Another rules question (1 Viewer)

[poopdawg]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be.

Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

 

[thayman]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

 

[cascaa]

how could you not know this ...if a receiver is diving out of bounds and he has 2 feet in it ia a td every time

same thing

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

 

[gonzobill5]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Saw the play but the sound was off - i thought they were trying to say it crossed the plane. Not true? I never heard a two feet rule.

 

[blackjack23]

how could you not know this ...if a receiver is diving out of bounds and he has 2 feet in it ia a td every timesame thing

But out of bounds, in the end zone is still in the end zone. I must admit I didnt know this rule.

 

[thayman]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Saw the play but the sound was off - i thought they were trying to say it crossed the plane. Not true? I never heard a two feet rule.

You have never heard that a reciever needs to have two feet in bounds for the catch to count?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

The rule is that the ball must cross the goal line and be in possession of an offensive player. They ruled (wrongly, IMHO) that Holmes had the ball as it crossed the goal line. Yes, the ball did cross the line - for a very brief moment. That was not the same instant as his completing the reception as he fell forward. The ball was initially spotted at about the 6" line, which I believe was correct.

 

[thayman]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

To look at it another way, on a punt if you stood in the endzone and knocked the ball back onto the field would it be a Touchback?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

To look at it another way, on a punt if you stood in the endzone and knocked the ball back onto the field would it be a Touchback?

Again, not the same thing.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

The Ravens coach was saying the ball had to cross the plane regardless of where the body is located...

I thought the same...so did all 3 of the MNF pregame folks led by Chris Collingsworthless...

I'm sure it will all shake out this week.

I am surprised after all the close plays, they don't have some dedicated camera directly over the goalline at either end

If the camera is not directly above or even with the goalline, all views are left to interpretation...

What do I know.

 

[thayman]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

To look at it another way, on a punt if you stood in the endzone and knocked the ball back onto the field would it be a Touchback?

Again, not the same thing.

why not? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering why it wouldn't be the same general principle.

 

[gonzobill5]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

What if he threw it the other direction and like in pac man it came back the other side? I'm absolutely shocked this is the rule...its stupid. If the rule is it has to cross the plane, then why convolute it by making other pointless rules?

 

[gonzobill5]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

To look at it another way, on a punt if you stood in the endzone and knocked the ball back onto the field would it be a Touchback?

Again, not the same thing.

why not? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering why it wouldn't be the same general principle.

Because there is a rule that specifically says that the ball must cross the plane. why make another obscure rule to confuse people?

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Check out the post by SteelerMurf in the game thread about the NFL Rules.

I never knew that the ball did not have to cross the plane as long as the body and possession has been established in the endzone.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

What if he threw it the other direction and like in pac man it came back the other side? I'm absolutely shocked this is the rule...its stupid. If the rule is it has to cross the plane, then why convolute it by making other pointless rules?

The confusion here is that seeing many angles of the replay it shows that the ball never gets in the end zone - which Harbaugh also said.The truth is that it did very briefly and the refs blew the call.There's no rule about getting a body part in the end zone to get a TD. That's the exact "break the plane" rule we see every week where a player may get an elbow, leg or helmet over the line and not the ball, and it isn't a TD.

 

[bryhamm]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

The rule is that the ball must cross the goal line and be in possession of an offensive player. They ruled (wrongly, IMHO) that Holmes had the ball as it crossed the goal line. Yes, the ball did cross the line - for a very brief moment. That was not the same instant as his completing the reception as he fell forward. The ball was initially spotted at about the 6" line, which I believe was correct.

Someone posted something in the other that the ball does not have to cross the GL if a receiver catches the ball and has both feet in the end zone and establishes possession. THIS I did not know.So, if the other post is true (said is was from the NFL rulebook), then it is you not applying the correct rule.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Here it is...frankly I, like Donny Mac, did not know this rule.

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Check out the post by SteelerMurf in the game thread about the NFL Rules.I never knew that the ball did not have to cross the plane as long as the body and possession has been established in the endzone.

Wow, if that's correct (which I'm still not sure of) I stand corrected.That's insane if true.

 

[thayman]

Here it is...frankly I, like Donny Mac, did not know this rule.

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

That sums it up nicely....thanks.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Check out the post by SteelerMurf in the game thread about the NFL Rules.I never knew that the ball did not have to cross the plane as long as the body and possession has been established in the endzone.

Wow, if that's correct (which I'm still not sure of) I stand corrected.That's insane if true.

I like having official looking "quotes" around it and all, but nobody can come up with a link on a few Steeler sites I am on...It doesn't sound right though...What if I am in the back of the endzone and run and dive...catch the ball with my hands extended and the ball on the 3...but my feet are in the end zone...ball never gets closer than the 3yd line...is that a TD?? That's what the rule is saying...

 

[cascaa]

Here it is...frankly I, like Donny Mac, did not know this rule.

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

That sums it up nicely....thanks.

close this thread please well said

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Here it is...frankly I, like Donny Mac, did not know this rule.

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

That sums it up nicely....thanks.

close this thread please well said

But Duece said the Ravens were screwed???

 

[crowe1130]

That two feet down without crossing the plane rule sounds bogus. Were the announcers talking about it? I thought the whole argument was about whether or not the ball crossed the plane.

FWIW, I thought he DID cross the plane with possession - but I didn't think the replay was irrefutable or sufficient enough to overturn the field call.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

From my copy of the rulebook:

A Touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a

player inbounds, is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line (plane), provided it is

not a touchback (11-2).

I haven't found that rule that all in my version. It seems fake to me.

 

[Steeler43]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

What if he threw it the other direction and like in pac man it came back the other side? I'm absolutely shocked this is the rule...its stupid. If the rule is it has to cross the plane, then why convolute it by making other pointless rules?

The confusion here is that seeing many angles of the replay it shows that the ball never gets in the end zone - which Harbaugh also said.The truth is that it did very briefly and the refs blew the call.There's no rule about getting a body part in the end zone to get a TD. That's the exact "break the plane" rule we see every week where a player may get an elbow, leg or helmet over the line and not the ball, and it isn't a TD.

You're comparing apples to oranges. In most goal line scores, the ball carrier stretches the ball across the goal line while his feet are outside the endzone. In this case, the ball was outside but the posession was in the endzone. Opposite scenarios, but TD in both.

 

[poopdawg]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

Thanks Jeff. For the others, yes, , the endzone line (when out of bounds) is an imaginary line that extends forever. That has nothing to do with actually crossing the line itself.

 

[poopdawg]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Saw the play but the sound was off - i thought they were trying to say it crossed the plane. Not true? I never heard a two feet rule.

You have never heard that a reciever needs to have two feet in bounds for the catch to count?

Youre missing the point. Yes, of course you must have two feet in the ENDZONE. But the ball doesnt have to be there as well? That was my question.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

What if he threw it the other direction and like in pac man it came back the other side? I'm absolutely shocked this is the rule...its stupid. If the rule is it has to cross the plane, then why convolute it by making other pointless rules?

The confusion here is that seeing many angles of the replay it shows that the ball never gets in the end zone - which Harbaugh also said.The truth is that it did very briefly and the refs blew the call.There's no rule about getting a body part in the end zone to get a TD. That's the exact "break the plane" rule we see every week where a player may get an elbow, leg or helmet over the line and not the ball, and it isn't a TD.

You're comparing apples to oranges. In most goal line scores, the ball carrier stretches the ball across the goal line while his feet are outside the endzone. In this case, the ball was outside but the posession was in the endzone. Opposite scenarios, but TD in both.

From the NFL Rulebook:

A Touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of aplayer inbounds, is on, above, or behind the opponent's goal line (plane), provided it isnot a touchback (11-2).

The ball must cross the goal line. It doesn't matter where a player is as long as they are in bounds.

 

[Das Boot]

Interesting situation... looking forward to reading the official rule on it.

Here's another variation:

What if a passed ball crossed the plane, bounces off the receiver's chest, bounces back outside the goal line, but the receiver reaches out and snags it and is tackled but is unable to bring it back across the goal line again.

He caught it... he was in the endzone... the ball initially crossed the plane (but in flight, not in anyone's possession)...

 

[poopdawg]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

The rule is that the ball must cross the goal line and be in possession of an offensive player. They ruled (wrongly, IMHO) that Holmes had the ball as it crossed the goal line. Yes, the ball did cross the line - for a very brief moment. That was not the same instant as his completing the reception as he fell forward. The ball was initially spotted at about the 6" line, which I believe was correct.

That was my question in point here. I was arguing at the bar that I actually thought Holmes possesed the ball and had it over the front of the white line. The ref came on and said "the receiver had both feet in the endzone and possessed the ball, therefore, it is a TD". After taking a second look, the ball never appeared to cross the front of the end line.

 

[duece2626]

Here it is...frankly I, like Donny Mac, did not know this rule.

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

That sums it up nicely....thanks.

close this thread please well said

But Duece said the Ravens were screwed???

They were.

 

[poopdawg]

I was a bit baffled by the last TD by Holmes. Color me an idiot, but I had no idea that as long as you had two feet in the endzone that the ball could be outside the line and it still is a TD. At least that is what the refs made it out to be. Honestly, and dont lie, who else was not aware of this???

If it was the back or the side of the endzone and you had two feet in and the ball was out would it count?

Horribly bad argument, but nice try. If the ball gets caught at the back of the end zone, barring some amazing magic trick the ball crossed the goal line on the way there.

To look at it another way, on a punt if you stood in the endzone and knocked the ball back onto the field would it be a Touchback?

This is a horrible argument as well. If I was running the ball and crossed the plane, it would be a TD, but it would not be a touchback if I was trying to down it if it crosses the plane.

 

[poopdawg]

Here it is...frankly I, like Donny Mac, did not know this rule.

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

Perfect. Thank you. The various answers in this thread lead me to believe alot of people had no idea of this - even the people that are obviously lying.

 

[PhD]

Check out the post by SteelerMurf in the game thread about the NFL Rules.I never knew that the ball did not have to cross the plane as long as the body and possession has been established in the endzone.

Wow, if that's correct (which I'm still not sure of) I stand corrected.That's insane if true.

I like having official looking "quotes" around it and all, but nobody can come up with a link on a few Steeler sites I am on...It doesn't sound right though...What if I am in the back of the endzone and run and dive...catch the ball with my hands extended and the ball on the 3...but my feet are in the end zone...ball never gets closer than the 3yd line...is that a TD?? That's what the rule is saying...

If you are dragging your feet in the endzone and if your reach is nine feet (3 yards) from those endzone toes to your catch/possession hands, then yes - TD with posession in the endzone. Doesn't the same thing happen with first down markers? A player can reach the ball over the 1st down marker or he can tip toe his feet (but not the ball) at the sideline marker as he is falling out of bounds.

 

[Memphis Foundry]

I've been looking online and I can't find any reference to the "shall be awarded" rule, either. Rule 11.2.1.b of the 2006 NFL Rulebook appears to be the rule that covers this situation. However, it could mean one of two clearly different things:

Rule 11 Scoring

Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’

goal line (plane); or

(b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the

opponents’ goal line.

I still tend to think that the ball has to cross the plane of the goal line to be a TD. Did it? I don't know. It was awfully close either way. But if I'm the ref, I don't think I overturn the call on the field with the replays I saw.

However, if the rule above refers to the player and not the ball (which I don't think it does) then where the ball was does not matter. But Mike Pereira should tell us for sure what that rule means on Wednesday.

Reference: 2006 NFL Rulebook

 

[AB in DC]

Is a forward pass considered a "loose ball"?

 

[Memphis Foundry]

Is a forward pass considered a "loose ball"?

Yes.Article 3 A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any kick, pass, or fumble. A loose ball that has not yet struck the ground is In Flight. A loose ball (either during or after flight) is considered in possession of team (offense) whose player kicked, passed, or fumbled. It ends when a player secures possession or when down ends if that is before such possession. (For exception, see 9-1-17-Exc. 3).

 

[the Jag Zone]

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

as discussed on every NFL post game show imagineable after the game..anyone buying into the notion that the ball doesn't have to break the plane of the Goal Line for a TD may want to check again..

as the current NFL Rules stand.. not '06 not '07... the ball has to break the plane of the Goal Line..

I'm not anti stiller on this or pro raven...

the fact of the matter is the officials clearly blew it and did nothing short of screw up one helluva ball game..

to Pitts' credit they got the W..

they've been getting those breaks all season to this point..

and it appears it may simply be their year..

 

[bryhamm]

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

as discussed on every NFL post game show imagineable after the game..anyone buying into the notion that the ball doesn't have to break the plane of the Goal Line for a TD may want to check again..

as the current NFL Rules stand.. not '06 not '07... the ball has to break the plane of the Goal Line..

I'm not anti stiller on this or pro raven...

the fact of the matter is the officials clearly blew it and did nothing short of screw up one helluva ball game..

to Pitts' credit they got the W..

they've been getting those making their own breaks all season to this point..

and it appears it may simply be their year..

FYP

 

[King of the Wolfies]

FWIW, I thought he DID cross the plane with possession - but I didn't think the replay was irrefutable or sufficient enough to overturn the field call.

this is the way I saw it too.

 

[Lobary]

I still don't understand the rationale behind the rule that says the QB must have his entire body beyond the LoS in order for a penalty to be enforced for an illegal pass.

Why is it not the ball?

 

[rockalum]

Here it is...frankly I, like Donny Mac, did not know this rule.

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

interesting. i saw the rule interpreted the other way in a state high school championship game friday. i wonder if it is different in high school or was just interpreted incorrectly.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I didn't know that. I thought it was the ball that had to break the plane, like when the players stretch the ball out to the end zone even if they aren't in it themselves. I thought the ball had to be in the endzone, too. Oh, well. Entertaining game if you love defense.

To be honest, I think they would have scored anyway from the six-inch line (but we can't say for sure, of course). I think the odds of them not scoring would be about the same as the Ravens scoring from midfield with two timeouts and a little bit of time left. Baltimore had a chance, even at the end.

 

[videoguy505]

This is the NFL's fault for keeping the rulebook such a damned secret. It should be freely available online. I'm sick of waiting to hear the officiating commitee's spin. I want to know what the book says.

Anyway, I do think that part of the quote above is outdated, IIRC, this year they changed the "infinite extension" of the plane of the goal line, and revised it that the ball had to cross inside the pylon. That is, a player jumping diagonally out of bounds in the corner would have to have the ball cross inside the pylon... prior to this year, the ball could have crossed outside the pylon and still counted as long as the player didn't touch out of bounds prior--for as long as he was in mid-air and the ball crossed the infinite imaginary plane, the TD counted.

 

[the Jag Zone]

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

as discussed on every NFL post game show imagineable after the game..anyone buying into the notion that the ball doesn't have to break the plane of the Goal Line for a TD may want to check again..

as the current NFL Rules stand.. not '06 not '07... the ball has to break the plane of the Goal Line..

I'm not anti stiller on this or pro raven...

the fact of the matter is the officials clearly blew it and did nothing short of screw up one helluva ball game..

to Pitts' credit they got the W..

they've been getting those making their own breaks all season to this point..

and it appears it may simply be their year..

FYP

must be a Steeler university English student.. :(

 

[renesauz]

Check out the post by SteelerMurf in the game thread about the NFL Rules.

I never knew that the ball did not have to cross the plane as long as the body and possession has been established in the endzone.

Wow, if that's correct (which I'm still not sure of) I stand corrected.That's insane if true.

I like having official looking "quotes" around it and all, but nobody can come up with a link on a few Steeler sites I am on...It doesn't sound right though...

What if I am in the back of the endzone and run and dive...catch the ball with my hands extended and the ball on the 3...but my feet are in the end zone...ball never gets closer than the 3yd line...is that a TD??

That's what the rule is saying...

I don't know...but you are one TALL MF! watching live, I thought he had a TD. On replays, I still thought the ball reached the goal line as he was catching it...but it was so close I couldn't see how they could overturn it. That said....With a higher resolution and a closer view....maybe the ref did have a good enough look.

 

[Thunderlips]

The Desean Jackson play earlier on MNF was the correct application of the rule. Although Jackson was in the end zone....the ball did not get in while he had possession.

 

[poopdawg]

The Desean Jackson play earlier on MNF was the correct application of the rule. Although Jackson was in the end zone....the ball did not get in while he had possession.

His body may have crossed the plane, but I dont think both feet touched down in the endzone. I could be mistaken.

 

[David Yudkin]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 38

A Touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a

player inbounds, is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line (plane), provided it is

not a touchback (11-2).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.