But the receiver should be able to have full possession with one foot in bounds as he's catching the ball then, has full possession, and then allowed to step out. I still don't see your argument here speaking about the concept of full possession. Once you have full possession, you should be allowed to step out of bounds with the other foot, qb, receiver, running back whomever. Full possession is about that time when you have the ball, whether you have one foot or two feet actually on the ground, Once you have full possession, it shouldn't matter what happens with the other foot landing in bounds or out of bounds. You have full possession without a foot having been in contact with out of bounds, so you're in bounds. Think of it this way, you can be in bounds, in both leagues I guess, if you fall near the sidelines as a receiver with your bum in bounds, you catch the ball with full possession, and then both feet hit out of bounds, that's a catch in both leagues. You never had any feet in bounds with the ball as a receiver then. The rule should be either league when any part of your body is in bounds with no other part of the body in contact with out of bounds and you have full possession of the ball, on a catch whatever, then at that time you are in bounds and it's a fair play.
Yes, I agree with that, as I have stated above and many times in other threads over the years. However, the only inconsistency is that of the two-foot rule for receivers. The QB with 1 foot in bounds and no foot yet out of bounds is consistent with every other ruling of in/out of bounds except for the NFL's 2-foot catch rule.
In short, I see nothing wrong with this pass ruling as legal. For consistency sake the only thing that needs to change is the 2-foot catch rule, which ONLY exists in the NFL, no other league that I am aware of.
Again, I would say that the receiver being discussed has possession of the ball while the QB who threw the ball no longer has possession when he steps out of bounds and therefore I don’t think the comparison is valid. Apples to nectarines.
He had two feet in bounds and already established possession before he raised his leg to throw. That's different than not having possession and having to first establish possession.
Then why can a receiver that never had two feet in bounds with his bum near the sidelines catches the ball and then feet hit out of bounds, legal catch in either league. ? The receiver never had possession of the ball and gets a catch if he has full possession and then feet touch out of bounds, both feet actually can be touched out of bounds. The point is it's nothing to do with having two feet in bounds in the first place as you seem to suggest with possession, what matters is that when you receive the ball and part of your body, say the bum as I was saying, is completely in bounds and you have full possession that that is the time, right there, that the ball is legally in the hands of a back, that's where the ball is placed. That second in time. Has absolutely nothing to do with the receiver having possession earlier like a qb with two feet in bounds because he, the receiver, never did have the ball, have possession, until he caught it with him sitting down, bum in play, both feet say in the air out of bounds but never touched the ground out of bounds.
Here's something to think about, what about a long snap at an angle to a back near the sidelines, either league, is that regarded as a pass or what and feet/part of body in bounds? Ok, don't think we'll ever see that but you never know.
Like I said before, that is an indictment of the 2 foot catch rule. This is the only rule that is inconsistent with the other sideline boundary rules. Again, for the third time, the answer to your question is: the 2-foot catch rule for receivers is dumb. That's why.
If you want consistency across all the rules (which I would agree with you on), change the 2-foot catch to one single body touch like in every other league. DON'T change the rest of the (good) rules to be consistent with the one DUMB one.
Exactly and any discussion of this must, must include what is exactly defined as "full possession."
To my mind the CFL has a more consistent interpretation of "full possession" than the NFL does with respect to when/how someone has "full possession" of the ball and where that ball is placed on the field of play when someone has "full possession" of the ball.
Actually I can disagree with that, although yes I agree with you regarding 1 foot or 2 feet, but back around 2006ish the CFL changed the rules around what constituted a complete pass and now possession on a completed pass is more complicated than it needs to be.
For decades it was easy. You would establish possession by first controlling the ball and then the moment that you contacted the ground in any way, the pass was complete. Now you have to 'survive contact with the ground'. Well, we see many times confusion on this as someone catches a ball, clearly controls it in his hands, a toe drags (there that should be complete) but then falls on his butt and the ball pops out and often or usually (but not always) it's ruled incomplete. This is a bad rule because it's a judgment call, when the old rule worked perfectly as it used to be cut and dried.
It's a stupid and unnecessary change to a rule all because a bunch of folks got their jockstraps in a knot over one particular fumble that actually had been ruled correctly.
Going to have to disagree with you there. That is your statement regarding the two leagues and their definition of possession.
The CFL has what I like to call the “ass fumble recovery rule”. You are credited with “recovering” a fumble if it bounces off any part of your body, including your ass, out of bounds. No active football play is required. You don’t even have to know where the ball is or feel it hit you or actively do anything to “recover” it. Purely an arbitrary parlour game rule that defines possession.
That is a different discussion. As we know in both leagues, if the ball is bouncing around on the field after a fumble, last team that simply touches the ball with the player "in bounds" well that team gets possession of the ball, with no actual real possession of the ball, at all. I'm assuming in both leagues that if the ball is bouncing, you touch the ball with one foot off the ground and then the next foot goes out of bounds and touches the ground out of bounds, you get possession.
Bingo! You nailed it! Now it's a total clusterscrew. To me it has abssolutey nothing with one foot or two feet in bounds, it's about real possession of the ball if you haven't gone out of bounds, if you have possession of the ball with any part of your body in bounds, it should be irrelevant as to what happens after that. The play is a good play, or should be a good play, you have real possession and you're still in play on the field and have never gone out of play on the field. Once you have possession, on a pass or otherwise, the ball should be able to be placed at that point on the field regardless where your feet go after that.
It is a different discussion, but I was just responding to your statement that the CFL has a more consistent interpretation of full possession. In fact they do not.
I think they do. Prove me otherwise. In the CFL at least you can have full possession of the ball as a receiver with one foot in bounds which is consistent with how "full possession" is regarded in either league for the most part. CFL wins, easily on this one. No contest. But as I say, prove me otherwise... The NFL thingy with "both feet in bounds" is a gimmick, pure gimmick to try and prove that in the NFL there is more "skill" for a receiver to catch a ball compared with NCAA or CFL but what the NFL didn't think about with this is the inconsistency with what is "full possession" of the ball. The NFL screwed up with this one.
I just did by citing the ass fumble recovery rule. That is only consistent with a carnival game, not with any possession rules known to mankind.
In the NFL or CFL, a fumble you just touch the ball as it's going out of bounds as long as your feet are in bounds, it's your team's possession even though you never had possession. Am I right or am I wrong, you tell me. I'm all ears. Halftime with the 49'ers 'Boys game, it's a good defensive battle this one I'll say, no 40 pointer with either team is my bet. So boring in the NFL though with watching a punt on the ground and both teams staring at the damn ball on the ground and many players just walking off. NFL has to fix this stupidity. What is this sh....t? This is one aspect of the NFL game that totally turns me off. Shouldn't the team catching the punt actually have to catch the damn thing or do something with the damn thing?
In the NFL it is the last team with possession that retains the ball, not the last team to touch it, if it goes out of bounds without being recovered. More football, less tiddly winks. The manufactured “possession” in the CFL makes no sense and is inconsistent with any possession rules I am aware of.
Ball going out of bounds in the NFL with a fumble, last team that touches it gets it. Same in the CFL. Right? Please correct me if I'm wrong but if you don't know, just say so. I could be wrong on this and I do admit this.
Yes you are wrong. I tried to make that clear in my last reply. The NFL has the sensible rule on this one.
Can others verify what jon is saying that in the NFL vs the CFL that on a fumble that the last team that touches the ball in bounds that in the NFL that team gets it but it is retained by the team having the ball in the CFL? Honestly, I don't know. But I need verification. I was under the impression that it was the same in both leagues. Jon could be correct on this, don't know.
You don’t trust me?