Rule change question

[Hampton Roads 6]

With the new rule for 2012 that says a defender can force a WR out of bounds before he catches ball, looks to me as if it would be pass interference if ball is in air.

 

[White hat]

I would think that would be pass interference. Where did you read the rule saying he can force a WR out of bounds BEFORE he catches the ball?

 

[White hat]

For the record, the rule wasn't changed, per se. It just had part of it removed.


It's in the definitions section of the Rules Book.


As of 2012:


Rule 2, Section 4 -- Catch

A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.


That's it. Nothing about 1 foot (that's implied with the simple phrase "first contacting the ground inbounds), and other interpretations added on.


The change is that a clause was removed.


Up through 2011 the rule read like this: A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball. (my underline)


Hope that helps.






This post was edited on 8/12 9:24 AM by White hat

This post was edited on 8/12 12:27 PM by White hat

 

[gymrat10]

I believe Salem beat Amherst in playoffs on this ruling a few years ago in a very hotly debated and much viewed play.

 

[White hat]

I think that play was just a blown call.

Ironically, this change had been debated for years but never got anywhere, then in 2010 there was a play in overtime of the Indiana 5-A state championship where a player was awarded the winning TD on a force out, The losing team is the school where several children of NFHS employeesin Indianapolis attend.

That, incidentally, was also a blown call because the Case Book gave an interpretation that a force out could only be called if the defender changed the receiver's direction -- as if he was going down the sideline and knocked sideways out of bounds. in both plays, the receiver's direction was taking him toward the sideline and force out would not have applied.

Thw NFHS has not given an interpretation on the carry-out. So if an airborne receiver grabs the ball and comes down on the shoulder of the defender inside the numbers, but the defender is smart enough and strong enough to carry the receiver to the sideline, is this a catch?

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

I am totally confused on the rule, I just hope no games are decided this season one way or another involving new rule.




As for Salem - Amherst game, if I recall correctly, the defender wasn't even in on the play. The receiver caught the ball, and was ruled in or out, I forget who was on offense at time of catch. But it was just a blown call according to everyone involved including the official, and the commissioner up there.

 

[White hat]

HR, I'm not sure what you're confused about but I think it might be the definition of "catch." You're thinking of the touch and grab as the catch, the physical act of securing the ball by the receiver which can be done on the ground, in the air, in the endzone, etc. The Rules Book is referring to its definition of a catch that includes the touch and grab, but also returning to the ground inbounds with possession. A hit before the touch could be pass interference, but a hit after the touch that prevents the receiver from landing inbounds is not. It is, however, a hit that happens before the catch.



I think this change makes is far less likely that a judgment call will determine anything.
This post was edited on 8/15 5:49 PM by White hat