Rules Question?

[Schmoopy1000]

Watched the AJ Brown TD pass is what made me think of this. Yes I know he got two feet down & it is a legit TD.

But saw a quick high light & it made me think.

If a WR goes up catches & has hold of the ball, but when he comes down. Lands on the defender (not touching the ground) & then some part of him bounces out of bounds. Would it be a TD or INC?
He has possession in bounds (lands on defender in bounds) but never gets two feet down or other body part, before bouncing some part of his body out of bounds.

Then should it be incomplete? (which I would believe) Or would they look at it like when they stretch a ball over the endzone. Since when he landed on the defender they were all in the endzone.

 

[Rowdy]

Watched the AJ Brown TD pass is what made me think of this. Yes I know he got two feet down & it is a legit TD.

But saw a quick high light & it made me think.

If a WR goes up catches & has hold of the ball, but when he comes down. Lands on the defender (not touching the ground) & then some part of him bounces out of bounds. Would it be a TD or INC?
He has possession in bounds (lands on defender in bounds) but never gets two feet down or other body part, before bouncing some part of his body out of bounds.

Then should it be incomplete? (which I would believe) Or would they look at it like when they stretch a ball over the endzone. Since when he landed on the defender they were all in the endzone.

I think it’d be incomplete

 

[Schmoopy1000]

I think it’d be incomplete

Thats how I figure it as well, but makes me wonder if true. If they re discuss that rule when a WR goes up catches a TD in middle of the Endzone & a defender catches the receiver & carries him 5 yds to the back of the endzone for an Inc. LOL

 

[redskinsfan1963]

Watched the AJ Brown TD pass is what made me think of this. Yes I know he got two feet down & it is a legit TD.

But saw a quick high light & it made me think.

If a WR goes up catches & has hold of the ball, but when he comes down. Lands on the defender (not touching the ground) & then some part of him bounces out of bounds. Would it be a TD or INC?
He has possession in bounds (lands on defender in bounds) but never gets two feet down or other body part, before bouncing some part of his body out of bounds.

Then should it be incomplete? (which I would believe) Or would they look at it like when they stretch a ball over the endzone. Since when he landed on the defender they were all in the endzone.

probably comes down to the ref.

 

[Manster7588]

Either two feet, or any other body part not being hands or feet need to contact the ground inbounds to be complete. Think about it this way if a receiver is tackled making a catch at the 30, lands on the defender he is still live, but if his elbow hits the ground play is dead.

 

[Wazmankg]

Thats how I figure it as well, but makes me wonder if true. If they re discuss that rule when a WR goes up catches a TD in middle of the Endzone & a defender catches the receiver & carries him 5 yds to the back of the endzone for an Inc. LOL

Incomplete since they eliminated that force out exception a few years ago.

 

[fastforward]

He has to complete the process for it to be a catch. In the op's example the receiver does not complete the process.

 

[Southieinnc]

Watched the AJ Brown TD pass is what made me think of this. Yes I know he got two feet down & it is a legit TD.

But saw a quick high light & it made me think.

If a WR goes up catches & has hold of the ball, but when he comes down. Lands on the defender (not touching the ground) & then some part of him bounces out of bounds. Would it be a TD or INC?
He has possession in bounds (lands on defender in bounds) but never gets two feet down or other body part, before bouncing some part of his body out of bounds.

Then should it be incomplete? (which I would believe) Or would they look at it like when they stretch a ball over the endzone. Since when he landed on the defender they were all in the endzone.

As I understand it, Any part of a player that is inbounds, is in the field of play. If WR catches ball and steps on the defender before going out of bounds, that would be a catch. Both feet, both inbounds. If he subsequently goes to the ground, he must control the ball through the whole process.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

As I understand it, Any part of a player that is inbounds, is in the field of play. If WR catches ball and steps on the defender before going out of bounds, that would be a catch. Both feet, both inbounds. If he subsequently goes to the ground, he must control the ball through the whole process.

Interesting.
So if a WR catches the ball & lands back 1st on a defensive player who is on the ground but in bounds. Even if the Offensive player then bounces out of bounds off of the defensive player without touching the ground it would be considered a catch?

 

[Southieinnc]

Interesting.
So if a WR catches the ball & lands back 1st on a defensive player who is on the ground but in bounds. Even if the Offensive player then bounces out of bounds off of the defensive player without touching the ground it would be considered a catch?

Yes, as I understand it. Includes the ref too. The usual rules of both feet or one other body part still apply.
If a receiver catches a ball and lands entirely on another player, the bll remains live until a whistle. If he caught it inbounds, it is inbounds. If he caught ball while on another player and then touches the ground, he is down by contact.

The ref's would almost certainly f--- this up!

 

[PDay8810]

probably comes down to the weekly coin flip.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Yes, as I understand it. Includes the ref too. The usual rules of both feet or one other body part still apply.
If a receiver catches a ball and lands entirely on another player, the bll remains live until a whistle. If he caught it inbounds, it is inbounds. If he caught ball while on another player and then touches the ground, he is down by contact.

The ref's would almost certainly f--- this up!

guess this would eliminate my funny as hell to see "What if"
With push out allowed. I always wonder what would happen if a defender catch the receiver & just carried him out of bounds LOL
I guess with the way the rules are explained to me here. That would be a touchdown.
Dammit I was really looking forward to seeing that one day

 

[Southieinnc]

guess this would eliminate my funny as hell to see "What if"
With push out allowed. I always wonder what would happen if a defender catch the receiver & just carried him out of bounds LOL
I guess with the way the rules are explained to me here. That would be a touchdown.
Dammit I was really looking forward to seeing that one day

Refrigerator Perry sort of…..

 

[fastforward]

guess this would eliminate my funny as hell to see "What if"
With push out allowed. I always wonder what would happen if a defender catch the receiver & just carried him out of bounds LOL
I guess with the way the rules are explained to me here. That would be a touchdown.
Dammit I was really looking forward to seeing that one day

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/#article-3-completed-or-intercepted-pass

If a player would have caught, intercepted, or recovered a ball inbounds, but is carried out of bounds, player possession will be granted. (8-1-3-Note 5)

(5) If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass. It is not necessary for the player to maintain control of the ball when he lands out of bounds.

Failing that he has to complete the process.

 

[cowboycolors]

probably comes down to the weekly coin flip.

Is Dez catching the ball?

That tells you all you need to know




And yes it was a catch!