Art Monk's Touchdown !

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Ramakrishnan Venkataram » Fri, 31 Jan 1992 06:23:53


When everybody talks about bad officiating they only talk of the pass  
interference on the part of Redskins.  What about Monk's TD ?
I'm sure that if that call had been made correctly , it would have  
resulted in a sounder thrashing of the Bills, as they would have lost
heart much sooner.
What does Monk have to do to score a TD in a SuperBowl? Even the Gods seem  
to be against him.
 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Ganda » Fri, 31 Jan 1992 07:16:21


Quote:
>When everybody talks about bad officiating they only talk of the pass  
>interference on the part of Redskins.  What about Monk's TD ?
>I'm sure that if that call had been made correctly , it would have  
>resulted in a sounder thrashing of the Bills, as they would have lost
>heart much sooner.
>What does Monk have to do to score a TD in a SuperBowl? Even the Gods seem  
>to be against him.

  Monk's TD was a judgement call, as is an interference call, but his "TD"
  was one that I could see going either way - some of the interference "non-
  calls" were outright muggings.  

  And before you label me a Bills Woofer, I think the Skins played great, and
  earned that win.....but fair is fair, and the officiating sucked.

  Pete Collins

  Cowboys in `93!!

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Steve Willia » Fri, 31 Jan 1992 21:18:46


Quote:
>When everybody talks about bad officiating they only talk of the pass
>interference on the part of Redskins.  What about Monk's TD ?
>I'm sure that if that call had been made correctly , it would have
>resulted in a sounder thrashing of the Bills, as they would have lost
>heart much sooner.

Unfortunately, but the officials were correct here.  The NFL rules state
that if a receiver jumping up in the air to catch the ball gets hit
while in the air, and lands outside the boundary, the catch is judged
to be fair if it can be seen that the receiver would have landed inside
the boundary if he was not hit.

But, if the receiver jumps up and catches the ball, and lands with one
foot inside the boundary, gets hit, and the second foot touches the
boundary line, then the catch is declared no good.  The above rule doesn't
apply here because the receiver has already touched the field before he
got hit.

It's all in the timing.

Steve Williams


 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by John A » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 05:00:16

Quote:

>  Monk's TD was a judgement call, as is an interference call, but his "TD"
>  was one that I could see going either way - some of the interference "non-
>  calls" were outright muggings.  

I agree Monk's TD could be called either way. That's why I don't agree
with the instant replay reversal.  A reversal requires "conclusive"
evidence.

John Abt

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Kalle Kivim » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 02:18:31


Quote:

>But, if the receiver jumps up and catches the ball, and lands with one
>foot inside the boundary, gets hit, and the second foot touches the
>boundary line, then the catch is declared no good.  The above rule doesn't
>apply here because the receiver has already touched the field before he
>got hit.

Do they use some other set of rules in the Super Bowl than in the
regular season??  Otherwise, I refer you to my previous post about
this situation.  By 1991 NFL rules, the IR officials were as far
off as you can be.

************************************************************************
* Robot: Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to be With -- Douglas Adams, HHGTG *
* (The marketing division of the Sirius ***netics Corporation)       *
************************************************************************

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Ross Smi » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 11:41:14

My comment on Art Monks "touchdown" is this...

It WAS a TD... It is clear on tape that his heel came down cleanly/clearly
in bounds while the front half of the foot was still had not touched
yet (although, it did land on the line)...

  My question is this... if all you need is toes... why cant you just
go by the heel either?  I repeat, I have several frames of his heel
being down in bounds while the rest of his foot is still in the air and
hasnt touched out-of-bounds yet... I also caught this live... I dont
see how replay missed it...

  By the way... I am an Eagles fan, definately not a Skins fan... I just
feel that they were screwed on that call...
--
______________________________________________________________________________

|    Ross Smith       | it possible!    \X/  | constitute my emergency.      |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by MICHAEL CARRA » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 14:01:00

Quote:



>>But, if the receiver jumps up and catches the ball, and lands with one
>>foot inside the boundary, gets hit, and the second foot touches the
>>boundary line, then the catch is declared no good.  The above rule doesn't
>>apply here because the receiver has already touched the field before he
>>got hit.

>Do they use some other set of rules in the Super Bowl than in the
>regular season??  Otherwise, I refer you to my previous post about
>this situation.  By 1991 NFL rules, the IR officials were as far
>off as you can be.

They showed the official talking to Art Monk on Inside the NFL...
he basically said that for that rule to be invoked (being pushed
out) it has to be more obvious than it was. In other words, it's up
to the referee's judgement to decide whether the defender actually caused
thr receiver to go out of bounds.

As for the Monk call, he was barely touched, but then again he was
barely OB. So I guess it really could have gone either way..

Mike Carrato

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by MICHAEL CARRA » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 14:24:00

Quote:

>My comment on Art Monks "touchdown" is this...

>It WAS a TD... It is clear on tape that his heel came down cleanly/clearly
>in bounds while the front half of the foot was still had not touched
>yet (although, it did land on the line)...

>  My question is this... if all you need is toes... why cant you just
>go by the heel either?  I repeat, I have several frames of his heel
>being down in bounds while the rest of his foot is still in the air and
>hasnt touched out-of-bounds yet... I also caught this live... I dont
>see how replay missed it...

I think the point is, the second foot down must be completely in bounds.
If a guy gets his toes down, its a good catch because the heel is
NOT out of bounds. In other words, for the first 2 steps after
a catch, both feet must touch in bounds and neither can touch out.

This is the rule as *I* understand it. Maybe someone with a rule book
can clarify it?

Quote:

>|    Ross Smith       | it possible!    \X/  | constitute my emergency.      |

Mike Carrato
 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Kalle Kivim » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 23:39:21


Quote:

>>this situation.  By 1991 NFL rules, the IR officials were as far
>>off as you can be.
>he basically said that for that rule to be invoked (being pushed
>out) it has to be more obvious than it was. In other words, it's up

Isn't IR supposed to remove judgement calls from important calls??
I haven't yet seen the game, but from what I have read I would
judge that somehow the IR officials didn't know what they were doing.

If it had been a field ref's decision, then I would have nothing
against it, as I know how fast players move, even in our leagues.

************************************************************************
* Robot: Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to be With -- Douglas Adams, HHGTG *
* (The marketing division of the Sirius ***netics Corporation)       *
************************************************************************

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by JOHN HEI » Sun, 02 Feb 1992 03:44:58

Quote:

>My comment on Art Monks "touchdown" is this...

>It WAS a TD... It is clear on tape that his heel came down cleanly/clearly
>in bounds while the front half of the foot was still had not touched
>yet (although, it did land on the line)...

>  My question is this... if all you need is toes... why cant you just
>go by the heel either?  I repeat, I have several frames of his heel
>being down in bounds while the rest of his foot is still in the air and
>hasnt touched out-of-bounds yet... I also caught this live... I dont
>see how replay missed it...

If it had been JUST the heel it would have been a TD.  When a player
gets credit for having his toes down it's because he drags the toe
without the heel touching.  If he puts the toe down first then the
heel down on the line it's the same effect - out of bounds.  It was a
good call.


**************** To boldly code what no one has coded before! ****************

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by The Axe M » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 20:12:04

Quote:

> But, if the receiver jumps up and catches the ball, and lands with one
> foot inside the boundary, gets hit, and the second foot touches the
> boundary line, then the catch is declared no good.  The above rule doesn't
> apply here because the receiver has already touched the field before he
> got hit.

Do you have the rule to quote here?  Because someone else quoted the
rulebook, and he said it was only after the SECOND foot comes down;
in other words, the refs blew it.

                                                ----Ken Winkler

*****************************************************************************
* "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood!" ---FR      *    Television    *
* "Get away from me with that spatula, Fred!" ---Mrs. FR *  worth watching  *
*****************************************************************************

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Ed Brov » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 08:02:41

Actually, if ARt Monk's second foot landed heel first, the play
should be over at that point, and a TD.  If he landed toe first,
(and it was the front of the foot that was OB), it should be an
incomplete.  I don't know why they required to see where the ENTIRE
foot landed.

Ed Brovet

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Neal Bau » Sat, 01 Feb 1992 07:56:07

Quote:
> What does Monk have to do to score a TD in a SuperBowl?

Have both feet in bounds.
 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Kalle Kivim » Sun, 02 Feb 1992 19:17:21


Quote:

>>My comment on Art Monks "touchdown" is this...

>>It WAS a TD... It is clear on tape that his heel came down cleanly/clearly
>>in bounds while the front half of the foot was still had not touched
>>yet (although, it did land on the line)...
>I think the point is, the second foot down must be completely in bounds.
>If a guy gets his toes down, its a good catch because the heel is
>NOT out of bounds. In other words, for the first 2 steps after
>a catch, both feet must touch in bounds and neither can touch out.
>This is the rule as *I* understand it. Maybe someone with a rule book
>can clarify it?

This is not a clear-cut rule.  Maybe someone with a degree in English
can tell us, what the wording really means?  (The excat wording of
the rule can be found in a post from me)
 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by robert f roed » Mon, 03 Feb 1992 07:32:10

There seems to be alot of discussion here about Monk's controversial
touchdown.  Alot of people seem to be putting the blame on the replay
offical which is not the case.  I think someone else allready mentioned
this but I'll post again.  When a reciever is pushed out of bounds by a
defender it is a judegement call by the on field official if he would of
come down in bounds or not.  This is NOT reviewable.  The replay official
only reviewed to see if Monk's feet were inbounds, which they weren't.
The replay official made the correct call.  If you think the call was blown
then it is soley the mistake of the man on the field.  Personally, even
though I might be a bit biased, I think the call was correct.  The bump
seemed inadvertant and not a blatant push.  Actually, this is kind of a
moot point since it had not affect on the outcome.

BjR