Art Monk's Touchdown !

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Chris L. Kuszma » Sun, 09 Feb 1992 05:40:25


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

  and on and on

  The rule book does *not* specify beyond

  ".. both feet alight inbounds ..."

  What that *means* is interpreted by the officials, apparently,
as:

  "A foot is a toe."

  The following may also exist as sufficient:

  "A foot is considered to have alighted when it touches and
then is lifted back off the ground, prior to any part
touching out-of-bounds."

  I think these are reasonable interpretations.

  For a more exciting debate, see if you can define
a touchdown!

  CLK

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by Kalle Kivim » Sun, 09 Feb 1992 19:19:59


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

The NFL rule book (and NCAA) take into account the poor official in
question.  If the rule were changed to what you want, the officials
would need IR to each and every sideline catch.  Do you really want
that??

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by un040.. » Tue, 11 Feb 1992 08:27:54


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

No cus have you ever seen a WR dragg his toes after a catch?  It is a completed
pass.  Art Monk was in if his heel hit first. In an ideal world he is in and it
is a TD, but how does IR pick up on it?  It is very hard to be sure.  so you
HAVE to assume the whole thing hit at once!  so he is out.  Fact is the only
VALID complaint you can raise is "was he pushed".  He may have been nudged at
the end, but I do not think that Jackson had enough time or force with that
nudge to SIGNIFICANTLY affect it.  I believe that the IR made a good call with
what it had to work with.  The call was wrong but the key words are "what it
had to work with".  The officials on the field made the right call for the
wrong reason (thought he never even got close to the line.)
Brian "ADRIAN BRADLEY---E-MAIL ME!" Mulholland

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by JOHN HEI » Wed, 12 Feb 1992 00:58:34

Quote:


>> 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*?  

>No cus have you ever seen a WR dragg his toes after a catch?  It is a completed
>pass.  Art Monk was in if his heel hit first. In an ideal world he is in and it
>is a TD, but how does IR pick up on it?  It is very hard to be sure.  so you
>HAVE to assume the whole thing hit at once!  so he is out.  Fact is the only
>VALID complaint you can raise is "was he pushed".  He may have been nudged at
>the end, but I do not think that Jackson had enough time or force with that
>nudge to SIGNIFICANTLY affect it.  I believe that the IR made a good call with
>what it had to work with.  The call was wrong but the key words are "what it
>had to work with".  The officials on the field made the right call for the
>wrong reason (thought he never even got close to the line.)

We seem to be comming to some kind of consensus here except that I
don't think a WR dragging his toes is relevant.  See, when the WR drags
his toes, no part of his foot hits out of bounds.  (If it does, like
when first he drags a toe then puts the heel down he should and
probably would be called out of bounds.)

The only other thing I would say is that I don't agree with your idea
that if it were possible the WR should be called in bounds the
moment any part of his foot hit inbounds.  How much is a part?  50
percent?  1 percent?  1 molecule?  The best rule is the way
officials currently call it, if *any* part of the foot hits out of
bounds he's out.  That's why Monk was called out of bounds.


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

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by un040.. » Wed, 12 Feb 1992 21:49:23


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

No guys...have you ever seen a player drag the toes only and be ruled in?
it is enough to establish possession and is a catch...if the 1% lands first
it is indeed a catch...but the RB deal...the RB has possession, the in out deal
is not to decide is he in or out as far as advancing the ball. it is to
establish possession.
 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by un040.. » Fri, 14 Feb 1992 19:23:48


Quote:


>>> 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*?  

>>No cus have you ever seen a WR dragg his toes after a catch?  It is a completed
>>pass.  Art Monk was in if his heel hit first. In an ideal world he is in and it
>>is a TD, but how does IR pick up on it?  It is very hard to be sure.  so you
>>HAVE to assume the whole thing hit at once!  so he is out.  Fact is the only
>>VALID complaint you can raise is "was he pushed".  He may have been nudged at
>>the end, but I do not think that Jackson had enough time or force with that
>>nudge to SIGNIFICANTLY affect it.  I believe that the IR made a good call with
>>what it had to work with.  The call was wrong but the key words are "what it
>>had to work with".  The officials on the field made the right call for the
>>wrong reason (thought he never even got close to the line.)

> We seem to be comming to some kind of consensus here except that I
> don't think a WR dragging his toes is relevant.  See, when the WR drags
> his toes, no part of his foot hits out of bounds.  (If it does, like

true but if they dragg the toes and the toes slide out then it is sorta the
same as if the heel hit then the toes hit out.  

Quote:
> when first he drags a toe then puts the heel down he should and
> probably would be called out of bounds.)      

Not if it were dragged...cus then it would definatley be in

Quote:

> The only other thing I would say is that I don't agree with your idea
> that if it were possible the WR should be called in bounds the
> moment any part of his foot hit inbounds.  How much is a part?  50
> percent?  1 percent?  1 molecule?  The best rule is the way
> officials currently call it, if *any* part of the foot hits out of
> bounds he's out.  That's why Monk was called out of bounds.


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

Well, if a WR caught the ball and was in air heading towards the sideline
with his front facing the line...he then puts his heels down, they are in.
but momentum carries him forward and his toes, then fall on the line.
if BOTH heels were in before ANY part hits out...he should be in.  
I think if his toes were high enough off that the IR coukld see it then he
would be called in.  BUT if it was barely noticeable then it would be ruled out
even if the same thing had happened, now as i said in an IDEAL world (the key
isd ideal) every call would be right.  but  in OUR world you cannot pick up
on it.  well, this is what i think, but i should probably be locked in a psycho
ward so...
 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by JOHN HEI » Sat, 15 Feb 1992 05:34:06

Quote:


>> We seem to be comming to some kind of consensus here except that I
>> don't think a WR dragging his toes is relevant.  See, when the WR drags
>> his toes, no part of his foot hits out of bounds.  (If it does, like

>true but if they dragg the toes and the toes slide out then it is sorta the
>same as if the heel hit then the toes hit out.  

No, it's not.

Quote:
>> when first he drags a toe then puts the heel down he should and
>> probably would be called out of bounds.)      
>Not if it were dragged...cus then it would definatley be in

I give up.

Quote:
>Well, if a WR caught the ball and was in air heading towards the sideline
>with his front facing the line...he then puts his heels down, they are in.
>but momentum carries him forward and his toes, then fall on the line.
>if BOTH heels were in before ANY part hits out...he should be in.  
>I think if his toes were high enough off that the IR coukld see it then he
>would be called in.  BUT if it was barely noticeable then it would be ruled out
>even if the same thing had happened, now as i said in an IDEAL world (the key
>isd ideal) every call would be right.  but  in OUR world you cannot pick up
>on it.  well, this is what i think, but i should probably be locked in a psycho
>ward so...

Well, I think so.  And after this discussion I'm about ready to join
you there.  :-)


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

 
 
 

Art Monk's Touchdown !

Post by un040.. » Wed, 19 Feb 1992 22:13:02


Quote:


>>> We seem to be comming to some kind of consensus here except that I
>>> don't think a WR dragging his toes is relevant.  See, when the WR drags
>>> his toes, no part of his foot hits out of bounds.  (If it does, like

>>true but if they dragg the toes and the toes slide out then it is sorta the
>>same as if the heel hit then the toes hit out.  

> No, it's not.

I knew when I wrote it that it was weak, that is why you see "sorta"
Quote:

>>> when first he drags a toe then puts the heel down he should and
>>> probably would be called out of bounds.)      
>>Not if it were dragged...cus then it would definatley be in

> I give up.

Don't give up! never give up!  Compromise maybe, change possibly, give up?
never!

Quote:

>>Well, if a WR caught the ball and was in air heading towards the sideline
>>with his front facing the line...he then puts his heels down, they are in.
>>but momentum carries him forward and his toes, then fall on the line.
>>if BOTH heels were in before ANY part hits out...he should be in.  
>>I think if his toes were high enough off that the IR coukld see it then he
>>would be called in.  BUT if it was barely noticeable then it would be ruled out
>>even if the same thing had happened, now as i said in an IDEAL world (the key
>>isd ideal) every call would be right.  but  in OUR world you cannot pick up
>>on it.  well, this is what i think, but i should probably be locked in a psycho
>>ward so...

> Well, I think so.  And after this discussion I'm about ready to join
> you there.  :-)


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

Yeah, I think anyone who posts as ***ly often as I do should be put away!