My name is Cheesy Beef Burrito
This comes from article three of the NFL rulebook:
"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."
Take special note of the line I bolded in black.
Now what is it in the rules that led you to believe that there are different rules for the field of play and the end zone? I think the fact that this line is in the rulebook clearly supports my claim that there is no differentiating between the two
". . . acquiring J. Blanton from Oakland for, apparently, Bailey/Cueto, Votto and a lesser prospect. I do it in a second . . . The Reds' equation this year is simple: Make Matt Belisle your #3 starter . . . trade for Blanton, win 85 or more, be in the mix all summer." - Paul Daugherty, Feb. 8, 2008
I think there's a chance it would be ruled a catch out on the field due to the second-act thing mentioned earlier. The receiver did not drop the ball when he hit the ground. The defender knocked it out, but only after the receiver was already on the ground stretching the ball forward. If that happens on the 5-yard line instead, does that make it an incomplete pass, a fumble or down by contact? Danged if I know for sure.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible
Your problem is that you want to keep watching -- "See," you say, "the ball came free at the end there. No catch!" Once the ball breaks the plane, play over. It isn't that way on the 50 yard line or anywhere else on the field. On the goal line, the play is over before Moore loses the ball.
24 Years and Counting...
Sea Ray I get your point, but I think had that ball been caught on the 40 yard line it would have been ruled incomplete. I think the refs would have interpreted the rule different had it not happened at the goal line.
I don't get blaming Manning for this game. I thought he was just about as "on" as he's been throughout the playoffs. Some of the throws he made were incredible. He threw two passes to Dallas Clark on the run that were pinpoint passes. The TD pass he threw was a great pass. He should have had two TDs, but Wayne dropped the ball at the end. It may not have mattered because they still needed the onside kick. The pick-6 was a mis-communication between Wayne and Manning, but that's going to happen a couple times a game when you don't huddle and use hand signals for everything. You just have to hope those balls fall incomplete.
The Colts lost because the Saints were better, at least during that game (and maybe overall). Keeping Manning on the sideline for the second quarter is a huge reason the Saints won. And the decision for the Colts to run the ball up the middle three straight times at the end of the second quarter didn't make any sense, they haven't done that in those situations all season. The onside kick to start the second half was a great call by S. Peyton, and he out coached Caldwell the whole game, big time.
The Colts may have been able to over come all of that if Freeney had been able to play up to his normal ability. The Colts got no pressure on Brees and he's too good to give that much time.
"I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings."
"I can make all the stadiums rock."
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard