Can somebody help explain something?

Apologies if this is straight forward, but can someone explain why the Gresham's 4th Qtr TD for the Bengals was overturned?

He had control of the ball when it broke the plane of the goal line and both feet down in bounds before stepping out, going to ground and losing control of the ball. Surely the play finishes once he's out of bounds in the end zone?

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2011112004/2011/REG11/bengals@ravens#menu=highlights&tab=recap

(Not sure how to paste the link to the specific highlight, but if you click this link, this play is at the bottom of the highlights list on the right side)

It is an inconsistency in the sport in that a runner only has to break the plain but a receiver has to control the ball, take 2 steps and maintain control all the way through his fall to the ground.
Gresham did everything right until he used the ball to break his fall and it was at this point there became some separation between hand and ball, albeit minimal.
He should have tucked the ball inside and allowed himself to fall on the floor and (assuming he maintained possession) he would have had the TD.

I think the rule should only apply to catches made in the end zone, catches made short of teh line should be classed as if the receiver was a runner IMO

Ok there's probably people on here who could explain it far better than me but I will give it a go.

During the video they say its like the Calvin Johnson rule, I don't know if you saw this but last season this was one of the biggest calls of the year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2ohfX_AzI

They now reckon that the receiver has to have complete control of the ball from when he catches it until the play is blown dead. Its a lot more obvious in the Calvin video, but with Gresham it is only in the last shot that it appears he lost control.

Watch the video again but focus on the last shot from behind the players, its hard to spot but the ball does come very slightly loose.

About 1.30 onwards is the view that shows it

Grizzly wrote:It is an inconsistency in the sport in that a runner only has to break the plain but a receiver has to control the ball, take 2 steps and maintain control all the way through his fall to the ground.
Gresham did everything right until he used the ball to break his fall and it was at this point there became some separation between hand and ball, albeit minimal.
He should have tucked the ball inside and allowed himself to fall on the floor and (assuming he maintained possession) he would have had the TD.

I think the rule should only apply to catches made in the end zone, catches made short of teh line should be classed as if the receiver was a runner IMO

Thanks Grizzly - this is what was confusing me. After watching that, later last night, I think it was in the Falcons game, Turner was tackled just short of the line but managed to reach forward and break the plain with the ball before it got knocked loose, but the touchdown was still awarded.

There i was, thinking i'd got to grips with all the subtle little rules!

Thanks bambam.

I remember the Calvin Johnson catch last year, but thought that the fact Gresham didn't fumble the ball until he had stepped out of bounds would have made a difference.

Does this mean if a WR catches a ball in bounds, steps out of bounds and then fumbles its counted as an incompletion, or is he out of bounds?

dancingweeman wrote:Thanks bambam.

Does this mean if a WR catches a ball in bounds, steps out of bounds and then fumbles its counted as an incompletion, or is he out of bounds?

Correct, an incompletion.
As I said, the rules are different for receivers than they are for runners.
All seems a little unfair when you get the Packers punter fake a punt, run with it but fumbles the thing twice and they end up with a first down !
I understand the logic of the rules and I guess the game has become a pass first sport now as it is, amending the rules to favour the attacking team could mean the likes of Aaron Rodgers never miss a pass....

The difference between a runner lunging over the goal line and a player attempting a catch in the endzone is distinct.

A player has control of the ball once he has it in his hands and makes what is termed as a football move i.e. gets the ball in his hands and begins running. When a running back takes a hand off, makes his run, and reaches out to cross the plane of the endzone, once the goal line is broken, it doesn't matter what happens after that. Same would apply to a wide receiver has caught the ball in the field of play, established control, and begins running. If he lunges towards the goal line and the ball breaks the plane, it's a TD, even if he loses it after the fact.

When a receiver is going to the ground while attempting to make a catch, the rule is the player must establish control of the ball all the way through the act of the catch, including when he hits the ground. Now, some will say, the ground can't cause a fumble, and that's true (unless they've recently changed it ) when a player has control of the ball, but a player making a catch while going to the ground hasn't actually established control yet, because by rule, he has to complete the catch, which includes keeping control when he hits the ground. So, if he catches it, slides along the ground, and then it pops out when he rolls over -- no catch. Or if he is trying to catch it as he's falling out of bounds, and he manages to tap his 2 feet in, but the ball is moving in his grasp, it's not a catch because he still hasn't established control when he went out of bounds.

The rule is open to interpretation, and can result in some annoying rulings where most people would say "Hey, that's a catch."

Agree with Mangler, but the ground causing a fumble argument is a non-factor - if he's established possession by the time he hits the ground (i.e. its his 3rd step after a solid catch) then its not a fumble, and if he hasn't established possession, then its an incomplete pass.

The issue here is whether he established possession before hitting the floor, and I can see the logic of the refs decision but I disagree with it after watching the film. He made the catch, had 2 feet in bounds and had control of the ball. He then made a football move towards the goal line, though it was essentially an extension of his momentum and not a change of direction etc. The ref decided it wasn't a separate move, so ruled as he did and there was nothing in the replay to categorically overrule that so it stuck. IMHO if it had been ruled an INC and then reviewed under challenge, I wouldn't be surprised if that was then overturned and it ruled a TD. Funny old game.