2008 Week 13 / 14 / 15

[Cerevant]

If he had possession and the ball broke the plane, it wouldn't have mattered if both feet got down.  As someones else said, that's why players can launch, with their entire body out of bounds but in the air, and extend one arm to make the ball cross the plane (inside or above the pylon).  I'm not sure what Cerevant meant, but if the player and the ball are both outside the pylon, the play stops at the 1 inch or 1 foot mark - where ever the ball was when it went out of bounds.

Ack...looks like the rules have changed a bit.  I clearly remember the launch rule being discussed after a Buckhalter touchdown, but up until 2007, some part of the player had to be in bounds.  After 2007, either the ball had to break the plane in bounds, or it had to be in possession of a player in the end zone (ie: pass to player falling out of bounds who got his feet down in bounds).  Still, the ball has to be beyond the goal line.

Note that this is from an analysis confirmed by Hochuli.

[The BIGSTUD]

of course its not a dumb rule...the goaline is not a yardline its the same thing as a sideline or an endline

You have this backward - the only reason the rule makes sense is because the goal line is a yard line and not a boundary.  Progress on the field is always measured by the position of the ball, while out of bounds is based on the position of the body.

negative chief...there is no zero yardline...it goes by the ball on yard markers so you know where to spot it for the next play...and there is no next play when youre over the goal line

when its a line whether end side or goal it goes by the body

stick to curling

The Canadian is correct. If it goes by the body, then why, when a player falls over the goal line but his feet are on the one, isn't it marked at the one? Boundries are sidelines and the back of the endzone. The goal line is a yard marker. The end zone is still in the field of play. The rule specifies that the ball must cross the plane of the goal line. It didn't, and the refs screwed it up.

Tom Jackson and Chris Berman explained it this morning. I give Baltimore and guys like Ray Lewis credit though. They didn't cry about it and blame the refs, saying that wasn't what cost the game. Although I disagree, and would have like to have seen if the Steelers would have gone for the tie or the win.

If the rule is the ball has to cross the goal line no matter what, then that is the rule and the call was incorrect. But that is a stupid rule. 2 feet down in the end zone means the body is in the end zone, and the ball is classified as part of the body when possessed. If you have control of the ball and your body is in the end zone, then the ball which is possessed by your hands should also be counted as being in the end zone.

Now, I'll reiterate that I know the rule is the ball has to cross the goal line. Thus making that all moot. But again my point stands that it is a stupid rule. The same applies to sticking the nose of the ball over the goal line. It makes much more sense to have last night's possession count as a TD than simply sticking a nose of a football over a goal line. At least a player got his god damn body into the end zone, regardless of the ball.

[shorebird]

It's not a stupid rule, everywere on field the line of scrimmage is marked by the position of the ball, why should it be different in or close to the end zone?

[The BIGSTUD]

Not true. If you catch the ball going forward and are knocked backwards then the ball is spotted where you caught it with forward progress.

In other words if that play yesterday was not on the goal line and it was just for a first down, then by rule that would have been a first down, because that is where your feet are. It is only in the end zone where that applies.

[Cerevant]

Not true. If you catch the ball going forward and are knocked backwards then the ball is spotted where you caught it with forward progress.

In other words if that play yesterday was not on the goal line and it was just for a first down, then by rule that would have been a first down, because that is where your feet are. It is only in the end zone where that applies.

No, moron.  It is the forward progress of the ball.  Field position is always determined by the position of the ball.

[shorebird]

Not true. If you catch the ball going forward and are knocked backwards then the ball is spotted where you caught it with forward progress.

In other words if that play yesterday was not on the goal line and it was just for a first down, then by rule that would have been a first down, because that is where your feet are. It is only in the end zone where that applies.

What, the "only in the endzone rule?" Never heard of that one before.

Stop making shtein up, you are wrong, admit it.

As I am prone to do now. After last night, seeing that play form more angles, and seeing the tape stopped right at the point of the catch, and then a line drawn by the espn video crew from the goal line to the position of the ball, I have to say that it looks like the very point of the ball was just at the goal line. How the hell the ref saw that reviewing it on the sideline though, I don't know.

There was also two replays from overhead, and on one of them that had a pretty good angle directly overhead, it again looked like the ball just barely got to the goaline.

[Cerevant]

I think they got the call right for the wrong reason.  I think the ref called it as if the ball were out of bounds (possession in the end zone) but missed the need for the ball to be past the goal line. 

[rjs246]

Let's talk about this call some more. Seriously, the insight that you're all providing is magical for my rage problems.

[shorebird]

Let's talk about your rage problem over us disscussing the play of the week, that has been replayed and talked about for the last two days in the national media.

My advice, self medication. Doctors hardly ever give you good enough shtein. And if they do, you still must add alcohol to the mix.

[rjs246]

But really what matters in this situation? Were his feet in? Did the ball break the plain? Did the ref explain the call well enough? I NEED ANSWERS.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

If Holmes didn't come from the slow Big Ten, he would have made this call a non-issue.

[Wingspan]

I am sensing sarcasm.

[Diomedes]

ha

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

he hi ho hum

[shorebird]

Are the Colts back? They have been sneaking up on Tennesse with a 7 game win streak for a 10-4 rcord after starting 3-4 with Manning missing the entire pre-season. A win tonght vs the Steelers would put them in the playoffs.