SD last touchdown- NFL Rulebook

[That One Guy]

This might be old but I hadn't seen it.

Touchdown Disallowed After Ref Drops Ball Handed To Him By Player

September 17, 2010
KANSAS CITY, MO—Chargers' tight end Antonio Gates' 3-yard touchdown reception against the Chiefs Monday was ruled incomplete after referee Doug Rosenbaum bobbled and dropped the ball handed to him by Gates. "The rule in question states, 'A referee must maintain possession through the entirety of the post-touchdown player-to-referee-exchange, and make a clear officiating move," NFL vice president of officiating Carl Johnson said at a press conference Tuesday. "Not only must the official signal a touchdown, receive the game ball, hold it, and twirl it around a little in his hands, but he must also take it home with him and keep it in his possession for at least three days. That is the only way a touchdown is officially recorded in the NFL." Johnson insisted the rules of the league must be upheld, because otherwise fans might actually be happy.


http://www.theonion.com/articles/tou...anded-t,18104/

[That One Guy]

OK, I finally found it. The "second act" thing was a creation after the Lance Moore 2 pt conversion in the SB a few years back. It is not technically in the rule book but Pereira insisted on it being ruled that way during his tenure and it hasn't been changed since.

So I thought the league had said the second motion does not negate the need for maintaining possession but they actually said it does. Whether the player was down or not is what determined, in the field of play, whether it's a fumble or down by contact first.

Just for reference, here are two plays which Pereira says should have been ruled a score according to the rule.

Foster

Moore

So the only thing that really needs to be addressed at this point is what a player already in the endzone can do to perform a second act. Moore, in his, was actually extending the ball across the goal line before any major contact occurred. Once the contact occurred, he lost the ball. If there's no similar way for players to establish that they had possession before contact if they're already in the endzone, I think it'll continue to be imbalanced and called incorrectly at times.

For now, though, it does appear they called the Alexander TD in accordance with precedent though not technically in accordance with the rule book.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by fwf

The spread was Denver +7.5. That was a Huge call for a lot of people.

[Archie]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

OK, I finally found it. The "second act" thing was a creation after the Lance Moore 2 pt conversion in the SB a few years back. It is not technically in the rule book but Pereira insisted on it being ruled that way during his tenure and it hasn't been changed since.

So I thought the league had said the second motion does not negate the need for maintaining possession but they actually said it does. Whether the player was down or not is what determined, in the field of play, whether it's a fumble or down by contact first.

Just for reference, here are two plays which Pereira says should have been ruled a score according to the rule.

Foster

Moore

So the only thing that really needs to be addressed at this point is what a player already in the endzone can do to perform a second act. Moore, in his, was actually extending the ball across the goal line before any major contact occurred. Once the contact occurred, he lost the ball. If there's no similar way for players to establish that they had possession before contact if they're already in the endzone, I think it'll continue to be imbalanced and called incorrectly at times.

For now, though, it does appear they called the Alexander TD in accordance with precedent though not technically in accordance with the rule book.

I see - so now we have both a living constitution and a living NFL rule book

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

OK, I finally found it. The "second act" thing was a creation after the Lance Moore 2 pt conversion in the SB a few years back. It is not technically in the rule book but Pereira insisted on it being ruled that way during his tenure and it hasn't been changed since.

So I thought the league had said the second motion does not negate the need for maintaining possession but they actually said it does. Whether the player was down or not is what determined, in the field of play, whether it's a fumble or down by contact first.

Just for reference, here are two plays which Pereira says should have been ruled a score according to the rule.

Foster

Moore

So the only thing that really needs to be addressed at this point is what a player already in the endzone can do to perform a second act. Moore, in his, was actually extending the ball across the goal line before any major contact occurred. Once the contact occurred, he lost the ball. If there's no similar way for players to establish that they had possession before contact if they're already in the endzone, I think it'll continue to be imbalanced and called incorrectly at times.

For now, though, it does appear they called the Alexander TD in accordance with precedent though not technically in accordance with the rule book.

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?

[That One Guy]

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.

[teknic]

The ball did not survive contact with the ground, so it should not have been ruled a touchdown. End of story.

I'm just glad that it didn't affect the outcome of the game. There is no way that it could be argued Alexander had completed the catch and had full control of the ball before he crossed the goalline. The evidence simply isn't there on the replay.

[Bladerunner]

I love this stuff...just sayin.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by teknic

The ball did not survive contact with the ground, so it should not have been ruled a touchdown. End of story.

I'm just glad that it didn't affect the outcome of the game. There is no way that it could be argued Alexander had completed the catch and had full control of the ball before he crossed the goalline. The evidence simply isn't there on the replay.

As was pointed out above, it's currently much more beneficial to catch a pass at the one and then score rather than to catch it in the endzone. Until they clarify the rules, that is a quirk that has to be considered. The Alexander catch was clearly a catch by common sense rules but only even gets consideration of incomplete by bad NFL rules. By ruling it the way they did, they're at least getting the call right even if it's for the wrong reason.

[Action]

Originally Posted by Archie

So, you raise the key question. Did he have possession? You assert that he did. I believe “by rule” he did not. He had no more possession then the player who left his feet, catches the ball in the air, breaks the plane of the end zone, and then lands out of bounds.

By rule, a player who goes to the ground in the process of making a catch must control the ball through the contact with the ground. Otherwise it’s not a catch and THERE IS NO POSSESSION. It is not different then the example I gave earlier of catching the ball on the fly in the end zone but landing out of bounds. By rule you must get two feet, a knee, etc for it to be a catch. The determination of a catch (and all the elements of that fact) are evaluated first.

1st off, it is not the same as catching the ball in the air and breaking the plane of the end zone...

Alexander got 2 feet down and a knee.

There is no where that says the determination of a "catch" is to be evaluated 1st.

[Action]

Originally Posted by Vine

Damn you are stubborn.... and your lack of knowledge of the requirements of completing the process of a catch is actually amazing. Some have said it don't matter because he had control before crossing the goalline. Actually is does matter, because he was falling down as a result of his efforts in catching the ball. He did not complete the process of making the catch as stated in the NFL rules.

The NFL got this wrong, and if the Chargers would have completed the comeback and won, you better ****ing believe that controversy would be through the roof. The fact that the NFL has remained quiet on this ruling is the NFL stating that it does not give a **** to betting lines and whoever bet on the game (which I did not).

If you want to take a middle ground, it's a judgement call... he caught the ball, got two feet down and attempted to make a football move.

Meaning, he stretched for the touchdown.

The rule for the catch says something like, "must maintain control to the ground"... something along those lines correct?

Well the key word here is "control"... Alexander had control of the ball the WHOLE time AND he made a football move as judged by the referee... control/possession...

Touchdown.

This whole catch rule is making you think too hard.

Imagine this:

Player A laterals to player B, player B catches the ball takes 1 step and dives for endzone - ball pops out...

fumble?

People in here are over analyzing the catch rule in conjunction with the goal line rule here.

This play is really simple.

Caught the ball with two hands, full control, two feet down, lunged and stretched for the end zone with full control.

[Action]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

As was pointed out above, it's currently much more beneficial to catch a pass at the one and then score rather than to catch it in the endzone. Until they clarify the rules, that is a quirk that has to be considered. The Alexander catch was clearly a catch by common sense rules but only even gets consideration of incomplete by bad NFL rules. By ruling it the way they did, they're at least getting the call right even if it's for the wrong reason.

Yes, it's more beneficial to catch the ball and lunge for the end zone than it is to catch the ball in the end zone.

Because you can lose the ball after breaking the plane and it is still a touchdown as long as you have control/possession.

This is known.

[Action]

He was judged to MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE with CONTROL of the ball...

Watch the play again.

If this was in the field of play, I highly doubt Alexander would have spun and stretched for the end zone. It was CLEARLY a football move.

This play also happened last week:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/miami-dolp...umble-recovery

If that is a fumble, then the Alexander play is a touchdown.

Hartline didn't even get to secure the ball before it was knocked out.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Action

He was judged to MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE with CONTROL of the ball...

Watch the play again.

If this was in the field of play, I highly doubt Alexander would have spun and stretched for the end zone. It was CLEARLY a football move.

This play also happened last week:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/miami-dolp...umble-recovery

If that is a fumble, then the Alexander play is a touchdown.

Hartline didn't even get to secure the ball before it was knocked out.

Still a condescending dick, I see.

The problem is that these things are regularly called in different ways. What you cite as "known" is neither in the rule book nor consistently enforced. Quite usually, the determining factor for a catch or not is simply whether or not the player still has the ball after the fact or whether it came free. If it comes free, it seems they call it an incompletion 90% of the time. I'd even venture to guess that had Alexander's been more noticeably dropped at the end of that play, it'd have been ruled incomplete on the field and up to the coaches to challenge for a TD. So for what you claim to be known, plenty of refs (I cited one above) apparently don't know it as well as you. You should be a ref and get those losers off the field.