Ball ruled out of Bounds (1 Viewer)

[eefflrat]

If the referee throws a penalty and rules the ball was out of bounds why didn't the Eagles get the ball on the 40 yard line? i saw the flags come up, and this play was similar to the play where Leon Washington touched the ball while he was standing out bounds.

forget whether or not the player actually touched the ball, the ruling was out of bounds, it should have been placed at the 40. Am I wrong?

 

[Wooderson]

If the referee throws a penalty and rules the ball was out of bounds why didn't the Eagles get the ball on the 40 yard line? i saw the flags come up, and this play was similar to the play where Leon Washington touched the ball while he was standing out bounds. forget whether or not the player actually touched the ball, the ruling was out of bounds, it should have been placed at the 40. Am I wrong?

Once the Eagles player touches the ball the ball is ruled out at the spot it went out.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

That would be because it was ruled to have touched a membe rof the receiving team while that player was out of bounds.

 

[eefflrat]

If the referee throws a penalty and rules the ball was out of bounds why didn't the Eagles get the ball on the 40 yard line? i saw the flags come up, and this play was similar to the play where Leon Washington touched the ball while he was standing out bounds. forget whether or not the player actually touched the ball, the ruling was out of bounds, it should have been placed at the 40. Am I wrong?

Once the Eagles player touches the ball the ball is ruled out at the spot it went out.

are you sure? What is the penalty then? What was the result of Leon washington's play?

 

[Nugget]

Should have been at the 40.

 

[Futeki]

Should have been at the 40.

True only if Rackers had kicked it out of bounds. He didn't. The Eagles player touched it while HE was out of bounds. The the ball was out of bounds due to an Eagles player. The ball is where the Eagles player caused the play to be dead.Otherwise, a return man could receive the ball at the goalline, run it to the sidelines and knock it out of bounds. Ball at the 40!!! No.

 

[videoguy505]

Should have been at the 40.

True only if Rackers had kicked it out of bounds. He didn't. The Eagles player touched it while HE was out of bounds. The the ball was out of bounds due to an Eagles player. The ball is where the Eagles player caused the play to be dead.Otherwise, a return man could receive the ball at the goalline, run it to the sidelines and knock it out of bounds. Ball at the 40!!! No.

But if a player is standing with one foot out of bounds and touches a ball that is in bounds, it's spotted at the 40. At least that's how I remember the wording of the rule.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If the referee throws a penalty and rules the ball was out of bounds why didn't the Eagles get the ball on the 40 yard line? i saw the flags come up, and this play was similar to the play where Leon Washington touched the ball while he was standing out bounds. forget whether or not the player actually touched the ball, the ruling was out of bounds, it should have been placed at the 40. Am I wrong?

Once the Eagles player touches the ball the ball is ruled out at the spot it went out.

are you sure? What is the penalty then? What was the result of Leon washington's play?

ball was placed at the 40

 

[David Yudkin]

The ruling apparently was that the ball struck the player who was inbounds (off his finger tips) and then he touched it again (with his forearm) while standing out of bounds. Possession at the spot where he was out of bounds.

If they ruled it only hit him on the forearm while he was standing out of bounds it would have been ruled a kick out of bounds and possession at the 40.

 

[doubletrouble]

Should have been at the 40.

True only if Rackers had kicked it out of bounds. He didn't. The Eagles player touched it while HE was out of bounds. The the ball was out of bounds due to an Eagles player. The ball is where the Eagles player caused the play to be dead.Otherwise, a return man could receive the ball at the goalline, run it to the sidelines and knock it out of bounds. Ball at the 40!!! No.

But if a player is standing with one foot out of bounds and touches a ball that is in bounds, it's spotted at the 40. At least that's how I remember the wording of the rule.

you are correct

 

[videoguy505]

The ruling apparently was that the ball struck the player who was inbounds (off his finger tips) and then he touched it again (with his forearm) while standing out of bounds. Possession at the spot where he was out of bounds.If they ruled it only hit him on the forearm while he was standing out of bounds it would have been ruled a kick out of bounds and possession at the 40.

That makes sense to me.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

He said it hit the Philly player ON THE WAY DOWN, before the Philly defender stepped out of bounds.

What really happened was that the ball DIDN'T hit that defender on the way down, but rather hit the Philly defender AFTER the bounce, and while the defender was standing out of bounds.

It wasn't the rule that they had wrong, it was the fact that they said the ball hit the Philly defender on its way down initially, which it did not. They saw the play incorrectly, but they made the right ruling based on what they saw (even though what they saw was wrong).

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

If they had ruled the ball OB because it bounced and hit the Eagles player out of bounds why would that even be considered dead? Isn't that a live ball? Don't you have to recover it? It was a bad call all the way around. Just want some clarification on that...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If they had ruled the ball OB because it bounced and hit the Eagles player out of bounds why would that even be considered dead? Isn't that a live ball?

What? Of course it's a dead ball.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The ruling apparently was that the ball struck the player who was inbounds (off his finger tips) and then he touched it again (with his forearm) while standing out of bounds. Possession at the spot where he was out of bounds.If they ruled it only hit him on the forearm while he was standing out of bounds it would have been ruled a kick out of bounds and possession at the 40.

Thank you for at least one person in this thread getting it right. Geesh. I think that they actually got the call wrong though. He clearly didn't hit the ball initially but then did hit it when he was out of bounds. So it SHOULD have been the Eagles ball at the 40. But they were right in that once they ruled that it was out of bounds, the ball was dead.I do wonder if the EAGLES could have challenged that though. Seems that they could challenge what happened BEFORE it was ruled dead.