TD
Incomplete pass
TD, if I’m reading this right in that the receiver catches the ball with his feet inbounds, but then falls out of bounds.
On a reception the only thing that matters is where your feet (or butt, knee, elbow, head, etc) are when they touch the ground and you have possession of the ball.
Thanks! 
I’m gonna turn off the sound on the games. Stupid announcers. :rolleyes:
A catch has to be made “in bounds” or it’s not a catch. (The “_” marks are for the inevitable subjective judgement calls and the argument of feet and/or body part vs ball) If a receiver starts out in bounds, jumps and catches, but lands out of bounds (even by a millimeter), it’s not a catch. End Zone, Goal Line, 50 yd line, MAdden’s Giant Ass, whatever. I include the body part line for landing on one’s back, ass, shoulder, etc…
Where it gets even weirder is the “football move” discussion of how long does a ball need to be in a receiver’s possession for it to be a valid reception/interception.
Going to piggyback my own question: what’s the logic behind the rule that if you’re forced out of bounds, you can’t be the first to touch the ball? I get that you shouldn’t be able to avoid blockers by going out of bounds intentionally, and once forced out, you should try to get right back in bounds asap. But why is legal to push someone out of bounds and render them unable to field a kicked ball?
I think that only applies to members of the kicking team touching a kicked ball.
As to the logic … heh. Logic.
It your job not to be pushed out of bounds. As long as the defense isn’t doing something illegal it’s up to the offense not to get themselves in a position where they end up out-of-bounds.
Not sure of the full logic behind this but the idea is that football is a game of position and territory. It’s your job not to be pushed around and stay on the field of play. If the other team does so then you can’t take advantage of it.
Aren’t you allowed to touch the ball first if you get blocked out of bounds?
eta: I thought you could but looking at these rules http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/12_Rule9_Scrimmage_Kick.pdf
looks like I was wrong
You can also catch a kick off out of bounds past the goal line and run it back inbounds ahead of the goal line (or used to be able to, maybe the rules have changed).
On punt coverage, the kicking team can’t be first to touch the ball, whether or not they’ve stepped out of bounds earlier.
An eligible receiver forced out of bounds by a penalty on the defense is allowed to touch a pass first.
In the pros only.
The End Zone isn’t out of bounds. It’s part of the field of play.
But I expect you’d be okay with a new set of downs if they recovered a fumble on the play after the one on which they lost possession - yes?
For scenario #1:
It doesn’t matter if your pre-fumble action earned a first down or not. Once the ball changes possession, the next play will be 1st and 10 for someone. Imagine 4th & 25 and you desperately go for it. The QB drops back, scrambles around to buy time, a defensive linemen knocks the ball out of his hands…FUMBLE!
The defender scoops up the ball and starts rumbling toward the end zone, but a speedy 3rd down back catches him from behind and knocks it out of his hands…FUMBLE! That back manages to jump on the ball just as the now very pissed off defender crushes him into the dirt.
1st and 10, the same team stays on offense. All changes of possession automatically grant 1st and 10, so in this example it doesn’t matter that it was 4th & 25 and the offense went backwards another 30 yards.
For scenario #2:
The ball doesn’t technically have to cross the plane in all cases. If a player has possession of the ball, the ball must cross the plane. However, if a player is establishing possession – ie: he’s catching the ball – and the player lands in the end zone, it’s a touchdown regardless if the ball crosses the plane or not. Because catching a ball in the air and getting both feet down establishes possession where your feet went down. Since in this case (thinking of that San Fran clip linked upthread) his feet came down in the end zone, it’s a touchdown.
Sure they can, to down the punt (but not if the player went out of bounds beforehand). Why do you say they can’t?
They can, but it’s a penalty. The result is the ball at the point of contact.
Sure. That’s a whole other play. But I get it, and I was 99% sure I knew the answer before I asked, and I don’t disagree with the logic.
Thank you for the explanation. This is really the scenario that was bothering me the most.
Not that I don’t believe you, but do you happen to have a cite?
If we wait til regular season, an Odell Beckham Jr game clip will likely provide a nice visual of the scenario.
And I’m not even a Giants fan.
How? A team punts the ball and tries to pin the receiving team deep in their end of the field. The punt receiver lets the ball bounce, hoping it goes into the end zone for a touchback. The kicking team tries to down the ball deep in the field of play, so they touch it first to down it.
How is that a penalty on the kicking team?
That’s the official ruling on the field, it’s a violation for illegal touching of the ball by the kicking team. The receiving team can still advance the ball but they always have the option of taking the ball at the point where it was illegally touched by the kicking team.
It’s not really a penalty; it’s a “violation”. The receiving team has the option to take the ball either at the point of first touching, or the point where the ball became dead.
[
](http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2015-nfl-rulebook#rule-9.-scrimmage-kick)
OK, thanks for the clarification, guys. Didn’t realize, all these years, that’s what it was!