Source
r/nfl•
AK_Chrism

Forward Progress as it relates to the Chris Hogan TD Last Night

I was confused last night why Chris Hogan's catch was ruled a touchdown. There was a little bit of discussion about this in the Highlights Thread as well. I decided to look it up, and here is the most relevant section of the NFL Rulebook (Rule 7, Section 3, Article 3):

Note: When an airborne player of either team completes a catch or interception inbounds after an opponent has driven him backward, the ball is declared dead, and forward progress is awarded at the spot where initial contact by the opponent was made after the player established firm grip and control of the ball while in the air.

The more you know...

Posted Oct 6, 2017, 4:08 PM UTC

3849
yomjosekiEagles•

This isn't a forward progress play. The play is dead when the ball crosses the plane under his control, which is as soon as he had it.

Edit: nvm, Hogan was airborne while he was in the end zone and didn't land until he was out of the end zone but still in bounds so it technically is forward progress.

43
StringerBel-AirBears•

It's the same as a guy catching a pass in the air at the first down marker and getting hit in the air and falling behind the first down marker. He still gets the first down.

21
LutzExpertTeraPatriots•

A good comparison is Doug Martin's TD. He dove over the pile and extended the ball beyond the goal line for a TD. Similar to Hogan, his feet weren't in the endzone but the ball was so it was a TD.

5
KingKiddPatriots•

Runners are different.

I compare it more to a push-out. Did Hogan get a foot down in the end zone? Doesn't matter where you make a sideline catch, if you don't get your feet down it doesn't count.

8
rewindselectorPatriots•

True, but in this case he didn't need the 'endzone' for his foot. He just needed to be anywhere in-bounds since the LOS was determined by the catch, not where his feet come down... as long as they're in-bounds.

6
TBtgoatPatriots•

Sidelines are different than end zones though. Say you're running for the pylon, if you extend the ball over the plane it's a TD, even if you land out of bounds and never have a part of your body touch the grass in the end zone.

1
theplokTitans•

Think about what would happen if instead of being driven back onto the field he was driven out of bounds

1
OwlFarmer2000NFL•

The rule is different for being driven back while in bounds vs being pushed out.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
WaswereV2Eagles•

So let's say he drops it on his way to the ground, if the play is already dead it can't be ruled an incomplete pass then.

0
yomjosekiEagles•

OP didn't mention how Hogan didn't land until he was driven back out of the end zone. I had to watch the play again.

2
WaswereV2Eagles•

The play isn't dead as soon as you catch the ball in the end zone and your feet are down, you have to complete the catch.

See Shepard non-TD vs the Eagles

1
junkit33•

Correct, with a caveat. You could rule that he never had possession in the first place, so the catch would be incomplete and thus not a TD.

A RB can cleanly fumble the ball too once he crosses the plane and it's still a TD.

1
WaswereV2Eagles•

That's my point.

The play isn't dead until he completed the catch and lands inbounds. Then the forward progress puts the ball in the end zone

1
DazHawt•

I understood the ruling when it happened. The scenario that's similarly weird is that if a player catches it near the sidelines but is hit out of bounds, then the same principle doesn't apply.

8
BruinsHockey2Patriots•

It's even simpler when it's in the end zone, he secured the catch after the ball crossed the plane of the end zone. Enough said

5
A15Smith22•

I can see the confusion here. Clearly he has possession of the ball across the goal line.

However it's is not technically a catch until he gets both of his feet on the ground.

Had he caught it with full possession at the back of the end zone and got pushed out of bounds after he lands then it would be incomplete.

5
VirtalityGiants•

I mean one of those he's in bounds the other he is out of bounds lol

1
junkit33•

The goal line plane is special, it's not the same as being out of bounds. Once it is broken with possession, the play is dead. It doesn't matter that he landed on the wrong side.

The equivalent would be a running back breaking the plane and then fumbling before he hit the ground. He broke the plane first so the fumble doesn't matter.

3
floatdaflop24•

This is sort of true but sort of not. The play isn’t dead perse, because even with a player securing possession of a pass in the end zone, he could still be tackled and need to maintain possession of the ball through his fall to the ground. So nothing will change the spot of the ball, but it certainly is not dead because the player needs to “complete the catch” if they go to the ground.

Edit: also your comparison to a runner is not the same. An established runner the play is dead as soon as the plane is broken. With someone catching a ball as I mentioned previously they need to “complete the process” of catching the pass if they go to the ground or are immediately brought to the ground.

1
Street_Spirit_Raiders•

he caught the ball in the endzone...do you know what a touchdown is?

3†
alx69•

The play stops the moment a player has control of the ball with the ball crossing the plane. The rest of it is irrelevant

2†
peanutbuttersucksPatriots•

It is relevant. A catch is not completed while airborne until your feet land. If he dropped the ball on his way to the landing, it would be incomplete, even though he had control of it across the plane.

11
WaswereV2Eagles•

So players don't need to get two feet in bounds anymore? Good to know

2
spencer749Bills•

As long as he lands in the field of play then this is a touchdown. If the same thing had happened at the back of the endzone and he was pushed out of bounds, than obviously not a touchdown.

3
WaswereV2Eagles•

See Shepard non-TD vs the Eagles.

You have to complete the catch.

1
ActualBreckGiants•

There was an RG3 play a while back in his last year with the redskins, where he is diving for the pylon, but gets touched as he goes airborne. He bobbles the ball just a little bit, but gets control and holds it over for a TD. Or so everyone thought. It turns out, that because he bobbled the ball midair, he must re establish possession before having it be called a score, so even though he had full control, they called it a touchback because it was out of the end zone. So my question is, why on earth are you required to establish possession on a fucking run play to the end zone, but catching the ball mid air with no feet down is an instant score? Just because it didn't happen near the out of bounds?

0
ref44Packers•

the difference in these scenarios is that RG3 landed OOB. regaining control of a fumble is the same as as making a catch...need two feet in bounds and complete the process. Since hogan was contacted in the air, he gets forward progress as long as he completes the catch process. Since he did its a touchdown

3
Victory33Colts•

So what if he carried him in the air all the way to the back of the endzone and he landed out of bounds before touching the ground? No catch? Technically forward progress was never impeded.

2
AmonggPatriots•

Pretty sure if you carry someone out of bounds it counts as a catch.

6
channingmanChiefs•

Not for a few years now.

-2
Mooninites_UnitePatriots•

Push out is different than carrying.

It's a completed catch if the opponent literally carries you out, and you don't have to maintain control of the ball when they drop you.

5
channingmanChiefs•

Are you sure there's a difference? Afaik, unless you catch it first and then are lifted, I'm not aware of any part of the rule that allows you to complete a catch without touching the ground.

1
Mooninites_UnitePatriots•

It's a catch.

Item 6. Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass. It is not necessary for the player to maintain control of the ball when he lands out of bounds.

6
Victory33Colts•

Damn...that's weak...I wanted to see a grown man get carried around and tossed out the end zone to save a TD.

2
Mitch_from_BostonPatriots•

Crossed the plane with possession.

Same reason why Martin's TD was ruled a TD.

2
JamesH26•

So what about when a receiver catching the ball in the air and gets pushed out of bounds? I believe he's out and it's a good defensive play, but why doesn't he need feet down in the endzone?

1
alfreadadams•

because you don't need to put your feet in the end zone to score.

You need to put your feet (or something else) down "in bounds" to be in bounds, but if you are in bounds, and any part of the ball is in the end zone it is a TD.

1
ForgotAboutMikeRedskins•

after the player established firm grip and control of the ball while in the air.

How is "control of the ball" defined in this scenario? How long does the player have to control it?

0
crunchy_taco7•

As a Patriots fan I also thought it wasn't a TD initially. Figured his feet would have to touch before forward progress takes place.

0
AK_ChrismOPBroncos•

The reason I was confused here is that a receiver does not actually have Possession of the ball until he completes the catch, which includes coming down with two feet in bounds. Here are some other relevant rules:

Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7 - Player Possession

Rule 3, Section 2. Article 4 - Loose Ball

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 - Completed or Intercepted Pass

Based on these three rules as I understood them, I could not form a justification for awarding the touchdown. Finding the note about forward progress above was news to me and so I thought I would share.

-1
440kTexans•

One more relevant rule I would add:

Rule 11, Section 2 Article 1 - Touchdown Plays

The specific wording for one of the bullets:

[A touchdown is scored when] any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-4) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line

Note that this wording focuses on the ball, not the player or their feet. It would make sense then that they could award a score for a catch in which the peak moment occurred at a time when the ball was past the goal line.

6
Mitch_from_BostonPatriots•

The endzone is a different creature though. Had this been a catch on the sidelines, no catch. But for the endzone, you just need possession of the ball within the endzone. Hence why you can dive, have your whole body out of bounds, but have the tip of the football tap the pylon, and get a TD.

1
Pho2u•

Yeah this rule needs to be adapted towards receptions. It makes since for rushes, but not catches.

-3
Capt91Giants•

It's entirely up to the crew reffing the game.

The rules are too subjective.

-5