I'm sure this was talked about but I was wondering: If Andre would have caught that ball in the back of the endzone and fell out of bounds, would it have been a touchdown?
Absolutely not. Out of bounds has nothing to do without. You have to "maintain" possession of the ball, or "complete" the catch. If the ball pops out at any point after hitting the ground out of bounds or not it is an incomplete pass. Now this is supposedly the rule, but I've seen two cases this season alone in which this call was called different ways. Seems like should more clearly define it.
Didn't Jacoby Jones have a similar play that was ruled a catch? What was the difference in that case? Was it because he didn't drop the ball the first time he hit the ground?
It has something to do with "making a football move" to demonstrate possession, if I recall. It still seems really subjective.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnBS8tTsnWE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnBS8tTsnWE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
^^ i don't get it, that was clearly a touchdown in my book. doesn't the ball just have to break the plane while you have possession for it to be considered a touchdown? if that was anywhere else except the end zone i can kinda see why that would be considered incomplete. I could of sworn i have seen plays where the player leaps and stretches his arm out to get the ball across the plane but then drop it and it was considered a TD
It looked to me like andre landed with control of the ball, took 2 steps landed, and then the ball came out. I thought that qualified as a "football move" but idk.
I don't get it. He had the Ball-Check He moved his foot-Check Ball+Foot=Football What is a "football" move......
These are things the rulebook says, but only refs can interpret them. The Louis Murphy sure looked like a touchdown to me, but then Jacoby Jones had basically the same exact thing happen to him and it was ruled a touchdown. Just another instance of the refs being given free-reign to call whatever they want.
I can't think of specific cases but I also remember there being opposing rulings on this TD/no TD early in the season. I think it was back to back weeks. I've heard the generally acknowledged agreement that the player needs to come up with the catch to make the TD, but Jacoby didn't. Also I've heard some announcers talking about the play is dead once the ball passes the plane, so it should also be ruled dead and touchdown once AJ had the catch and two feet.
I'm still wondering about the Miles Austin catch in the Thanksgiving Day game. He caught the ball, was tackled but landed on top of the other guy, his ankle and shin touched the ground but his knee clearly did not, yet the refs overturned it and called him down. So now it's shin on ground, cowboy down?! Funny I always though it was the knee.
Jacoby's was a touchdown because he had control before he went into the end zone. Once he crossed the plane of the goal, it was a touchdown, and it didn't matter what happened when he landed in the end zone. Since Andre caught the ball in the end zone, he had control it, get both feet in, and hold onto the ball as he hit the ground. In essence, if you're in the end zone and catch a ball, the ground can cause a fumble. Similarly, if a player knocks it out of your hands on the way to the ground, it's also incomplete. The play that's in the clip above, you can see the ball move when he hits the ground, thus negating the catch. Corey Bradford (remember him), had a similar touchdown catch overturned in the back of the end zone back in the day. A catch in the end zone has a different criteria than a catch anywhere else in the field of play is my understanding. EDIT: looks like I had that last piece wrong: http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/09/15/sorry-raiders-fans-rule-book-backs-decision-to-overturn-louis/
yep, thats why it makes not sense. andre got 2 feet down and 2 steps with possession in bounds. Had he landed out of bounds it would have been a TD
Even the refs that was the ankle that touched the ground and not the knee, but it said that was down by contact.
I guess the question is "can out of bounds cause you to loose control of the ball like the end zone can". Because the end zone is treated differently than the rest of the field. If that play was made on the 10 yard line - its a catch.
