Didn't D Jax have a TD right before half? (2 Viewers)

[CrossEyed]

Right foot has to hit inbounds not the pylon.

Incorrect .... the rulebook states that if any part of the players body touches the pylon (with possesion of the ball) then the player is declared in the End Zone. This should have been declared a TD. One of 7 plays that the referee's missed that went against the Seahawks.

His right foot didn't land inbounds OR hit the pylon. So either way it was the correct call.

Edited to add: He doesn't have posession until he gets the second foot down on the field.

 

[Tau837]

It seems that consensus was reached here, but I didn't see anyone specifically separate the issue of catch vs. TD.  In order to be a TD catch, it first must be a catch, which is subject to the normal rules governing a catch.  If it was determined to be a catch, then and only then do you determine whether it was a TD, which could then involve the pylon.

Clearly, this instance failed the first test.  It wasn't a catch.  So we don't get to the next step, when the pylon could have relevance.

I'm really surprised this wasn't obvious to everyone.

What does his effort have to do with it toolbox?

 

[Brewtown]

You still have to get two feet on the ground inbounds for it to be a catch.  The pylon only comes into play when it's a situation where crossing the plane of the goal line comes into play.

It wasn't a TD and there is NO controversy over this.

Please read my above post again. This time read it twice and read it slowly.Open up your mind and try to think outside the box about this rule in general and the effect the pylon could have on a WR's foot. Doesn't the pylon have to be out of bounds?

Basically try to open up you're mind and envision the pylon as a holigram rather than a tangible orange foam thingy. That will provide you with all the answers you seek.

Jurb, I understand that. HOWEVER, the pylon IS NOT a hologram. It is an object that CAN have an impact. Therefore I feel that the pylon has to be in bounds. Think about it.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Right foot has to hit inbounds not the pylon.

Incorrect .... the rulebook states that if any part of the players body touches the pylon (with possesion of the ball) then the player is declared in the End Zone. This should have been declared a TD. One of 7 plays that the referee's missed that went against the Seahawks.

His right foot didn't land inbounds OR hit the pylon. So either way it was the correct call.

Edited to add: He doesn't have posession until he gets the second foot down on the field.

You need to rewatch the play in slow motion. He definitely hit the pylon. I'm not saying that that means it's a TD, but he definitely hit the pylon.

 

[Brewtown]

Right foot has to hit inbounds not the pylon.

Incorrect .... the rulebook states that if any part of the players body touches the pylon (with possesion of the ball) then the player is declared in the End Zone. This should have been declared a TD. One of 7 plays that the referee's missed that went against the Seahawks.

His right foot didn't land inbounds OR hit the pylon. So either way it was the correct call.

Edited to add: He doesn't have posession until he gets the second foot down on the field.

His right foot hit the pylon before landing out of bounds. Watch the replay!

 

[The Jerk]

Right foot has to hit inbounds not the pylon.

Incorrect .... the rulebook states that if any part of the players body touches the pylon (with possesion of the ball) then the player is declared in the End Zone. This should have been declared a TD. One of 7 plays that the referee's missed that went against the Seahawks.

Just for the Washington contingent, who may have missed this post in at least two previous incarnations, here you go.This catch was correctly ruled out of bounds. According to a 2002 rule change posting found at nfl.com:

A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line.

However, you still need two feet in bounds. The rule change means that touching the pylon does not automatically equal being ruled OUT of bounds. However, touching the pylon does not equal being IN bounds either. It simply comes down to whether the foot that touches the pylon touches in or out of bounds after touching the pylon.

So...

First foot down in bounds, second foot touches pylon then lands in bounds = CATCH

First foot down in bounds, second foot touches pylon then lands out of bounds = NO CATCH

NOTE: If you investigate further, you may find a John Clayton report in which he adds HIS interpretation of the rule. Here are the highlights of that exchange from earlier in this thread included here for your convenience:

Answers.Com describes this rules change much differently.

A player who touches a pylon remains in-bounds until any part of his body touches the ground out-of-bounds.

This only means that the act of touching the pylon does not make him out of bounds. But it doesn"t make him in-bounds either.Looks like Clayton may have gotten this wrong.

[edit: Wikipedia describes it the same way as Answers.com]

 

[Brewtown]

Hey Jerk. I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule. The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game. Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

 

[The Jerk]

Hey Jerk. I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule. The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game. Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

I'll call Paul Tagliabue tomorrow and see what I can do!

 

[jurb26]

Hey Jerk. I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule. The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game. Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

I think you're taking this a bit extreme. I mean doees it also bother you that palyers at times trip and fall do to the different texture of the painted areas of the field vs the regular turff/grass? Or that they NFL only sods between the hashes after some fields take a sver beating throughtout the long NFL and other sports seasons? Imean in a perfect world, yes we would have no problems to fix... then again does that really mean things are perfect.

 

[Brewtown]

:(

Hey Jerk.  I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule.  The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game.  Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

I think you're taking this a bit extreme. I mean doees it also bother you that palyers at times trip and fall do to the different texture of the painted areas of the field vs the regular turff/grass? Or that they NFL only sods between the hashes after some fields take a sver beating throughtout the long NFL and other sports seasons? Imean in a perfect world, yes we would have no problems to fix... then again does that really mean things are perfect.

Dude, were talking about a scoring play. Pylons are in all 4 corners of the end zones. I just always thought that the pylon was in bounds and part of the end zone.

If anyone sees Mike Pererra on NFL network talking about this catch or no catch with the pylon (this specific play). Please post what he says as I have Time Warner Cable and no NFL Network :( .

 

[CrossEyed]

:(

Hey Jerk. I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule. The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game. Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

I think you're taking this a bit extreme. I mean doees it also bother you that palyers at times trip and fall do to the different texture of the painted areas of the field vs the regular turff/grass? Or that they NFL only sods between the hashes after some fields take a sver beating throughtout the long NFL and other sports seasons? Imean in a perfect world, yes we would have no problems to fix... then again does that really mean things are perfect.

Dude, were talking about a scoring play. Pylons are in all 4 corners of the end zones. I just always thought that the pylon was in bounds and part of the end zone.

If anyone sees Mike Pererra on NFL network talking about this catch or no catch with the pylon (this specific play). Please post what he says as I have Time Warner Cable and no NFL Network :( .

If what you are suggesting were true, then a player could make a leaping catch in the corner of the endzone, clip the pylon with his toes and they would call it a TD. But yet if he made the same catch in the back of the endzone he wouldn't be able to get the TD because there is no pylon on which he can clip his toes.

 

[The Jerk]

CrossEyed,

I keep trying to explain that when the rule states that touching the pylon does not equal being out of bounds, that does not mean that the pylon is in bounds.

The simplest thing is to see the placement of the pylons. They are on the sideline where it intersects the goal line and the back of the end zone. In other words, there is white paint below them...

 

[Hamstring]

This is so clear now. Thanks for the 10 pages of conflicting explanations.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

Right foot has to hit inbounds not the pylon.

Incorrect .... the rulebook states that if any part of the players body touches the pylon (with possesion of the ball) then the player is declared in the End Zone. This should have been declared a TD. One of 7 plays that the referee's missed that went against the Seahawks.

His right foot didn't land inbounds OR hit the pylon. So either way it was the correct call.

Edited to add: He doesn't have posession until he gets the second foot down on the field.

His right foot hit the pylon before landing out of bounds. Watch the replay!

Not sure what replay you saw, but his LEFT foot hits the pylon (shin, then foot).Right foot remains outside of the pylon and ultimately out of bounds the entire time he has the ball.

 

[Hamstring]

Right foot has to hit inbounds not the pylon.

Incorrect .... the rulebook states that if any part of the players body touches the pylon (with possesion of the ball) then the player is declared in the End Zone. This should have been declared a TD. One of 7 plays that the referee's missed that went against the Seahawks.

His right foot didn't land inbounds OR hit the pylon. So either way it was the correct call.

Edited to add: He doesn't have posession until he gets the second foot down on the field.

His right foot hit the pylon before landing out of bounds. Watch the replay!

Not sure what replay you saw, but his LEFT foot hits the pylon (shin, then foot).Right foot remains outside of the pylon and ultimately out of bounds the entire time he has the ball.

The pylon goes down before the left foot/shin. Maybe it was his third arm that hit it.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

It's not a TD, plain and simple. The foot that hits the pylon is ruled in bounds. However, in this case, the foot that landed in bounds and the foot that hits the pylon are the same foot. If his OTHER foot had hit the plyon after establishing one foot in bounds, it would be a catch. In this instance, all he did, essentially, was get the same foot down in bounds twice, which does not complete a catch. You have to have possession with BOTH FEET down in bounds. His right foot was never in bounds, and as such, it's an incomplete pass. The refs got this exactly right.

 

[Dreamer]

From PFT

PFT

POSTED 11:30 a.m. EST, February 7, 2006

REFS GOT JACKSON CALL RIGHT

The saga continues regarding the question of whether Seahawks receiver Darrell Jackson's second-quarter touchdown that wasn't was the right call.

Several readers sent to us a link to a 2002 article from ESPN.com's John Clayton, in which the Professor proclaims, per a new rule, "a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds."

However, the official NFL.com story regarding the 2002 rules changes says nothing about the pylon being part of the field of play. Instead, the NFL.com version states merely that "[a] player no longer an be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line."

The pylons are positioned on the boundary lines at the front and back of the end zone, and are thus out of bounds. The old rule was that touching the pylon was akin to touching the white line on which the pylon is perched, making the player necessarily out of bounds. Under the 2002 revision, a player may now touch the pylon without being instantly regarded as out of bounds.

Here's the key -- touching the pylon doesn't mean that the player is in bounds, either.

If Jackson had gotten one foot in bounds, kicked the pylon with the other foot, and then gotten that other foot in bounds, it would have been a touchdown. Merely touching the pylon with one foot is not enough, contrary to Clayton's story, to make the reception count.

So after further review of our further review, we'll say that the call was a correct one.

Hey, at least we're committed to getting it right. Even if it takes a few tries.

 

[The Jerk]

From PFT

PFT

POSTED 11:30 a.m. EST, February 7, 2006

REFS GOT JACKSON CALL RIGHT

The saga continues regarding the question of whether Seahawks receiver Darrell Jackson's second-quarter touchdown that wasn't was the right call.

Several readers sent to us a link to a 2002 article from ESPN.com's John Clayton, in which the Professor proclaims, per a new rule, "a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds."

However, the official NFL.com story regarding the 2002 rules changes says nothing about the pylon being part of the field of play. Instead, the NFL.com version states merely that "[a] player no longer an be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line."

The pylons are positioned on the boundary lines at the front and back of the end zone, and are thus out of bounds. The old rule was that touching the pylon was akin to touching the white line on which the pylon is perched, making the player necessarily out of bounds. Under the 2002 revision, a player may now touch the pylon without being instantly regarded as out of bounds.

Here's the key -- touching the pylon doesn't mean that the player is in bounds, either.

If Jackson had gotten one foot in bounds, kicked the pylon with the other foot, and then gotten that other foot in bounds, it would have been a touchdown. Merely touching the pylon with one foot is not enough, contrary to Clayton's story, to make the reception count.

So after further review of our further review, we'll say that the call was a correct one.

Hey, at least we're committed to getting it right. Even if it takes a few tries.

And to think that I only posted that point five different times in the thread.

 

[Footballhead]

Pylon or no pylon, he needs to establish possesion of the ball and that is catch two feet inbound....that was not the case, CASE CLOSED! NEXT!!!!!

 

[Cavalry19D]

Response by Mike Sando of the Seattle News Tribune on the issue:

A number of people seem desperate to find out whether Darrell Jackson should have been ruled inbounds on the deep pass just before halftime of Super Bowl XL. Specifically, they want to know whether a player is inbounds if he gets one foot down in play and the second foot (or leg) strikes the pylon before landing out of bounds.I do own the "Official Rules of the NFL" book (2005 Game Action Edition). A couple of notations from the book:Rule 3, Section 2, Article 6 reads, "A player is inbounds when he first touches both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, to the ground within the boundary lines."Rule 3, Section 20, Article 1 reads, "A player or an Official is out of bounds when he touches: (a) a boundary line; or (b) anything other than a player, an official, or a pylon on or outside a boundary line."This implies that a player is not out of bounds when he touches a pylon. It does not say touching a pylon with your second foot serves as getting the second foot down inbounds.I have seen references to a 2002 provision purporting that "a player who touches a pylon remains in-bounds until any part of his body touches the ground out-of-bounds." What does this mean? In Jackson's case, it might mean that he wasn't out of bounds when his foot/leg hit the pylon. I am not a referee. Mike Pereira, NFL director of officiating, will presumably address officiating matters on NFL Network tomorrow. I would be surprised to learn that the pylon play should have been a touchdown.Rule 3, Section 20, Article 2 reads, "The ball is out of bounds when: (a) the runner is out of bounds; (b) while in player possession, it touches a boundary line or anything other than a player or an official or outside such line; or © a loose ball touches a boundary line or anything on or outside such line."This rule doesn't help much, but I'm sure this statement from NFL spokesman Greg Aiello will settle everything: "The game was properly officiated, including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials." That statement appeared in an AP story today.As a side note, let me say that we are not going to turn this blog into a forum for debating every call. The game is over. There were some controversial calls. At a certain point it becomes time to move on. We will do that.

 

[Workhorse]

Greg Aiello said today, "The key is that he had to get his second foot down in bounds. He did not get his second foot down in bounds, and therefore it is not a completion. John Clayton is wrong."

 

[tommyboy]

wow 3 pages if proof that alot of people don't know anything about football

 

[PsychoMan]

This is not getting any clearer to me.

i hear you ...

people are saying the pylon is not inbounds ... i don't get that either because if a player dives for the endzone and the ball touches the pylon from any angle, then flies out of bounds, the play is considered a touchdown.

 

[AB in DC]

This is not getting any clearer to me.

i hear you ...

people are saying the pylon is not inbounds ... i don't get that either because if a player dives for the endzone and the ball touches the pylon from any angle, then flies out of bounds, the play is considered a touchdown.

The point is that touching the pylon doesn't matter -- it's just there as a guide. Touching it doesn't make you inbounds and doesn't make you out of bounds. It just helps players see the corner of the end zone. It could be replaced by a flashlight without any difference. - You still need two feet inbounds for possession

- The ball needs to cross the plane before going out-of-bounds for it to be a TD.

 

[Irish]

It seems that this year's Superbowl was the first football game that some people watched.

 

[Steeler]

I don't understand what is still unclear about this. Hitting the pylon has no bearing on a pass play... ignore the fact that he hit the pylon because it is irrelevent. He didn't get the 2nd foot in bounds... that is pretty clear... so no TD.

 

[The Jerk]

This is not getting any clearer to me.

i hear you ...

people are saying the pylon is not inbounds ... i don't get that either because if a player dives for the endzone and the ball touches the pylon from any angle, then flies out of bounds, the play is considered a touchdown.

The scenario you describe involves either a rushing play or a passing play where possession (two feet inbounds) has already been established. In either of THESE cases, the touching the pylon is a TD. However, on a pass in which possession has not been established (one foot inbounds), touching the pylon means nothing.

 

[Hamstring]

wow 3 pages if proof that alot of people don't know anything about football

Except Steeler fans would be throwing rocks through the windows of referees if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[Irish]

wow 3 pages if proof that alot of people don't know anything about football

Except Steeler fans would be throwing rocks through the windows of referees if the shoe was on the other foot.

No just some football fans know the rules of the game and others don't.

 

[AcousticNut]

wow 3 pages if proof that alot of people don't know anything about football

Except Steeler fans would be throwing rocks through the windows of referees if the shoe was on the other foot.

Wrong, because Steelers fans understand the rules of the game.

 

[Tau837]

It seems that this year's Superbowl was the first football game that some people watched.

 

[Brewtown]

I don't think that the NFL should use pylons. Here's why.

I can see a situation that could be similar to the D-Jax situation. HERE IT IS---- Lets say a WR gets one foot down and attempts to get his second foot down in the end zone but his foot hits the pylon and the pylon ricochets back at him resulting in the pylon pushing his foot out of bounds. Doesn't the pylon have to be in bounds???? ANOTHER SCENARIO--- Lets say a WR gets the first foot down (just like D-Jax) and steps directly on the pylon. The Pylon then can bend and flex left or right (Left pushing or guiding the WR's foot in bounds, right pushing or guiding the foot out of bouds). Doesn't the pylon HAVE to be in or out of bounds? The NFL doesn't want the PYLON dictating a TD.

In the above scenarios lets now say that no pylon exists (there are no pylons). I think in this scenario the pylon no longer exists and now who cares because the pylon will not have a factor in dictating a TD.

Before you say the pylon is made of a soft rubber and it is light. Just remember that a WR that just got his left foot down and the majority of his weight is on his left foot. Now his right foot steps on the pylon, all of the WR's weight is on his left foot so the pylon will now have a hand in dictating whether his foot will go left or right. Doesn't the pylon have to be in or out of bounds? Am I making any sense?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

wow 3 pages if proof that alot of people don't know anything about football

Except Steeler fans would be throwing rocks through the windows of referees if the shoe was on the other foot.

Wrong, because Steelers fans understand the rules of the game.

Another classic!

 

[jurb26]

I don't think that the NFL should use pylons. Here's why.

I can see a situation that could be similar to the D-Jax situation. HERE IT IS---- Lets say a WR gets one foot down and attempts to get his second foot down in the end zone but his foot hits the pylon and the pylon ricochets back at him resulting in the pylon pushing his foot out of bounds. Doesn't the pylon have to be in bounds???? ANOTHER SCENARIO--- Lets say a WR gets the first foot down (just like D-Jax) and steps directly on the pylon. The Pylon then can bend and flex left or right (Left pushing or guiding the WR's foot in bounds, right pushing or guiding the foot out of bouds). Doesn't the pylon HAVE to be in or out of bounds? The NFL doesn't want the PYLON dictating a TD.

In the above scenarios lets now say that no pylon exists (there are no pylons). I think in this scenario the pylon no longer exists and now who cares because the pylon will not have a factor in dictating a TD.

Before you say the pylon is made of a soft rubber and it is light. Just remember that a WR that just got his left foot down and the majority of his weight is on his left foot. Now his right foot steps on the pylon, all of the WR's weight is on his left foot so the pylon will now have a hand in dictating whether his foot will go left or right. Doesn't the pylon have to be in or out of bounds? Am I making any sense?

Just want to make sure that you are aware that the pylons are not fastened to the ground in any way. They are literally just sitting there. The chances of them actually impeding the movement or a man (full grown adult NFL athlete to be exact) on top of the probability of the circumstances of what you are talking about are very, VERY slim. Slim enough as to where I'm sure the NFL is not all that worried about it. Again, in a perfect world sure the chances of such a thing would be zero. What better options do they really have though?

 

[Brewtown]

I don't think that the NFL should use pylons.  Here's why.

I can see a situation that could be similar to the D-Jax situation.  HERE IT IS----  Lets say a WR gets one foot down and attempts to get his second foot down in the end zone but his foot hits the pylon and the pylon ricochets back at him resulting in the pylon pushing his foot out of bounds.  Doesn't the pylon have to be in bounds????  ANOTHER SCENARIO---  Lets say a WR gets the first foot down (just like D-Jax) and steps directly on the pylon.  The Pylon then can bend and flex left or right (Left pushing or guiding the WR's foot in bounds, right pushing or guiding the foot out of bouds).  Doesn't the pylon HAVE to be in or out of bounds?  The NFL doesn't want the PYLON dictating a TD. 

In the above scenarios lets now say that no pylon exists (there are no pylons).  I think in this scenario the pylon no longer exists and now who cares because the pylon will not have a factor in dictating a TD.

Before you say the pylon is made of a soft rubber and it is light.  Just remember that a WR that just got his left foot down and the majority of his weight is on his left foot.  Now his right foot steps on the pylon, all of the WR's weight is on his left foot so the pylon will now have a hand in dictating whether his foot will go left or right.  Doesn't the pylon have to be in or out of bounds?  Am I making any sense?

Just want to make sure that you are aware that the pylons are not fastened to the ground in any way. They are literally just sitting there. The chances of them actually impeding the movement or a man (full grown adult NFL athlete to be exact) on top of the probability of the circumstances of what you are talking about are very, VERY slim. Slim enough as to where I'm sure the NFL is not all that worried about it. Again, in a perfect world sure the chances of such a thing would be zero. What better options do they really have though?

Make them a part of the field and in bounds!

 

[jurb26]

I don't think that the NFL should use pylons. Here's why.

I can see a situation that could be similar to the D-Jax situation. HERE IT IS---- Lets say a WR gets one foot down and attempts to get his second foot down in the end zone but his foot hits the pylon and the pylon ricochets back at him resulting in the pylon pushing his foot out of bounds. Doesn't the pylon have to be in bounds???? ANOTHER SCENARIO--- Lets say a WR gets the first foot down (just like D-Jax) and steps directly on the pylon. The Pylon then can bend and flex left or right (Left pushing or guiding the WR's foot in bounds, right pushing or guiding the foot out of bouds). Doesn't the pylon HAVE to be in or out of bounds? The NFL doesn't want the PYLON dictating a TD.

In the above scenarios lets now say that no pylon exists (there are no pylons). I think in this scenario the pylon no longer exists and now who cares because the pylon will not have a factor in dictating a TD.

Before you say the pylon is made of a soft rubber and it is light. Just remember that a WR that just got his left foot down and the majority of his weight is on his left foot. Now his right foot steps on the pylon, all of the WR's weight is on his left foot so the pylon will now have a hand in dictating whether his foot will go left or right. Doesn't the pylon have to be in or out of bounds? Am I making any sense?

Just want to make sure that you are aware that the pylons are not fastened to the ground in any way. They are literally just sitting there. The chances of them actually impeding the movement or a man (full grown adult NFL athlete to be exact) on top of the probability of the circumstances of what you are talking about are very, VERY slim. Slim enough as to where I'm sure the NFL is not all that worried about it. Again, in a perfect world sure the chances of such a thing would be zero. What better options do they really have though?

Make them a part of the field and in bounds!

Then you GREATLY increase the probability that they ARE in fact in the way of the players movements.

 

[Brewtown]

I don't think that the NFL should use pylons.  Here's why.

I can see a situation that could be similar to the D-Jax situation.  HERE IT IS----  Lets say a WR gets one foot down and attempts to get his second foot down in the end zone but his foot hits the pylon and the pylon ricochets back at him resulting in the pylon pushing his foot out of bounds.  Doesn't the pylon have to be in bounds????  ANOTHER SCENARIO---  Lets say a WR gets the first foot down (just like D-Jax) and steps directly on the pylon.  The Pylon then can bend and flex left or right (Left pushing or guiding the WR's foot in bounds, right pushing or guiding the foot out of bouds).  Doesn't the pylon HAVE to be in or out of bounds?  The NFL doesn't want the PYLON dictating a TD. 

In the above scenarios lets now say that no pylon exists (there are no pylons).  I think in this scenario the pylon no longer exists and now who cares because the pylon will not have a factor in dictating a TD.

Before you say the pylon is made of a soft rubber and it is light.  Just remember that a WR that just got his left foot down and the majority of his weight is on his left foot.  Now his right foot steps on the pylon, all of the WR's weight is on his left foot so the pylon will now have a hand in dictating whether his foot will go left or right.  Doesn't the pylon have to be in or out of bounds?  Am I making any sense?

Just want to make sure that you are aware that the pylons are not fastened to the ground in any way. They are literally just sitting there. The chances of them actually impeding the movement or a man (full grown adult NFL athlete to be exact) on top of the probability of the circumstances of what you are talking about are very, VERY slim. Slim enough as to where I'm sure the NFL is not all that worried about it. Again, in a perfect world sure the chances of such a thing would be zero. What better options do they really have though?

Make them a part of the field and in bounds!

Then you GREATLY increase the probability that they ARE in fact in the way of the players movements.

In my mind they make more sense in bounds than out.

 

[Odogs]

I can't believe this thread is still going on when it is so obvious he was out of bounds. I hope at least some of you are fishing because I find it hard to believe that this many people think this was a catch.

 

[Hammered Finz]

look kids.. Big Ben.. Parliment...... Big Ben... Parliment..

 

[Franknbeans]

:(

Hey Jerk.  I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule.  The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game.  Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

I think you're taking this a bit extreme. I mean doees it also bother you that palyers at times trip and fall do to the different texture of the painted areas of the field vs the regular turff/grass? Or that they NFL only sods between the hashes after some fields take a sver beating throughtout the long NFL and other sports seasons? Imean in a perfect world, yes we would have no problems to fix... then again does that really mean things are perfect.

Dude, were talking about a scoring play. Pylons are in all 4 corners of the end zones. I just always thought that the pylon was in bounds and part of the end zone.

If anyone sees Mike Pererra on NFL network talking about this catch or no catch with the pylon (this specific play). Please post what he says as I have Time Warner Cable and no NFL Network :( .

So what happens if the pass had gone to the back of the end zone and he came down with one foot in the end zone and the other nicked the pylon. Still a TD? No, because why? He didn't get both feet down in bounds to establish possession.

 

[Cookiemonster]

:(

Hey Jerk.  I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule.  The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game.  Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

I think you're taking this a bit extreme. I mean doees it also bother you that palyers at times trip and fall do to the different texture of the painted areas of the field vs the regular turff/grass? Or that they NFL only sods between the hashes after some fields take a sver beating throughtout the long NFL and other sports seasons? Imean in a perfect world, yes we would have no problems to fix... then again does that really mean things are perfect.

Dude, were talking about a scoring play. Pylons are in all 4 corners of the end zones. I just always thought that the pylon was in bounds and part of the end zone.

If anyone sees Mike Pererra on NFL network talking about this catch or no catch with the pylon (this specific play). Please post what he says as I have Time Warner Cable and no NFL Network :( .

So what happens if the pass had gone to the back of the end zone and he came down with one foot in the end zone and the other nicked the pylon. Still a TD? I think not.

My God, is this still going on? I started to ignore this post after the 1st couple of people ignored the fact that he didn't have both feet DOWN IN BOUNDS. Pylons are an INDICATOR, not part of the field. Touching it doesn't count as a completed catch. A player established in the field, that dives forward-touching the pylon w/ the ball gets a touchdown because the pylon INDICATES that the ball crossed the plane of the goal line-in bounds- before the player is out of bounds.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Sheeeesh!

The Dude never....I repeat NEVER.....got this right foot down in bounds.......NEVER!

His left foot hit the pylon.

As a previous poster said, you must have both feet in bounds, not the same foot (DJAX Left foot) twice.

 

[3C's]

Sheeeesh!

The Dude never....I repeat NEVER.....got this right foot down in bounds.......NEVER!

His left foot hit the pylon.

As a previous poster said, you must have both feet in bounds, not the same foot (DJAX Left foot) twice.

I agree with you. It was not a catch. But it was his right calf/shin that hit the pylon.Look at it this way. The pylon is not an extension of the ground. So by merely touching it you have not established 2 feet inbounds. Jackson only got 1 foot inbounds, his left foot. His right foot landed out of bounds.

 

[TheLaw]

:(

Hey Jerk.  I think the rule should be changed if thats the rule.  The pylon should not be able to have an impact on the game.  Remove the pylons and put in lazers or holograms and then I think the current rule as you see it is ok.

I think you're taking this a bit extreme. I mean doees it also bother you that palyers at times trip and fall do to the different texture of the painted areas of the field vs the regular turff/grass? Or that they NFL only sods between the hashes after some fields take a sver beating throughtout the long NFL and other sports seasons? Imean in a perfect world, yes we would have no problems to fix... then again does that really mean things are perfect.

Dude, were talking about a scoring play. Pylons are in all 4 corners of the end zones. I just always thought that the pylon was in bounds and part of the end zone.

If anyone sees Mike Pererra on NFL network talking about this catch or no catch with the pylon (this specific play). Please post what he says as I have Time Warner Cable and no NFL Network :( .

Pylons are not IN the corners of the endzones, rather they are out of bounds and outside the corners of the endzones. I dont see your point here.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Cris Carter said it best on Sirius the other day (and on Inside the NFL last night) - if Jackson would have caught the ball correctly - over his oustide shoulder - it would have been a TD, as the throw was perfect. Instead, he basically ran around the ball and tried to catch it with his body, which carried him out of bounds. I'll take CC's word on this - all he did was catch touchdowns.

Bottom line : it's not a TD, no matter how you spin the rules. Everyone looking at this plyon thing needs to let that go - plyon or no plyon, you still have to establish possession with two feet in bounds in order for it to be a TD. No one on Earth can watch the replay and say he did that, so it's not a TD. Time to let this one die, seriously.

 

[fatkid]

I hate to get involved in this thread, but I can't keep quiet.

The Pylon is used to determine if a player crosses the goal line and scores a goal. It has no bearing in the situation of in bounds versus out of bounds except in the context of if the player crosses the goal Line in bounds.

When making a catch, a wide reciever needs to get two feet down on the ground in bounds for the catch to count. The Pylon doesn't count as the ground in this case.

DJax second foot touched way out of bounds. He did cross the goal line, as evidenced by him hitting the pylon, but he had not yet completed the catch as he had not yet gotten his second foot in bounds.

 

[CrossEyed]

Guys, this horse is already decaying.

 

[Sheriff66]

 

[The Jerk]

A significant portion of the confusion is probably coming from the unfortunate John Clayton article concerning the rule change regarding the pylon in 2002

John Clayton article link

A player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. For example, a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds.

The first sentence is the rule change. The second sentence is an example almost certainly provided by John Clayton, NOT given to him by an official. It appears Clayton was wrong, but it is understandable why people who found that article on the Internet would quote it to make their point that the call was incorrect. Someone with a 2005 NFL rulebook could quote what is the precise rule and also provide any official examples. I do not have one.

 

[Refbuz]

In plain english: touching the pylon is IGNORED when determining POSSESSION.

What dictates posession on a passing play? 2 feet in bounds AND control of the ball.

Unfortunately, Jackson only had one of these things on that catch.