Pass receiving: Should it be one foot or two feet inbounds to be good?

[Soccer-Six-Shooter]

OK, this is a semi controversy here. Pro has two feet inbounds to be good when catching a ball. College has only one. I dont know what the majority of high schools do. Anyone know?

One foot in would create a little more pass receptions and offense. In reference 1 or 2 feet in only matters on the sideline markers and TD boundaries where its close. The majority of passes are inside the markers with no tightrope catches. Personally I like two feet inbounds to be official at all levels. Make them work for those yards. No gimmes. I am probably against the tide on this one.

Thoughts?

You're on the rules committee. You make the call.

[Auriaprottu]

Two feet for everyone. I never saw any sense in changing the rules for college and high school unless a safety issue was at stake.

[Ian McCracken]

Two feet.

College should also change the rule where a player is down if their knee touches regardless of whether they were touched by an opponent or not.

While they're at it, they should get rid of the clock stoppage after every first down. It's not uncommon to see college games last 4 hours because of this.

[Ludahai]

Two feet should be required for the reception.

[BenC1357]

I think that the game should be uniform across all levels, whether it be one foot or two feet for a reception.
What I'm really more upset about when it comes to a reception is the interpretation of the rule. They have made it very complicated with the "...and must make a 'football action' after two feet are down..." I think that if you have two feet on the ground and the ball doesn't juggle around in your hands then its a catch.
I'm utterly confused as to how the ground can NOT cause a fumble, but it CAN cause an incomplete pass after a receiver is holding the ball with two feet/a knee down.

[hemariva]

Yeah, college has really dropped the ball on some rules. Two feet.

[ThreeApples]

Originally posted by BenC1357
I'm utterly confused as to how the ground can NOT cause a fumble, but it CAN cause an incomplete pass after a receiver is holding the ball with two feet/a knee down.

The ground most certainly can cause a fumble.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by BenC1357
I'm utterly confused as to how the ground can NOT cause a fumble, but it CAN cause an incomplete pass after a receiver is holding the ball with two feet/a knee down. It's simple, really.

The ground CAN cause a fumble - it just doesn't happen because more often than not, the player is down by contact and the play is dead as soon as he hits the ground. If the ground causes the fumble, then chances are, the play ended before the ball came out.

The ground can cause an incomplete pass because a catch isn't a catch until the receiver has demonstrated control of the ball. That's what you're talking about, right?

[BenC1357]

Originally posted by skipshady
It's simple, really.

The ground CAN cause a fumble - it just doesn't happen because more often than not, the player is down by contact and the play is dead as soon as he hits the ground. If the ground causes the fumble, then chances are, the play ended before the ball came out.

The ground can cause an incomplete pass because a catch isn't a catch until the receiver has demonstrated control of the ball. That's what you're talking about, right?

First, explain how the ground can cause a fumble. You're right that in most situations the knee or body hit the ground first. The only situation I can even think of is if a player took the ball in his hand and touched the ground with (say, trying to balance himself or whatever) it and the ball popped out of his hand. Otherwise, even if a player gets flipped over while running and his upper body or head hits the ground causing the ball to pop out it is not a fumble. Other than my one situation what others anyone think of? Maybe I'm confused or just overlooking something.
Second, concerning the catch. My perfect example was the Todd Heap touchdown this season. Heap caught the ball, held it securely (by securely I mean he had two hands on it and the ball never shifted on his way toward the ground), got two feet on the ground, was hit by a defender, went to the ground, landed on his side/back, ball popped out. After review it was called incomplete. While the NFL rule might state it should have been incomplete, I am saying I disagree with the rule. If a player has two feet down after he secures (again, see the above definition of secure) the ball with his hands, it should be a catch IMO.
For comparison, consider if Heap were a runner and was carrying the ball downfield. IMO being a runner is the same as having caught the ball with two feet on the ground. But had Heap been handed off the ball, been hit, landed on his side/back and the ball came out it would have been ruled down by contact. Why then is the rule not the same when a catch is involved?
I don't need an explaination of the NFL rule, I'm fully aware of it. I'm saying I just disagree with the rule because I don't think it makes sense.

[ThreeApples]

How the ground can cause a fumble:

A player is down when any part of his body other than his hands or feet touch the ground. If contact with the ground causes the ball to come loose before any such part of the body touches the ground, the ground has caused a genuine fumble. Other situations when the player hits the ground and then the ball pops out are not fumbles because the player is down by his knee or elbow or head or whatever touching the ground before the ball comes loose, not because the ground "can't cause a fumble."

(NFL only) Regardless of what parts of the body touch the ground, a player cannot be down unless he has been touched by an opponent. If a ball carrier is untouched by an opponent and falls to the ground, and the force of contact with the ground causes the ball to come loose, the ground has caused a fumble.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by BenC1357
For comparison, consider if Heap were a runner and was carrying the ball downfield. IMO being a runner is the same as having caught the ball with two feet on the ground. But had Heap been handed off the ball, been hit, landed on his side/back and the ball came out it would have been ruled down by contact. Why then is the rule not the same when a catch is involved?
I don't need an explaination of the NFL rule, I'm fully aware of it. I'm saying I just disagree with the rule because I don't think it makes sense. Well, whether you agree with the interpretation or not is obviously your prerogative, but it does make sense to me. You say you don't need an explanation, well, here's one anyway - from Rich Eisen's interview with NFL's Director of Offciating Mike Pereira (http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/6908349):

Eisen: Now let's talk about the Colts and the Titans game. Marvin Harrison, going across the middle in a tight game; it seemed like he made a catch, had a proper reception and then the ball was knocked loose. Titans thought they had a recovery but instead it's ruled incomplete. What happened here?


Pereira: Well, this is a rule that we talk about all the time and I think it's a great one to discuss. The parameters that we use in the philosophy for a completed catch is that you have to have the ball long enough to perform another football act. It's all in the process of completing the catch. So if we take a look at Marvin here, we're going to actually see Marvin come across the middle and he's going to get two feet down. But then as he's tucking it away you can see before that third step even gets down, you can see the ball coming loose. And again, it's the whole process for us. The rulebook clearly states if there is any question to whether or not a pass is complete or incomplete, we're going to go to side of incompletions, because we don't want cheap fumbles and many times we notice that the ball is moving anyway. I thought that this was a great demonstration. This was such a close call that it proves one thing; that we really are consistent on these plays. We will stay with the incomplete pass even though you can make a case that two feet were down. He didn't have it long enough to perform another football act, which we call pitching the ball, passing the ball, handing the ball, doing something like that.

Eisen: So he grabs the ball, two feet down, has possession and it's still not a catch?

Pereira: Absolutely. The rulebrook states two feet clearly down and that means with control. So if he's going to the ground and the ball comes out, even though there's two feet and an elbow, it's incomplete. You must demonstrate to us that you can maintain possession of the ball and perform a football act. And until you actually demonstrate on the football field that you can do that, anytime in that process the ball comes out, philosophically, and the rulebook states that, philosophically, we're going to lean to an incomplete pass and rule it that way on the field.

[BenC1357]

Originally posted by Noah Elliott
(NFL only) Regardless of what parts of the body touch the ground, a player cannot be down unless he has been touched by an opponent. If a ball carrier is untouched by an opponent and falls to the ground, and the force of contact with the ground causes the ball to come loose, the ground has caused a fumble.

Maybe I should have been more clear, I was implying that the player was touched and/or forced into the ground. Sure if the guy trips over his own feet and hits the ground causing the ball to come loose its a fumble. Sorry I wasnt more clear.

skipshady-
Yeah, I know the rule, just disagree. Thats all. I've seen too many plays called back that I felt were clean catches. What makes sense to you in this situation doesnt make sense to me. Eisen's question "So he grabs the ball, two feet down, has possession and it's still not a catch?" is where I get caught up. If all those things happen, IMO it should be a catch.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by BenC1357
skipshady-
Yeah, I know the rule, just disagree. Thats all. I've seen too many plays called back that I felt were clean catches. What makes sense to you in this situation doesnt make sense to me. Eisen's question "So he grabs the ball, two feet down, has possession and it's still not a catch?" is where I get caught up. If all those things happen, IMO it should be a catch. I get you. I guess it's a matter of which criteria you choose to emphasize, the "two feet down and control" or the "another football play".

[ProfZodiac]

I would say two feet down, primarily because it makes the long throws down the field a bit harder. I also think the rules should be consistent for the most part in college and the NFL, using college overtime.