Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Why is it that the ground "can't cause a fumble" and the play is dead when the player is down but when Andre Johnson caught the ball in the end zone, had full possession all the way down, came down in bounds but the ball squirts out as a result of him hitting the ground, it's an incompletion? This is friggin' stupid. I admit this had a massive effect on me FF-wise and it's likely killed my season but it's something that has bugged me for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Why is it that the ground "can't cause a fumble" and the play is dead when the player is down but when Andre Johnson caught the ball in the end zone, had full possession all the way down, came down in bounds but the ball squirts out as a result of him hitting the ground, it's an incompletion? This is friggin' stupid. I admit this had a massive effect on me FF-wise and it's likely killed my season but it's something that has bugged me for years. the ground can cause a fumble...IE: player catches the ball out in the flat runs for 5 yrds untouched and then trips over his own feet...hits the ground and fumbles...that is a fumble that the ground caused. now with regards to the AJ call....are you just venting or do you want me to cut and paste the reason from the rule book (no sarcasm being serious) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 the ground can cause a fumble...IE: player catches the ball out in the flat runs for 5 yrds untouched and then trips over his own feet...hits the ground and fumbles...that is a fumble that the ground caused. now with regards to the AJ call....are you just venting or do you want me to cut and paste the reason from the rule book (no sarcasm being serious) AJ was down by contact also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 AJ was down by contact also. didnt see the play but if he is contacted by a defender he has to maintain possession thru contact with the ground Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 didnt see the play but if he is contacted by a defender he has to maintain possession thru contact with the ground I know what he has to do. That's the point. A running back just has to have the ball break the plane then can drop the thing and it's a TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone. Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery. Edited November 29, 2009 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I know what he has to do. That's the point. A running back just has to have the ball break the plane then can drop the thing and it's a TD. has to do with the definition of possession Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M33ZY Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) This is just like the Louis Murphy touchdown that was reviewed and ruled an incompletion in Week 1 vs. San Diego. If the refs are going to call that one an incompletion, they need to be consistent and call it an incompletion every time as they did on Andre Johnson’s attempt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHldeWb83XE Edited November 29, 2009 by M33ZY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 Well, fine, I already knew the rule. It's still a crock of $hit because it's just horribly inconsistent. For a run once the runner is down, he can drop it and it's still possession. For a catch, it's not. Bollocks to this stupid f'n game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Why is it that the ground "can't cause a fumble" and the play is dead when the player is down but when Andre Johnson caught the ball in the end zone, had full possession all the way down, came down in bounds but the ball squirts out as a result of him hitting the ground, it's an incompletion? This is friggin' stupid.The ground didn't come into play really. The ball was dislodged/Johnson didn't maintain possession after he hit the ground, but I don't think the ground was what knocked it loose. He did take 2 or 3 steps on his way down, but apparently it wasn't enough of a "football move" to be considered a completion at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I think it is consistently ruled incomplete on those plays. If they aren't, and it's reviewed, most of the time they get it right. It's pretty simple. When you catch the ball and go to the ground, you have to maintain the catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 For a run once the runner is down, he can drop it and it's still possession. For a catch, it's not.The difference though is that the runner has possession of the ball when he goes to the ground, and a receiver who is catching the ball is trying to gain possession but does not have it yet officially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 I think it is consistently ruled incomplete on those plays. If they aren't, and it's reviewed, most of the time they get it right. It's pretty simple. When you catch the ball and go to the ground, you have to maintain the catch. Good grief, how many more times? I know the f'n rule. It's the fact that it's different for catching and running that is the irritant. On a running play, once any part of the runner touches the ground, it's over and possession is retained. On a catch, you have to retain possession throughout getting on the bus after the game. Again - I know the damn rule. It sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) Good grief, how many more times? I know the f'n rule. It's the fact that it's different for catching and running that is the irritant. On a running play, once any part of the runner touches the ground, it's over and possession is retained. On a catch, you have to retain possession throughout getting on the bus after the game. Again - I know the damn rule. It sucks. actually it seems like you don't...you don't have POSSESSION until you get up with the ball basically edit: just giving you a hard time is all Edited November 29, 2009 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 actually it seems like you don't...you don't have POSSESSION until you get up with the ball basically edit: just giving you a hard time is all I KNOW YOU DEAF B@@@@@@!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I always hated when they allowed a pass to be complete, even if the guy only had it for a second, but he had two feet down. Then he drops it, or gets hit and loses it. The offense has every rule in their favor. I don't mind this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 I always hated when they allowed a pass to be complete, even if the guy only had it for a second, but he had two feet down. Then he drops it, or gets hit and loses it. The offense has every rule in their favor. I don't mind this one. It should stop at bodily contact with the ground (player is down). Did he have possession when he was down? Yes. Catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Well, fine, I already knew the rule. It's still a crock of $hit because it's just horribly inconsistent. For a run once the runner is down, he can drop it and it's still possession. For a catch, it's not. Bollocks to this stupid f'n game. You'll never leave, just like any abused spouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 not watching the texan's game. i also started AJ...wishing i hadn't read this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 not watching the texan's game. i also started AJ...wishing i hadn't read this thread. I have Schaub as well. That decision was worth 14.35 points in a very close matchup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I have Schaub as well. That decision was worth 14.35 points in a very close matchup.I'm on the other side. My opponent is like you with both. Right now I'm leading By a little over 14.5 points so I think it was the right call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.