Endzone pylon

[steeler]

The real question is did the ball cross the plane before his foot came down out of bounds.

 

1307956[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't think that is the real question. On a pass play the receiver has to get two feet in bounds... which DJax clearly did not do.

[borge007]

NO ONE will give the Steelers any credit.

 

1307793[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

How about the refs-NO ONE

[Ursa Majoris]

It was a pass play not a running play.  There are certain things the receiver must do to have a complete pass one of which is to make an "athletic move" after gaining possession.  He didn't.

 

1307890[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that is the real question.  On a pass play the receiver has to get two feet in bounds... which DJax clearly did not do.

 

1307969[/snapback]

 

 

 

These are correct. The receiver never got both feet in bounds after taking possession. His position on the field and whether he touched the pylon or not are irrelevant.

[untateve]

I stopped reading the replies.

 

Isn't the rule in football that both feet must come down in the field of play for a catch to be ruled a reception?

 

For example, receiver catches the ball in the back of the endzone. One foot lands in the field of play but the back foot fails to drag in the field of play and therefore, no TD.

 

Same principle for a receiver running down the sideline. He catches the ball, one foot in, one foot out of bounds = no catch.

 

It doesn't matter if Jackson's foot hit the pylon. The fact that his second foot did not come down in bounds means no reception. No reception = no TD. Simple.

[nhoops]

I stopped reading the replies.

 

Isn't the rule in football that both feet must come down in the field of play for a catch to be ruled a reception?

 

For example, receiver catches the ball in the back of the endzone.  One foot lands in the field of play but the back foot fails to drag in the field of play and therefore, no TD.

 

Same principle for a receiver running down the sideline.  He catches the ball, one foot in, one foot out of bounds =  no catch.

 

It doesn't matter if Jackson's foot hit the pylon.  The fact that his second foot did not come down in bounds means no reception.  No reception = no TD.  Simple.

 

1308068[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Thanks untateve, ursa, steeler, and jack!

[McNasty]

I stopped reading the replies.

 

Isn't the rule in football that both feet must come down in the field of play for a catch to be ruled a reception?

 

For example, receiver catches the ball in the back of the endzone.  One foot lands in the field of play but the back foot fails to drag in the field of play and therefore, no TD.

 

Same principle for a receiver running down the sideline.  He catches the ball, one foot in, one foot out of bounds =  no catch.

 

It doesn't matter if Jackson's foot hit the pylon.  The fact that his second foot did not come down in bounds means no reception.  No reception = no TD.  Simple.

 

1308068[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You know, i always thought that, too, but weren't there some calls this year about the minutiae of the rules that the pylon actually counted as being part of the field? Meaning: one foot in bounds + the other on the pylon + ball crosses the plane = TD.

 

For clarification, I am asking, because it seemed like this discussion came up, especailly after the Vick TD.

[untateve]

You know, i always thought that, too, but weren't there some calls this year about the minutiae of the rules that the pylon actually counted as being part of the field? Meaning: one foot in bounds + the other on the pylon + ball crosses the plane = TD.

 

For clarification, I am asking, because it seemed like this discussion came up, especailly after the Vick TD.

 

1308095[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I think that had to do with a running td when it was clear that the player was in bounds. That question was whether or not the player when out of bounds prior to going into the endzone. If the receiver (or RB/QB) catches the ball, with both feet in and runs down the field---then is pushed out of bounds by a defender at the endzone--If the receiver's foot hits the pylon=TD. If his foot goes out before the pylon=No TD.

 

edit to add: unless the ball breaks the plane of the endzone.

Edited February 6, 2006 by untateve

[McNasty]

Sounds reasonable.

 

Thanks, untateve.

[CaptainHook]

The pylon is out of bounds. Had his foot brushed the inside of it, i believe it may be a TD. His entire leg and foot went outside the pylon, which is out of bounds.

 

1307810[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This newbie needs to learn the rules. The pylon is absolutely in bounds.

 

The ball was outside the pylon as well if i remember correctly, which would definately be out of bounds.

 

1307838[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Wrong again. You forgot the whole "infinite goal line thing".

 

It is a valid question. I wondered the same thing. He got one foot in bounds and the other hit the pylon before landing out of bounds. I honestly do not know the rule concerning that. I'm not saying it was a bad call, I'd just like to hear what the rule is.

[I Like Soup]

I've always thought the pylon was part of the field of play and actually considered part of the endzone.

 

Now, Jackson got one foot down and the other came down out of bounds...I didn't see him kick the pylon...therefore it was an incomplete pass. Of course, without more review opportunities...

[Sgt. Ryan]

Listen Czar, rip me all you want, but, how would you feel that when your Patriots finally won the Super Bowl, there were tons of posts trying to take it away from them

 

 

 

1307793[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Try having your team actually win won, instead of being handed one and they you can make that analogy. The media is talking about conspiracy, even primetime last night said the refs gave this game to Pitt, and today on Mike and Mike it was like the game was bad, but the refs were worse. I feel cheated for having to watch that crap last night knowing there is no more meaningful football for 6 months and that is the taste left in our mouth.

[Ursa Majoris]

This one isn't even close. Jackson caught the ball, brought one foot down and the other came down out of bounds. It's not a completed pass, period, wherever he was on the field. Note the amount of TDs that are wiped off when a receiver fails to get two feet in bounds at the back of the EZ.

 

The Vick issue is a red herring, as that was a rushing play where he launched himself at the infinite goal line having run 15 yards to do so, all the while in possession of the ball.

[steeler]

This one isn't even close.  Jackson caught the ball, brought one foot down and the other came down out of bounds.  It's not a completed pass, period, wherever he was on the field.  Note the amount of TDs that are wiped off when a receiver fails to get two feet in bounds at the back of the EZ. 

1308189[/snapback]

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

How about you people getting on DJax for failing to know where he was on the field, or even really make a decent attempt to get the 2nd foot in bounds?

[CaptainHook]

Thank you.

 

How about you people getting on DJax for failing to know where he was on the field, or even really make a decent attempt to get the 2nd foot in bounds?

 

1308196[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Hey momo, I don't see anybody saying that Seattle got jobbed on this play. I see people inquiring about the rule. Get a clue. This is, after all, a fooball forum.

[steeler]

Get a clue.

1308205[/snapback]

 

 

 

I'm just sick of all the focus on the officiating. The rule is CLEAR... he did not get two feet in bounds. DJax didn't make a good enough effort to stay in bounds... isn't that a relevant football analysis?

[CaptainHook]

I have never seen a play where a receiver caught the ball, got one foot in bounds and the second foot hit the pylon. I was curious about the call at the time. In my opinion, it was ruled correctly, but was wondering what the official rule is. His second foot clearly touched the pylon. You always hear the announcers saying, "the pylon is in bounds".

Edited February 6, 2006 by CaptainHook

[rattsass]

I've always thought the pylon was part of the field of play and actually considered part of the endzone.

 

Now, Jackson got one foot down and the other came down out of bounds...I didn't see him kick the pylon...therefore it was an incomplete pass.  Of course, without more review opportunities...

 

1308175[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

He CLEARLY kicked the pylon. I brought this up last night and still have not got a definitive response. Nobody will show the play again, and the whole thing just got lost in the shuffle of the multitude of other bad calls. I am still waiting for someone to tell me why it wasn't a TD, if he was in with the left leg and kicked the pylon with the right.

[steeler]

Nobody will show the play again, and the whole thing just got lost in the shuffle of the multitude of other bad calls.

 

1308259[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

It's not a conspiracy... the NFL network is showing it over and over again.

 

He was ruled out of bounds because he didn't get two feet in bounds.... I don't think the pylon matters with regard to a catch, but I could be wrong.

[Ursa Majoris]

He CLEARLY kicked the pylon.  I brought this up last night and still have not got a definitive response.  Nobody will show the play again, and the whole thing just got lost in the shuffle of the multitude of other bad calls.  I am still waiting for someone to tell me why it wasn't a TD, if he was in with the left leg and kicked the pylon with the right.

 

1308259[/snapback]

 

 

 

Please go back through this thread and take a look at the explanations already posted.

[rattsass]

Please go back through this thread and take a look at the explanations already posted.

 

1308286[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Thanks, but I did read through the posts, and was still left with only several opinions and no definitive answers. But if the NFL network says it was ok, I guess all is well then isn't it.

[untateve]

Thanks, but I did read through the posts, and was still left with only several opinions and no definitive answers.  But if the NFL network says it was ok, I guess all is well then isn't it.

 

1308304[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Here is your definitive answer:

 

For a catch to be a reception, a receiver must have both feet touch the playing field. If he does not, then he is out of bounds and the catch is NOT a reception.

 

The pylon does not enter into this conversation. The pylon is irrelevant. The pylon only becomes relevant once the player has two feet land in bounds.