|
|
|
|
#1
12-14-2005, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
NFL Rule: "football move" for fumble
Partially inspired by this thread infinite goal line
As I understand it, in order for a receiver to have possession in the field of play, he has to not be bobbling the ball and make a "football move" in order to be considered to have possession. If these criteria aren't met and the ball falls to the ground, it can't be a completion, therefore there can be no fumble. My question is: Why isn't this applied to the end zone? Sure it's a TD as soon as the ball crosses the plane and an offensive player has possession. But in order to have possession, he's got to make a "football move," right? It seems to me that this "football move" stuff is all a bunch of hooey that Jerry Markbreit insists on "staying the course" with. As somebody mentioned in the other thread, I guess I'm looking for internally consistent rules and that's unlikely to happen. 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
12-14-2005, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not up on the rules, but from what you say it seems consistent to me. The 'football move' establishes possession of a received pass, and possession + ball breaking the plane = touchdown. If no football move is made, then there was no possession, right?
|
|
#3
12-14-2005, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, you often have the situation where just catching the ball = possession in the endzone, no football move necessary. Particularly falling out of bounds. Unless the act of falling is considered a football move, which I don't think it should be (and I can guarantee you that in the field of play, it's not).
|
|
#4
12-14-2005, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IANA referee, coach or anyone else who would have a reason to know football rules.
But I think Panama seems to have it. Possession + in end zone + ball across line = touchdown. You need a "football move" to establish possession, but you can do that before entering the end zone. For catching in the end zone, I think in this case, a "football move" includes the pretty much any act of firmly establishing possession, such as clamping your hands down on it in anticipation of hitting the ground. I believe the idea behind the rule is to essentially require that possession be conscious, so that, for instance, if an unconscious player lying on the ground has a pass land on their stomach and not roll off, it's not a catch. Or if in some bizarre bounce, a thrown ball gets caught in a player's pads for a full second while moves down the field unaware of it, it should not be a catch because, while he had control of the ball, he didn't make a "football move" with it.
|
|
#5
12-14-2005, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If it's a catch in the endzone as you fall out of bounds, it'll be a catch at the 43. You have to meet the requirments of two feet in bounds and control of the ball. You don't have to make any "football moves" before you fall down, but you will need to hold on to the ball when you hit the ground ( this is true in the endzone as much as anywhere else). The "football move" hooey that the NFL uses is really for those catch-get pummeled by a DB-drop the ball plays where it is difficult to determine if you have a catch-fumble or no catch. In the endzone it shouldn't be applied differently than anywhere else (but the NFL rulebook is not available online so I don't know what the exact definition of football move is)
|
|
#6
12-14-2005, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just to clear it up a little, I was only referring to catching the ball in the endzone. Catching and running in makes perfect sense.
I don't have a problem with the way it's applied in the endzone. I think that's the way it should be applied everywhere. You catch it, well, then you catch it. The football move hooey should be eliminated entirely. So it would lead to more fumbles, what's the big deal with that. Should open up the scoring which the NFL loves everywhere else.
|
|
#7
12-14-2005, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
