Originally Posted by Jekyll15Hyde
Thanks for posting this. Very enlightening.
Your comment mentions the 2nd act for the player already in the endzone (and the examples are players in the endzone). Alexander wasnt in the end zone. Does the location on the field really matter?
As far as I'm aware, there are no current recognized "second acts" for guys catching the ball in the endzone.
As to whether area on the field matters, it doesn't technically. For example, if you take the Foster play and move it to the 50, it would become a fumble because the ball comes lose before he goes down. Alexander's, meanwhile, would've been down by contact as he had hit before the ball jarred loose. The reality, however, is that it's not called that way. This rule is pretty much limited to just the end zone as it takes a slow motion review to see whether a player extended the ball when such quick movements are the determining factor.
It was actually a kind of interesting point that some people brought up - things can be seen in slow mo that can't be seen in the game. In full speed, something might ALWAYS be called one way. When, however, you slow it down and look at it all zoomed in, it might easily be seen differently. These second movements could be that type of play as you may need replay and slow mo to tell if a movement was an extension of the ball or an attempt to better secure it/regain balance. The question was brought up that whether things that can ONLY be seen in slow motion should be the determining factor in plays. I think that's a big inhibitor of these calls being consistently enforced. It comes down to whether the coach wants to chance a challenge.