incomplete? what if the rb takes 3 steps and falls to the ground on his own and it pops out...catch and fumble or incomplete??

If he takes steps, the rule quoted above doesn't apply. That rule applies if the player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass.If he's taking steps, he's not going to the ground in the act of catching the pass. In that situation, it's a catch once he secures control of the ball and touches the ground in bounds with both feet or any other part of his body besides his hands.

one could argue in the Murphy replay after he caught the ball his 2 feet coming down were in fact 2 steps before he was tackled to the ground...like I said before, I understand why the refs ruled it incomplete...I just don't agree with the rule being in the rulebook...all it does is give the refs more things they have to try and interpret...which just makes things that are obvious to any naked eye like fumbles(tuck rule) and catches debatable.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I really don't get why so many people are struggling to understand this rule. It's not that hard. Maurile posted the rule and gave an excellent example of why it is necessary.

I understand the rule completely...and I disagree that it should be a rule at all...what if in the field of play a rb catches it takes 2 steps, falls to the ground on his own and the ball pops out...is it a catch and a fumble or incomplete? what if the rb takes 3 steps and falls to the ground on his own and it pops out...catch and fumble or incomplete?? And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete? Just because something is in a rulebook doesn't make it right...otherwise the NFL wouldn't change and add rules every year...

The rule, as posted by maurile covers s scenario where a receiver dives for a ball and loses possesion as he lands. In the Murphy scenario he lands on his feet and maintains possession therefore it's a catch. The rule clearly states that he must maintain possession after he touches, which he clearly did.

I think you're reading that section kind of strangely.It says that if a player "goes to the ground" in the act of catching a pass, he has to maintain control of the ball afterwards."Goes to the ground" doesn't mean touching the ground with your feet. It means falling to the ground.So the player has to maintain control of the ball after falling.In Murphy's case, his fall didn't end until after his forearm hit the ground, and he didn't maintain possession after that.

The rule clearly states "touches." The rule doesn't state that he has to maintain balance, or that his body has to be stablized. It simply states that he has to have possesion after his body touches the ground. It doesn't say he has to maintain possession for his entire fall, just until he touches the ground.

 

[jackdubl]

I think it's time to stop giving the Raiders homers the stage to keep yelling about this play. The rule is clear and unambiguous and has been used for several seasons. It was clearly not a catch when the play was shown on replay. I'm bummed for the Raiders losing that one, but let's get over this play already. This was no Tuck Rule situation.

You guys are hopeless. "There is none as blind as he who will not see."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The rule clearly states "touches." The rule doesn't state that he has to maintain balance, or that his body has to be stablized. It simply states that he has to have possesion after his body touches the ground. It doesn't say he has to maintain possession for his entire fall, just until he touches the ground.

First of all, I think people on both sides who think that the rule unambiguously supports their position are nuts. The rule is ambiguous. It says "after" but doesn't say how long after. It says "touches the ground" but doesn't say if that means the first bodypart to hit the ground, or the last. And so on.Nonetheless, when it says:

"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"

I do think it's somewhat clear that "after he touches the ground" refers back to "goes to the ground." In both cases, it means when he falls, not when his feet touch down before falling. That's clear not only from the construction (using the word "ground" twice in such proximity, suggesting that it means the same thing both times), but also from the rest of the rules regarding completions. (If he doesn't fall, it's not a catch until he secures the ball while getting both feet in bounds -- so it's not going to be a completion as soon as he touches the ground with a single toe just because he falls afterwards.)So although it's worded ambiguously -- it should say "falls to the ground" instead of "touches the ground" -- I think the intent of the rule is discernible. If a player is falling while catching the ball, he has to maintain control of the ball until after he's finished falling.

 

[Chaka]

Who cares about the rule? Just because there is a rule doesn't make it a good rule.

It's still the second worst call ever.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete?

The ground can cause a fumble.It can't cause a fumble when the player is down by contact, but it can cause a fumble if he's down because he tripped over his own feet.

If you watch the replay, after making the catch and landing on both feet with full control of the ball, Murphy hits the ground with his butt, twisting to his right thanks to contact with the strong safety, Gregory.Only when the ball hits the ground does it move in his hands.

I would argue that he still maintains posession as the ball never leaves his hand, and he successfully holds the top part of the ball to his body.

But if we accept that he loses posession, wouldn't this be the fulfilling the scenario of a fumble caused by the ground when the player is down by contact? Gregory's right hand is on Murphy's shoulder when his butt hits, and is falling on Murphy's left leg when contact with the ground causes the ball to move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE -- about 1:08 in shows the best angle, IMHO.

 

[DropKick]

Didn't see the play but dialed up the video on youtube. Clearly an incomplete pass as the receiver did not have control of the ball as he went to the ground.

You comparison to a RB breaking the plane is completely off base as this is a matter of possession. The receiver did not complete the catch per NFL rules despite your lenses.

A fraction of a second in control of the ball does not constitute a catch.

No problem with the NFL rules.

 

[fulton]

I'm confused. Speak to me slowly.

If I'm an NFL WR, exactly how many feet do I need to land down in the end-zone with the ball secured in my hands before someone knocks me down to the ground and the ball pops out?

This has the potential to change the game as we know it.

 

[DropKick]

And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete?

The ground can cause a fumble.It can't cause a fumble when the player is down by contact, but it can cause a fumble if he's down because he tripped over his own feet.

If you watch the replay, after making the catch and landing on both feet with full control of the ball, Murphy hits the ground with his butt, twisting to his right thanks to contact with the strong safety, Gregory.Only when the ball hits the ground does it move in his hands.

I would argue that he still maintains posession as the ball never leaves his hand, and he successfully holds the top part of the ball to his body.

But if we accept that he loses posession, wouldn't this be the fulfilling the scenario of a fumble caused by the ground when the player is down by contact? Gregory's right hand is on Murphy's shoulder when his butt hits, and is falling on Murphy's left leg when contact with the ground causes the ball to move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE -- about 1:08 in shows the best angle, IMHO.

Amazed that people who consider themselves FF "sharks" still confuse the "ground causing a fumble" phrase with the rules for a pass reception. When a player, who has possession of the ball, is tackled (be it knee, butt, etc.) the play is over because the runner is down. If the ball pops out after contact with the ground, there is no magic to the "ground causing a fumble".... the play is over. This is very similar to breaking the plane, it is a TD and the play is over!

In contrast, if a runner were untouched and slipped and fell without defensive contact then (yes!!!!) the ground can cause a fumble... simply because the play is NOT over. The player was never tackled.

You must have possession of the ball to fumble. In the case of a pass reception, there are clear rules to establish that a reception has been made and possession established. If possession is never established (for example losing the ball as the receiver fals to the ground), fumble discussions are irrelevant as there is no possession.

ETA: By NFL standards, Murphy clearly loses possession when he pins the ball to the ground. Simply stated, he isn't in control of the ball. Really not even close.

 

[Philo]

Amazed that people who consider themselves FF "sharks" still confuse the "ground causing a fumble" phrase with the rules for a pass reception. When a player, who has possession of the ball, is tackled (be it knee, butt, etc.) the play is over because the runner is down. If the ball pops out after contact with the ground, there is no magic to the "ground causing a fumble".... the play is over. This is very similar to breaking the plane, it is a TD and the play is over!In contrast, if a runner were untouched and slipped and fell without defensive contact then (yes!!!!) the ground can cause a fumble... simply because the play is NOT over. The player was never tacked.You must have possession of the ball to fumble. In the case of a pass reception, there are clear rules to establish that a reception has been made and possession established. If possession is never established (for example losing the ball as the receiver fals to the ground), fumble discussions are irrelevant as there is no possession.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you watch the replay, after making the catch and landing on both feet with full control of the ball, Murphy hits the ground with his butt, twisting to his right thanks to contact with the strong safety, Gregory.

Yes, he's got it when his butt hits. He loses it when his forearm hits.

I would argue that he still maintains posession as the ball never leaves his hand, and he successfully holds the top part of the ball to his body.

They showed one angle that made it clear that the ball came all the way out of his hand and was on the ground.

But if we accept that he loses posession, wouldn't this be the fulfilling the scenario of a fumble caused by the ground when the player is down by contact?

I think you mean "But if we accept that he loses control . . ." If he loses control before he completes his fall, as I understand how the rule is interpreted, then he never had possession (and therefore couldn't lose possession).It would not be a fumble caused by the ground because you can't fumble if it wasn't first a completion.

Gregory's right hand is on Murphy's shoulder when his butt hits, and is falling on Murphy's left leg when contact with the ground causes the ball to move.

Yes, exactly. If he's falling while catching the ball, and it pops out upon contact with the ground, it's going to be ruled an incompletion. The rule isn't phrased with perfect clarity, but that seems to be the league's interpretation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm confused. Speak to me slowly.If I'm an NFL WR, exactly how many feet do I need to land down in the end-zone with the ball secured in my hands before someone knocks me down to the ground and the ball pops out?

You always need, at a minimum, either two feet or one of some other body part besides the hands. (Hence John Madden's dictum, "One knee equals two feet.")If you're falling as you're making the catch, you further need to maintain control of the ball until after you've completed your fall.

 

[DropKick]

I'm confused. Speak to me slowly.If I'm an NFL WR, exactly how many feet do I need to land down in the end-zone with the ball secured in my hands before someone knocks me down to the ground and the ball pops out?This has the potential to change the game as we know it.

End zone or not... a ball that is caught momentarily can be jarred loose by a defender and ruled an incomplete pass. The rules have been tweaked repeatedly by the NFL and get into vagueries such as the receiver going to the ground by contact or their own volition. Bottom line... that ball was incomplete by NFL standard.I have no dog in the fight. If anything, I wanted the Raiders to win that game.

 

[davearm]

I'm confused. Speak to me slowly.If I'm an NFL WR, exactly how many feet do I need to land down in the end-zone with the ball secured in my hands before someone knocks me down to the ground and the ball pops out?This has the potential to change the game as we know it.

I strongly doubt we need to contemplate scenarios in which you're and NFL WR.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

The rule clearly states "touches." The rule doesn't state that he has to maintain balance, or that his body has to be stablized. It simply states that he has to have possesion after his body touches the ground. It doesn't say he has to maintain possession for his entire fall, just until he touches the ground.

First of all, I think people on both sides who think that the rule unambiguously supports their position are nuts. The rule is ambiguous. It says "after" but doesn't say how long after. It says "touches the ground" but doesn't say if that means the first bodypart to hit the ground, or the last. And so on.Nonetheless, when it says:

"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"

I do think it's somewhat clear that "after he touches the ground" refers back to "goes to the ground." In both cases, it means when he falls, not when his feet touch down before falling. That's clear not only from the construction (using the word "ground" twice in such proximity, suggesting that it means the same thing both times), but also from the rest of the rules regarding completions. (If he doesn't fall, it's not a catch until he secures the ball while getting both feet in bounds -- so it's not going to be a completion as soon as he touches the ground with a single toe just because he falls afterwards.)So although it's worded ambiguously -- it should say "falls to the ground" instead of "touches the ground" -- I think the intent of the rule is discernible. If a player is falling while catching the ball, he has to maintain control of the ball until after he's finished falling.

It's telling that you have to completely rewrite the rule in order to maintain your position.

 

[Chaka]

Didn't see the play but dialed up the video on youtube. Clearly an incomplete pass as the receiver did not have control of the ball as he went to the ground. You comparison to a RB breaking the plane is completely off base as this is a matter of possession. The receiver did not complete the catch per NFL rules despite your lenses. A fraction of a second in control of the ball does not constitute a catch.No problem with the NFL rules.

Catch then two feet down then knee down then butt down then forearm down all while in possession of the ball = more than a fraction of a second.Rule was called correct on the field. Doesn't make it a good rule.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You know what? I'm changing my mind on this. I think it should have been a touchdown when he maintained control just after his butt hit the ground.

I just read the next part of the rules.

Read these two sections together:

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.

Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

In the second case, I think it's pretty clear that the player has to maintain control all the way through his entire fall. Whoever drafted these rules knew how to say it if that's what he meant. The fact that he phrased the in-bounds case and the out-of-bounds case differently implies that he meant them to mean something different from one another.In the in-bounds case, why say "after he touches the ground" instead of "throughout the act of falling"? They must not mean the same thing, or the rules would use the same language.

So I no longer would interpret "after he touches the ground" to mean "throughout the act of falling." So what does it mean? I think the most sensible interpretation is that it means after his initial contact with the ground (with his body, not his feet). If he bounces on the ground a few times, it's the first bounce that matters -- not the last bounce as in the out-of-bounds case.

So I think it's Murphy's butt that should matter, not his forearm.

 

[Chaka]

So what does it mean?

It means the Raiders still lost.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Oh, I don't know anymore. Now I'm going back and forth. Maybe they do mean the same thing. Maybe "touching the ground" and "hitting the ground" are the same.

 

[Raider Nation]

You know what? I'm changing my mind on this. I think it should have been a touchdown when he maintained control just after his butt hit the ground.

I just read the next part of the rules.

Read these two sections together:

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.

Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

In the second case, I think it's pretty clear that the player has to maintain control all the way through his entire fall. Whoever drafted these rules knew how to say it if that's what he meant. The fact that he phrased the in-bounds case and the out-of-bounds case differently implies that he meant them to mean something different from one another.In the in-bounds case, why say "after he touches the ground" instead of "all the way through his entire fall"? They must not mean the same thing, or the rules would use the same language.

So I no longer would interpret "after he touches the ground" to mean "all the way through his entire fall." So what does it mean? I think the most sensible interpretation is that it means after his initial contact with the ground (with his body, not his feet). If he bounces on the ground a few times, it's the first bounce that matters -- not the last bounce as in the out-of-bounds case.

So I think it's Murphy's butt that should matter, not his forearm.

That's a lot for one human being to absorb in the heat of the moment, and that's only ONE rule. The official upstairs should help out the game ref with exact wording if need be.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Interesting discussion. Regardless of how the rule was interpreted, we should probably all be able to agree that the rule needs to be changed, to remove the ambiguity. I'd be shocked if most people think....that the rulebook makes sense in this case.

 

[davearm]

You know what? I'm changing my mind on this. I think it should have been a touchdown when he maintained control just after his butt hit the ground.

I just read the next part of the rules.

Read these two sections together:

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.

Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

In the second case, I think it's pretty clear that the player has to maintain control all the way through his entire fall. Whoever drafted these rules knew how to say it if that's what he meant. The fact that he phrased the in-bounds case and the out-of-bounds case differently implies that he meant them to mean something different from one another.In the in-bounds case, why say "after he touches the ground" instead of "throughout the act of falling"? They must not mean the same thing, or the rules would use the same language.

So I no longer would interpret "after he touches the ground" to mean "throughout the act of falling." So what does it mean? I think the most sensible interpretation is that it means after his initial contact with the ground (with his body, not his feet). If he bounces on the ground a few times, it's the first bounce that matters -- not the last bounce as in the out-of-bounds case.

So I think it's Murphy's butt that should matter, not his forearm.

You're way overanalyzing this. The NFL doesn't have different standards for endzone, in-the-field, and beyond-the-sideline plays.All cases are interpreted consistent with the language in the Sideline Catches section above.

 

[Raider Nation]

Check this video out, and thanks to Ed Wood for reminding me about it in the Raider thread.

To put into perspective how ridiculous they have become with the rules, watch Butch Johnson's TD catch at the 0:27 mark:

Now I know the rules were different back then, but

Murphy's TD is overturned, and THAT ONE is just fine?

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

And lastly...why is it the ground can't cause a fumble but can cause a catch to be incomplete?

The ground can cause a fumble.It can't cause a fumble when the player is down by contact, but it can cause a fumble if he's down because he tripped over his own feet.

If you watch the replay, after making the catch and landing on both feet with full control of the ball, Murphy hits the ground with his butt, twisting to his right thanks to contact with the strong safety, Gregory.Only when the ball hits the ground does it move in his hands.

I would argue that he still maintains posession as the ball never leaves his hand, and he successfully holds the top part of the ball to his body.

But if we accept that he loses posession, wouldn't this be the fulfilling the scenario of a fumble caused by the ground when the player is down by contact? Gregory's right hand is on Murphy's shoulder when his butt hits, and is falling on Murphy's left leg when contact with the ground causes the ball to move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE -- about 1:08 in shows the best angle, IMHO.

Amazed that people who consider themselves FF "sharks" still confuse the "ground causing a fumble" phrase with the rules for a pass reception. When a player, who has possession of the ball, is tackled (be it knee, butt, etc.) the play is over because the runner is down. If the ball pops out after contact with the ground, there is no magic to the "ground causing a fumble".... the play is over. This is very similar to breaking the plane, it is a TD and the play is over!In contrast, if a runner were untouched and slipped and fell without defensive contact then (yes!!!!) the ground can cause a fumble... simply because the play is NOT over. The player was never tackled.

You must have possession of the ball to fumble. In the case of a pass reception, there are clear rules to establish that a reception has been made and possession established. If possession is never established (for example losing the ball as the receiver fals to the ground), fumble discussions are irrelevant as there is no possession.

ETA: By NFL standards, Murphy clearly loses possession when he pins the ball to the ground. Simply stated, he isn't in control of the ball. Really not even close.

Chill out there, friend. The fact that there is so much discussion about this -- both what exactly happened on the play, the wording and intent of the rules, etc. -- shows to me that there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding both -- at the very least, admittedly, ambiguity in my understanding both. Limp bluster and hyperbole like "a fraction of a second in control of the ball does not constitute a catch" isn't helping with my enlightenment.

Thanks for the breakdown Maurile. And for surfacing the out of bounds rule. In my mind there is a definite difference in meaning between "after he touches the ground" and "all the way through his entire fall." Whether the intent of is the same or not, the former is satsified by a butt hitting the ground, the latter is not.

 

[Raider Nation]

Amazed that people who consider themselves FF "sharks" still confuse the "ground causing a fumble" phrase with the rules for a pass reception.

Chill out there, friend. The fact that there is so much discussion about this -- both what exactly happened on the play, the wording and intent of the rules, etc. -- shows to me that there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding both -- at the very least, admittedly, ambiguity in my understanding both.

Leave him alone. I was enjoying his smarminess.

 

[The Jerk]

Check this video out, and thanks to Ed Wood for reminding me about it in the Raider thread.

To put into perspective how ridiculous they have become with the rules, watch Butch Johnson's TD catch at the 0:27 mark:

Super Bowl XII, but either way...You do know there was no instant replay back then, right?

As a Raider fan, you should remember the phantom catch by Cliff Branch in the Sea of Hands game that was maybe more of an incompletion than the Butch Johnson TD.

In both cases, instant replay with today's rule would be an easily overturn to incompletion. Really, with the rules at the time of the game instant replay would have easily overturned both TDs. The officials simply missed the ball touching the ground. In any case, bad calls in other games don't make this call incorrect, especially not from games that are over 30 years ago.