My football rules complaint

[nolemmings]

If breaking the plane of the end zone ends the play, what is the difference between the two plays?

A player must have possession when he breaks the plane. By rule, he does not have possession until he completes the catch. By contrast, a ball carrier, assuming he's not in the process of fumbling, has possession as he crosses the plane. That is the difference--possession.

[billyb]

Todd,
That is my argument. Along the side lines, a receiver catches a ball, his feet in bounds, but the ball was caught out of bound, on the opposite side of the side lines. But because his feet were in bounds, the ball is brought back into the field of play as considered in bounds catch.
The goal line, a player, his feet at the one yard line and he reaches across the goal line for a TD. The ball does not come back into the field of play, as the case of the receiver. Both lines, the plain was broken, but treated differently.

Bill


JIW,
I am from MI also, you must be talking about Johnson's catch/non catch, last year. What a crock. Even the announcers said that rule should be addressed. He had possession long enough in that case.

[nolemmings]

billyb,

My initial response was to jiw98. As for your initial post, I submit it is consistent to rule TD once the ball crosses the plane. When a runner is stretching for a first down, the ball is spotted not where his knees or other part landed, but where the ball was located in relation to the ground--no different than the TD play. If he needs to get to the 30, for example, and the stretched out ball is there before his knees land a yard short on the 29, the ball is still placed at a point on a plane at the 30. Are you suggesting that someone who clearly dives over the goal line and then gets knocked back, landing before the line must have the ball marked short? That's what I'm getting out of your initial post, where you say "Get a piece of that dirt behind the goal line." Why, when that's not how it is ruled elsewhere on the field?

[jiw98]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

A player must have possession when he breaks the plane. By rule, he does not have possession until he completes the catch. By contrast, a ball carrier, assuming he's not in the process of fumbling, has possession as he crosses the plane. That is the difference--possession.

I understand the possession part, what I am questioning is when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone with both feet in bounds (possession?) then falls out of bounds and the ball comes loose after he hits the turf. Its been called not completing the play or catch. If he is in the end zone shouldn't the play be over when the catch is made with two feet touching the turf?

billy, yes I am referring to the Calvin Johnson play against Chicago a couple of years ago.

[nolemmings]

Because I don't believe possession is complete until he lands on the ground with control of the ball, just as would be the case if he wasn't in the end zone.

[PowderedH2O]

I like the plane rule. We can't go until the runner is tackled. If that was the case, then if a runner walks into the end zone untouched and then gets hammered and fumbles, he didn't score a touchdown. Or, if a runner runs into the end zone and then lets go of the ball, he fumbled. I say once you score, the play is over, and that's it - whistle blown, play over.