Art Monk's Touchdown !

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by ethan mill » Mon, 03 Feb 1992 00:50:35



=>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.

Agreed.  Monk's foot was clearly out of bounds.

=>Personally, even
=>though I might be a bit biased, I think the call was correct.  The bump
=>seemed inadvertant and not a blatant push.

It isn't a question of "inadvertent or not."  If Monk would have come
down with both feet inbounds, he should get the catch.  This isn't an
interference penalty.  Considering that only an inch of one foot came
down out of bounds, I'd say the push might well have forced his foot
out.  Monk is an expert at keeping his feet inbounds; I find it hard
to believe that he'd miss like that.

My question relates to the field official's call.  His call was
"inbounds, good catch."  There was no need to determine whether or not
the receiver was pushed.  Now the replay official says that Monk
*wasn't* in.  Shouldn't the field official get to decide whether Monk
was pushed?  If he's inbounds, pushing doesn't matter.  If not, the
push is important.  Why can't the on-field official state that Monk
was pushed?

ethan
--
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
ethan miller--cs grad student   | "Anyone not wearing 2000000 sunblock

#include <std/disclaimer.h>     |  -- Sarah Connor, _Terminator 2_

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by MICHAEL CARRA » Mon, 03 Feb 1992 11:14:00

Quote:


>My question relates to the field official's call.  His call was
>"inbounds, good catch."  There was no need to determine whether or not
>the receiver was pushed.  Now the replay official says that Monk
>*wasn't* in.  Shouldn't the field official get to decide whether Monk
>was pushed?  If he's inbounds, pushing doesn't matter.  If not, the
>push is important.  Why can't the on-field official state that Monk
>was pushed?

There was also another play in the Stuper Bowl where one of the Skins
receivers was pushed out in the air. It looked like they were about
to review when the official on the field announced that it was
not reviewable because he was pushed out.

Perhaps the on-the-field officials decided that Jackson's contact
was not enough to alter Monk's trajectory, a decision which would make
the play reviewable by IR...?

Quote:
>ethan

Mike Carrato

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by MICHAEL CARRA » Wed, 05 Feb 1992 12:46:00


Quote:

>  If a receiver catches a pass and comes down with both heels touching the
>  ground inbounds and the heels drag across the sideline without the toes ever
>  touching the ground inbounds, you have a completed pass.  If one toe and one
>  heel touch inbounds--completed pass.  If one toe and the side of the other
>  foot touch inbounds--completed pass.  All a receiver has to do is get some
>  part of both feet to touch the ground inbounds before he touches anything
>  that is out-of-bounds.

By this logic, even if 99% of a receiver's foot lands out of bounds,
it is still a good catch as long as the remaining 1% lands first.

I have NEVER seen it called this way.

(Someone with a rule book, please settle this?)

Mike Carrato

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Larry Simps » Wed, 05 Feb 1992 23:34:34


Quote:

>>  If a receiver catches a pass and comes down with both heels touching the
>>  ground inbounds and the heels drag across the sideline without the toes ever
>>  touching the ground inbounds, you have a completed pass.  If one toe and one
>>  heel touch inbounds--completed pass.  If one toe and the side of the other
>>  foot touch inbounds--completed pass.  All a receiver has to do is get some
>>  part of both feet to touch the ground inbounds before he touches anything
>>  that is out-of-bounds.

>By this logic, even if 99% of a receiver's foot lands out of bounds,
>it is still a good catch as long as the remaining 1% lands first.

  If the 1% you are referring to above lands inbounds, it is a catch.

Quote:
>I have NEVER seen it called this way.

  Have you ever seen a replay of a receiver catching the ball in the air
  stretched across a sideline and only his toes or the tips of his shoes
  touch inbounds, then his momentum carries him well out of bounds where he
  hits the ground with his body?  Well, thats a good catch.  It doesn't
  matter which 1% touches inbounds, as long as both feet touch before the
  receiver touches anything out of bounds.

Quote:

>(Someone with a rule book, please settle this?)

  Where's the guy from Pennsylvania when we need him?

____________________
LW Simpson
Forty-Niner Faithful

Quote:

>Mike Carrato

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by schal.. » Thu, 06 Feb 1992 04:22:58

Quote:


>>(Someone with a rule book, please settle this?)

>OK...rule says:  "A pass is neither completed nor intercepted unless
>             both feet of the player alight inbounds."

>And my Random House Dictionary says: Alight: .. 2. To settle after
>descending.

But there's also a rule about being pushed out of bounds, which a lot
of `Skins fans believed should have come into play.  What's the rule
on that?

schalene

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Larry Simps » Tue, 04 Feb 1992 23:59:29


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! ****************

  Bullshit!  Whether it is the heel or toe that touches first has no relevance.
  I didn't see the replay that showed Monk's heel hit first or, if I saw it,
  I missed the heel touching first--maybe thats why the replay booth missed it
  also.  However, if his heel did touch before the rest of the foot came down
  on the line, it should have been a TD.  The field official may have seen this
  very action and ruled accordingly or he may have felt that the defender forced
  Monk out-of-bounds and ruled a TD.  In either case, the Replay Official blew
  it twice.

  If a receiver catches a pass and comes down with both heels touching the
  ground inbounds and the heels drag across the sideline without the toes ever
  touching the ground inbounds, you have a completed pass.  If one toe and one
  heel touch inbounds--completed pass.  If one toe and the side of the other
  foot touch inbounds--completed pass.  All a receiver has to do is get some
  part of both feet to touch the ground inbounds before he touches anything
  that is out-of-bounds.

____________________
LW Simpson
Forty-Niner Faithful

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Kalle Kivim » Wed, 05 Feb 1992 20:32:22


Quote:
>(Someone with a rule book, please settle this?)

OK...rule says:  "A pass is neither completed nor intercepted unless
                 both feet of the player alight inbounds."

And my Random House Dictionary says: Alight: .. 2. To settle after
descending.

So I would interpret this as follows:  If the player manages to get
his toes to the ground inbounds, you have to assume that his soles
would also have landed inbounds.  But if your soles land inbounds
your toes may still land out of bounds, even if you drop straight
down without any horizontal motion whatsoever.

************************************************************************
* 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 schal.. » Thu, 06 Feb 1992 03:59:58


(A bunch of pass descriptions and calls deleted.....

Quote:

>(Someone with a rule book, please settle this?)

We had someone quote from the rule book last week.  Wasn't the
decision from that post that it was a blown call (can't remember).
Any way, we either don't believe the guy quoted from the right rule
book or we don't care....either way the game's over, the play didn't
count, etc.

schalene

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by bor.. » Thu, 06 Feb 1992 05:10:43

The rule means that both feet must touch inbounds before any part of that
player touches the out of bounds stripe. I.E Monk was out of bounds because
both feet didn't touch inbounds before any part touched the stripe.

ed (a Patriot fan in hiding)

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by JOHN HEI » Thu, 06 Feb 1992 01:58:24


Quote:
>>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.

>  Bullshit!  Whether it is the heel or toe that touches first has no relevance.

Don't have a heart attack, okay?

Quote:
>  I didn't see the replay that showed Monk's heel hit first or, if I saw it,
>  I missed the heel touching first--maybe thats why the replay booth missed it
>  also.  However, if his heel did touch before the rest of the foot came down
>  on the line, it should have been a TD.  The field official may have seen this
>  very action and ruled accordingly or he may have felt that the defender forced
>  Monk out-of-bounds and ruled a TD.  In either case, the Replay Official blew
>  it twice.

You may be able to argue that that's the way the rules *should* be but
the fact is that this is not it works at the moment.  It is impossible
for an official to judge which part of a foot hits the ground first.  
That's why when a player puts the whole foot down he must have the
whole foot inbounds.

This is the way it's *always* been and it's says so in the rules if
you can believe earlier postings from people quoting the rule book.


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

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by JOHN HEI » Fri, 07 Feb 1992 03:17:31


Quote:

>>By this logic, even if 99% of a receiver's foot lands out of bounds,
>>it is still a good catch as long as the remaining 1% lands first.

>  If the 1% you are referring to above lands inbounds, it is a catch.

>>I have NEVER seen it called this way.

>  Have you ever seen a replay of a receiver catching the ball in the air
>  stretched across a sideline and only his toes or the tips of his shoes
>  touch inbounds, then his momentum carries him well out of bounds where he
>  hits the ground with his body?  Well, thats a good catch.  It doesn't
>  matter which 1% touches inbounds, as long as both feet touch before the
>  receiver touches anything out of bounds.

I've said this about 10 times but it seems not to have sunk in yet.  
NFL officials have very consistantly enforced the following
interpretation of the rules:  If a player puts his *whole* foot down
then the entire foot must be in bounds.  This is *only* if he puts the
whole foot down.  This is a fact.  My opinion is that it's a good
interpretation because otherwise you'd have to try to figure out which
part of the foot hit first - impossible in many cases even with IR.

Is this making sense to *anybody*?  


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

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by MICHAEL CARRA » Fri, 07 Feb 1992 03:46:00

Quote:


>(A bunch of pass descriptions and calls deleted.....

>>(Someone with a rule book, please settle this?)

>We had someone quote from the rule book last week.  Wasn't the
>decision from that post that it was a blown call (can't remember).

That was a different argument. That rule quoted was pertanining to whether
Monk was pushed out. This discussion pertains to whether Monk WAS out.

Quote:
>Any way, we either don't believe the guy quoted from the right rule
>book or we don't care....either way the game's over, the play didn't
>count, etc.

Yes, but I for one am curious to know what the rule actually is!

Quote:

>schalene

Mike Carrato
 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Kalle Kivim » Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:54:56

Quote:

>But there's also a rule about being pushed out of bounds, which a lot
>of `Skins fans believed should have come into play.  What's the rule
>on that?

The rule on pushing is actually supplementary note and goes something
like this (sorry, my rule book is at home):
The pass is completed or intercepted if the catcher would have landed
inbounds but is forced out of bounds.

P.S. The complete quote is somewhere, I distinctly remember posting
it :-)

************************************************************************
* 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 carlos de los muert » Sun, 09 Feb 1992 00:17:42


Quote:

>> If a receiver catches a pass and comes down with both heels touching the
>> ground inbounds and the heels drag across the sideline without the toes ever
>> touching the ground inbounds, you have a completed pass.  If one toe and one
>> heel touch inbounds--completed pass.  If one toe and the side of the other
>> foot touch inbounds--completed pass.  All a receiver has to do is get some
>> part of both feet to touch the ground inbounds before he touches anything
>> that is out-of-bounds.

> By this logic, even if 99% of a receiver's foot lands out of bounds,
> it is still a good catch as long as the remaining 1% lands first.

Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense. By the same logic, a back on a
running play whose foot only partially goes out of bounds would be
called in-bounds as long as one part of his foot hit in-bounds before
the other part hit out of bounds. Why should a running play and a
passing play be called differently?

--
I am, most sincerely,
charles s. geiger, esq.

"Down with all kings but King Ludd" -- Byron

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Lorenzo Sad » Sun, 09 Feb 1992 03:10:55



Quote:
>>> All a receiver has to do is get some
>>> part of both feet to touch the ground inbounds before he touches anything
>>> that is out-of-bounds.

>> By this logic, even if 99% of a receiver's foot lands out of bounds,
>> it is still a good catch as long as the remaining 1% lands first.
>Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense. By the same logic, a back on a
>running play whose foot only partially goes out of bounds would be
>called in-bounds as long as one part of his foot hit in-bounds before
>the other part hit out of bounds. Why should a running play and a
>passing play be called differently?

On the running play the runner IS in bounds until the moment when any
part of him touches out of bounds, at which point the play is over and he
can no longer gain yardage.  If he does something significant (e.g. fumble,
or lateral to another player) between the time that his heel steps in
bounds and the time that his toe steps out of bounds, that action COUNTS.

On a passing play suppose the receiver catches the ball in the air, touches
(part of) both feet in bounds, and then touches some part of his body (say,
the rest of his feet) out of bounds.  To me the most sensible call is that
the instant both feet touch in bounds it should be a legal in-bounds catch,
and that a moment later when he touches out of bounds the play is dead.  
Just as with a runner, if he fumbles or laterals in that instant between
heels touching in bounds and toes touching out of bounds, that should
count, too.

Unfortunately (and irrationally!) the NFL rule book seems to disagree, as
noted by several posters.  

Given the (stupid) way the rules are written, the only way Monk's
catch could be a TD is if his being out-of-bounds was due to contact.  
But it obviously WAS, so it should have been a TD.

Lorenzo Sadun