Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Didn't D Jax have a TD right before half? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Brewtown
- Start date
tommyboy
Footballguy
his 2nd foot hitting the pylon doesn't mean anything because he hadn't established POSSESSION of the BALL with two feet inbounds. nicking the pylon does not establish possession. when his 2nd foot hit out of bounds, he was out of bounds, end of story.
If he had gotten his 2nd foot down inbounds then his 3rd step nicked the pylon and then stepped out of bounds, it would have been a TD.
If he had gotten his 2nd foot down inbounds then his 3rd step nicked the pylon and then stepped out of bounds, it would have been a TD.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Here is the rule they added in 2002. I don't know how it applies, but it sounds to me like it's another legitimate complaint.
"A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line. "
"A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line. "
The Jerk
Footballguy
I disagree with your explanation, but I agree it was 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
Last edited by a moderator:
The Jerk
Footballguy
Hey Brewtown,I'm not even 100% sure myself. I'm just applying what I saw at nfl.com to the play. It's always possible there's some obscure part of the rulebook that explicitly addresses this instance. I don't have access to that. And you never know what's in the fine print!
Last edited by a moderator:
Traders2001
Footballguy
It was not even close , he was out by a mile ( plus if he had given a effort he could have landed in bounds.
But besides of guys like Hasselbeck , Jurevicious , Engram this team is soft no character.
But besides of guys like Hasselbeck , Jurevicious , Engram this team is soft no character.
Hard to believe on a supposedly highly knowledgeable football MB that anyone is actually arguing that Jackson was inbounds.
The pylon is considered on the plain of the goal line, so if the ball touches it, it by definition has to have crossed the goal line before going OB.
The pylon is not an inbounds standard for WR's feet. Who could possibly think something like that? The rule clearly states that a reciever in the NFL has to establish possession & 2 feet inbounds (or anything that is equivalent to 2 feet) unless a defender drives the receiver OB when he incontravertibly would have gotten both feet down without the push.
Jackson obviously got 1 foot down, and the other landed well OB, despite hitting the pylon. Anyone who is arguing TD on this play does not understand NFL football rules for receivers - regardless of whether they've watched 1 year, 25 years, or 100 years.
The pylon is considered on the plain of the goal line, so if the ball touches it, it by definition has to have crossed the goal line before going OB.
The pylon is not an inbounds standard for WR's feet. Who could possibly think something like that? The rule clearly states that a reciever in the NFL has to establish possession & 2 feet inbounds (or anything that is equivalent to 2 feet) unless a defender drives the receiver OB when he incontravertibly would have gotten both feet down without the push.
Jackson obviously got 1 foot down, and the other landed well OB, despite hitting the pylon. Anyone who is arguing TD on this play does not understand NFL football rules for receivers - regardless of whether they've watched 1 year, 25 years, or 100 years.
Quez
Footballguy
I have never seen such a controversial year in football. They need to take a closer look at some of these rules.
You mean to tell me Michael Vick can jump out of bounds and touch an imaginary line over the pylon, but actually touching it isn't good enough?
I understand D-Jax didn't have his feet in bounds, I am just trying to make a point that this should not have been a TD.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap?gid=20051212001
Vick gave the lead back to Atlanta with his 2-yard dive for the pylon, capping a drive that included a 36-yard pass to Brian Finneran.
On third-and-goal from the 2, Vick scrambled to his left and appeared to be pushed out of bounds near the 1. The officials spotted the ball at the 1, but Mora called for the review.
"Because Mike Vick told me to," Mora said. "He said 'Challenge it, we'll win it.' You listen to what No. 7 says."
The run was ruled a touchdown after replays showed Vick kept his leg in bounds as his body flew over the pylon, the ball in his hands.
"It is hard to defend the quarterback," said Saints coach Jim Haslett. "He does a great job. He made a nice play. I guess his hand touched the pylon. I thought the ball was outside the pylon, but if any part of your body touches the pylon it is a touchdown."
Vick went to the air -- with a little trickery from Mora's playbook -- for the Falcons' next touchdown.
You mean to tell me Michael Vick can jump out of bounds and touch an imaginary line over the pylon, but actually touching it isn't good enough?
I understand D-Jax didn't have his feet in bounds, I am just trying to make a point that this should not have been a TD.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap?gid=20051212001
Vick gave the lead back to Atlanta with his 2-yard dive for the pylon, capping a drive that included a 36-yard pass to Brian Finneran.
On third-and-goal from the 2, Vick scrambled to his left and appeared to be pushed out of bounds near the 1. The officials spotted the ball at the 1, but Mora called for the review.
"Because Mike Vick told me to," Mora said. "He said 'Challenge it, we'll win it.' You listen to what No. 7 says."
The run was ruled a touchdown after replays showed Vick kept his leg in bounds as his body flew over the pylon, the ball in his hands.
"It is hard to defend the quarterback," said Saints coach Jim Haslett. "He does a great job. He made a nice play. I guess his hand touched the pylon. I thought the ball was outside the pylon, but if any part of your body touches the pylon it is a touchdown."
Vick went to the air -- with a little trickery from Mora's playbook -- for the Falcons' next touchdown.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nihilist Pig
Footballguy
Holy crap.
I can't believe the confusion this is causing. The pylon itself is neither "in bounds" nor "out of bounds" any more than any other point in the air above the field is. It merely marks off the vertical space above the plane of the end zone, to make certain calls simpler. You are not "out of bounds" if you magically rise up into the air, hover two inches over the field, levitate the entire way to the opponent's bench, then turn around, drift back into the field of play, and touch both your feet to the carpet. Because it doesn't matter where your feet and body are while they're in the air, for purposes of determining whether you're "in." It only matters where you come down.
For the same reason, when you're hovering above that part of the field that is marked off by the pylon, you have not yet touched any part of the field that counts as "in bounds." You are in the air ABOVE a part of the field that counts as in bounds, but you have not yet established possession.
I can't believe the confusion this is causing. The pylon itself is neither "in bounds" nor "out of bounds" any more than any other point in the air above the field is. It merely marks off the vertical space above the plane of the end zone, to make certain calls simpler. You are not "out of bounds" if you magically rise up into the air, hover two inches over the field, levitate the entire way to the opponent's bench, then turn around, drift back into the field of play, and touch both your feet to the carpet. Because it doesn't matter where your feet and body are while they're in the air, for purposes of determining whether you're "in." It only matters where you come down.
For the same reason, when you're hovering above that part of the field that is marked off by the pylon, you have not yet touched any part of the field that counts as "in bounds." You are in the air ABOVE a part of the field that counts as in bounds, but you have not yet established possession.
This is unrelated to the play at hand entirely. This is saying that if an offensive player touches the pylon, but has not touched the boundary line, he is not ruled an ineligible receiver for the rest of the play.
jurb26
Footballguy
Yes, as they say the GL extends arond the entire globe. A player is not officially "out of bounds" until a portion of his body hits the ground out of bounds. All the ball needs to do is break the plane of the GL. Therefor if a player is air born and even though it would appear out of the field of play. If he has not touched the ground establishing himslef out of bounds and the ball crosses the plane, its a TD. This has happened several times even in just the past few years of football. I too am very surprised this is such a confusing thing to such dedicated football fnas.
Nihilist Pig
Footballguy
BTW, for those who still don't understand the use of the pylon, it goes like this.
The spotting of a football, technically, goes to the last place where the ball was in in-bounds space, when the player was finally "down." That's why when you're looking at close first-down calls, the announcers always tell you to look at the football, and not the player's feet.
If a player jumps forward or out of bounds near the goalline corner, he is not "down" until part of him lands. For spotting purposes, the ball is placed the last place it was "in bounds" before the player is down, either by hitting the turf, or by having any part of his body touch down on the ground out of bounds. If the ball passes over the goal line before that happens, then it's a TD. If the ball hits the pylon before that happens, then by rule, the ball has passed over the goal line. That's why the pylon exists.
The spotting of a football, technically, goes to the last place where the ball was in in-bounds space, when the player was finally "down." That's why when you're looking at close first-down calls, the announcers always tell you to look at the football, and not the player's feet.
If a player jumps forward or out of bounds near the goalline corner, he is not "down" until part of him lands. For spotting purposes, the ball is placed the last place it was "in bounds" before the player is down, either by hitting the turf, or by having any part of his body touch down on the ground out of bounds. If the ball passes over the goal line before that happens, then it's a TD. If the ball hits the pylon before that happens, then by rule, the ball has passed over the goal line. That's why the pylon exists.
Big difference, player is already established inbounds. Hitting the pylon with the ball, BEFORE going OB, is a TD. He's putting the ball across the goal line, before going out of bounds. In this case, DJax was not inbounds. He needs to establish inbounds before hitting the pylon to be a TD. He didn't. His attempt to be inbounds with the right foot missed. It's like saying he established the second foot a foot in the air. It doesn't work that way.
This was an obvious Incompletion.Don't know why this is so confusing but the next time that you are at a game look at where the pylons are placed. They are on the SIDELINES, not in the field of play. Last i checked the sidelines are OUT OF BOUNDS...
As was said before, pylons are only used to mark the intersection of the Goalline and Sideline.
As was said before, pylons are only used to mark the intersection of the Goalline and Sideline.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
No, it appears, you don'understand the rule.
Its so funny how people are saying with pure committment that they know the rule and are wrong.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
I thought he got one foot inbounds, and then he stepped out of bounds and then hit the pylon, so no TD, either way.Thats what I recall. If anyone has it TiVo'ed, maybe they can tell everyone.
The Jerk
Footballguy
It took awhile for you guys to find the John Clayton comment. His addition to the actual rule is unfortunate. The rule simply states that touching the pylon does not equal being out of bounds. Clayton adds the example that will get this issue re-started. I'll repeat what I've said at least twice earlier in this same thread.
According to a 2002 rule change posting found at nfl.com (see link earlier in the thread):
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
According to a 2002 rule change posting found at nfl.com (see link earlier in the thread):
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
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
So you saying John Clayton is incorrect on this rule then?
The Jerk
Footballguy
Yes I am. In greater detail...It is my opinion that Clayton added an example of his own, not one given to him by a ref, and as a result, I don't think it is authoritative. Unless the NFL rulebook specifically includes his example, I apply the rule as I listed in my post. Basically, the 2002 rule change means that the pylon is now irrelevant in determining whether a catch occurs. It is neither in bounds nor out of bounds. Prior to 2002, the pylon was considered out of bounds, because it sits on top of the sideline at its intersection with the goal line.
Absolutely.If I'm not mistaken, Holmgren is on the competition committe. If anyone knows how to implement new rules, he would be considered a leading authority - plus he's awfully sharp with his challenges. That Holmgren never even thought of reaching for his challenge flag on the play tells you a lot more than an "authority" like Clayton.
Answers.Com describes this rules change much differently.
[edit: Wikipedia describes it the same way as Answers.com]
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]
Last edited by a moderator:
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
After reading the rule....I do agree with you.It was not a TD.
Found the original release on NFL.com:
Slightly different way of phrasing it, but it appears closer to Answers/Wikipedia language than Clayton's. I think the best interpretation is: Touching the pylon alone doesn't make him out of bounds or in bounds -- it is basically irrelevant to that determination.
Tau837
Footballguy
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.
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.
Traders2001
Footballguy
I dont understand the arguments here .
Guys it was not even close , it was so obvious that Jackson did not make a effort to stay in bounds.
Guys it was not even close , it was so obvious that Jackson did not make a effort to stay in bounds.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Here is the play in question.....
http://www.zippyvideos.com/9811195993616706/jacksons_pylon/
He clearly does not get 2 feet in bounds....hence no catch. This isn't even close. Jackson hitting the pylon does not mean anything, as the new rule basically states that that hitting the pylon has no beaing on whether a player is in or out of bounds.
Hitting the pylon does not count as a point of contact in bounds.
http://www.zippyvideos.com/9811195993616706/jacksons_pylon/
He clearly does not get 2 feet in bounds....hence no catch. This isn't even close. Jackson hitting the pylon does not mean anything, as the new rule basically states that that hitting the pylon has no beaing on whether a player is in or out of bounds.
Hitting the pylon does not count as a point of contact in bounds.
Last edited by a moderator:
mrwilson41
Footballguy
I look at it like this: The pylon is out of bounds in the endzone. If you have possesion of the ball and hit the pylon, it's as if you cross the goal line out of bounds. Jackson only had one foot in bounds and one foot hitting the pylon (out of bounds). No catch, no touchdown.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Have you even read the thread?
I am still a bit confused on this. 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?
Keep in Mind I wanted Pitt to win. They won me $100!
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?
Keep in Mind I wanted Pitt to win. They won me $100!
C
CrossEyed
Guest
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.
It wasn't a TD and there is NO controversy over this.
The Jerk
Footballguy
So we meet again, Brewtown!
You probably remember how I interpret the rule (if not, see above posts). In the scenario you describe, I think the official has no choice but to see where the foot comes down. If the foot rolls off the pylon and lands in bounds, then he's called in bounds. If the foot rolls off the pylon and lands out of bounds, then he's called out of bounds.The scenario that would interest me is if the defender somehow kicks the pylon from its normal position into the field of play by a few inches, then the receiver steps squarely on the pylon before falling out of bounds. If no part of his foot touches in bounds, would that still be ruled out of bounds? I know now we're getting into the incredibly bizarre, but I'm still curious.
Last edited by a moderator:
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 in or out of bounds?
Last edited by a moderator:
Kai's Hero
Footballguy
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.
