If that pass had been in the field of play, and say the receiver was instead lunging for a first down when the ball came loose, is that a fumble? Forget about the rule, just "common sense"? This brings up back to the old "football move" controversy which the new rule seeks to eliminate. But when you are out of bounds, or in the end zone, a "football move" is irrelevant anyhow. That's why I think a) keep the rule as is for in-bounds plays, and b) make possession the only criteria for out of bounds and end zone plays.
By both rules, it would have been hard to call this play a catch in the field of play. Clearly the player didn't survive the ground by the current rule. Hitting on one knee and lunging forward is acrobatic, but likely not considered a football move. Only by the new rule is this not a touchdown. My sense is that, under the old rule, since a fumble in the end zone is irrelevant, so would then be any consideration of a football move, hence only possession while crossing the plane of the goal line would matter, which the receiver had.
In sum, simply by common sense, that pass play should be incomplete in the field of play, but complete in all other cases. As the rule is to eliminate acrobatic "catches" turning into fumbles, this is actually a consistent application of it. I rest my case. :)
- Jeff |
