Didn't D Jax have a TD right before half? (1 Viewer)

[MKB4®]

Putting the pylon issue to rest

I've spoken with the league office about the Darrell Jackson play involving the end-zone pylon. My instincts were correct in that the play was officiated correctly on the field. To review, Jackson caught a pass and touched his left foot down in the field of play. His right leg grazed the pylon before his right foot landed out of bounds. The ruling was incomplete pass. This was correct. There was some confusion because rules state that the pylon is not out of bounds. But while touching the pylon does not make a player out of bounds, neither does it substitute for getting both feet down in the field of play.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/webx?14@59...iscloc=.ee93ee2

 

[The Jerk]

Putting the pylon issue to rest

Good luck with that! No amount of logic and rule explanation has helped the first two dozen or more times it has been tried.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

look kids.. Big Ben.. Goal Line Parliment...... Big Ben... Goal Line Parliment......

Fixed.

 

[Brewtown]

I understand that as the current rule exists that it is not a catch. Understood. NO MORE ARGUMENT THERE!

I do not agree with the rule as I do not like the idea of the pylon being able to affect whether or not a WR gets his foot down or not. The pylon could help guide a WR's foot out of bounds (see older post from Brewtown). I think there is a legitimate beef here (at least there is some logic). I feel the pylon should be inbounds and count as possession or the pylon should NOT be there. That how I feel.

 

[Cookiemonster]

 

[The Jerk]

That how I feel.

FeelingsNothing more than feelings

(Just playing with you)

 

[Godsbrother]

According to Chris Carter the fault was Darrel Jackson for catching the ball over the wrong shoulder.

 

[brettdj]

The original rule, before the change Clayton writes about, was like the current high school rule. The pylon is out of bounds, if you touch it at any time you are out of bounds.

The change made it so if the WR touches it with his foot, but never steps out of bounds, then he is still inbounds and allowed to be the first player to touch a pass or loose ball.

It did not make the pylon in bounds.

 

[Refbuz]

I do not agree with the rule as I do not like the idea of the pylon being able to affect whether or not a WR gets his foot down or not. The pylon could help guide a WR's foot out of bounds (see older post from Brewtown). I think there is a legitimate beef here (at least there is some logic). I feel the pylon should be inbounds and count as possession or the pylon should NOT be there. That how I feel.

Have you ever seen a pylon up close??? It is made of foam, weighs MAYBE a pound or two and is weighed at the bottom. If that FOAM pylon hinders a professional player's ability to get thier 2nd foot inbounds they have bigger issues...

 

[jeff_eaglz]

I really don't want to prolong the agony of this thread, but since the audience of this train wreck is still here....

Separate question.

If a player hops on one foot a few times, he still isn't declared in bounds until the other one comes down?

Extreme example I know, but it could happen (off balance, injury, whatever).

Just asking if the two feet is defined as two "different" feet.....

 

[Refbuz]

I really don't want to prolong the agony of this thread, but since the audience of this train wreck is still here....

Separate question.

If a player hops on one foot a few times, he still isn't declared in bounds until the other one comes down?

Extreme example I know, but it could happen (off balance, injury, whatever).

Just asking if the two feet is defined as two "different" feet.....

I am sure that dummer "conversations" have gone on longer...Your probably right in that your scenario is a little extreme, but sometimes crazy stuff does happen, so it is not out of the realm of possibility. I don't think that the NFL rules specifiy 2 different feet.

I think that if the scenario is not already covered in any of their case books it, would be an on the fly interpretation of the rule. The resulting ruling would then become the Accepted Ruling (AR) much like 1 knee = 2 feet is a common AR when establishing possession near the sidelines.

Personally, I think that it would be ruled a catch by the covering official... I know that's what I would have if the same foot came down 2x in bounds like you suggest.

regardless of whether the resulting call was right or wrong, the only thing that is a fact is that that people will complain about the call either way...

 

[Dreamer]

I really don't want to prolong the agony of this thread, but since the audience of this train wreck is still here....

I am sure that dummer "conversations" have gone on longer...