Superbowl 92: Art Monk's incomplete catch

Superbowl 92: Art Monk's incomplete catch

Post by Scott Ree » Wed, 10 Jun 1992 05:59:56


Last year's (Jan. 92) Superbowl.

I joined this newsgroup a couple of months ago, so maybe this has
already been discussed...

When Art Monk made that catch, the one where they used instant
replay to decide that he was out of bounds...  Why wouldn't that
be a valid catch?  One foot was in, the other foot landed in with
the heel. At that instant, it should be ruled two feet in, so
it should be a touchdown.

It seems to me that the rule book can't simply say that the receiver
must have the entire foot in bounds because so many times receivers
drag just the tips of their feet in bounds and that's a catch!

If anybody has any input on what the rule really is or how it's
worded, I would appreciate it.

Thanks in advance

- Scott

GO JETS!!!

 
 
 

Superbowl 92: Art Monk's incomplete catch

Post by William Mangione-Smi » Wed, 10 Jun 1992 22:55:47

   Last year's (Jan. 92) Superbowl.

   I joined this newsgroup a couple of months ago, so maybe this has
   already been discussed...

   When Art Monk made that catch, the one where they used instant
   replay to decide that he was out of bounds...  Why wouldn't that
   be a valid catch?  One foot was in, the other foot landed in with
   the heel. At that instant, it should be ruled two feet in, so
   it should be a touchdown.

   It seems to me that the rule book can't simply say that the receiver
   must have the entire foot in bounds because so many times receivers
   drag just the tips of their feet in bounds and that's a catch!

This went around a lot earlier in the year, and I'm sure somebody who
followed it more closely will sumarrise.  

But I've got a more important question.  Each of the last two times that the
Redskins have made the big game, I've seen small blurbs in the hype stories
about how Art's first cousin was some jazz musician named Thelonious (he typed
ironically). Now I don't know the facts, but I believe that when Monk died a
few years ago he was in his seventies, and can't imagine how he could have
been much younger.  So I'm guessing he wasn't Art's first cousin.  Anybody
know for sure?

Bill
--
-------------------------------
        Bill Mangione-Smith


 
 
 

Superbowl 92: Art Monk's incomplete catch

Post by ricardo.g.irv » Thu, 11 Jun 1992 00:01:32


Quote:

>But I've got a more important question.  Each of the last two times that the
>Redskins have made the big game, I've seen small blurbs in the hype stories
>about how Art's first cousin was some jazz musician named Thelonious (he typed

The great Thelonious Monk is the uncle of Art Monk.

I hear Art is very good musician himself, (I think its a wind instrument
that he plays, I dont know witch one)

                        RIC. IRVIN
                        AT&T BELL LABORATORIES.

"TOUCHDOWN !!!! ... just kidding Dad! " my son at 18 months.

"In football, good hitting usually beats good pitching."

"... Lawrence Taylor was all over him... like syrup on pancakes." John Madden.

"...This Game is being broadcast in stereo..." Pat Summerall.
"...What does spit sound like in stereo? "    John Madden.

                        PEACE.

 
 
 

Superbowl 92: Art Monk's incomplete catch

Post by Kevin Michael DeLu » Thu, 11 Jun 1992 04:57:00

        When Art Monk made that catch, the one where they used instant
        replay to decide that he was out of bounds...  Why wouldn't that
        be a valid catch?  One foot was in, the other foot landed in with
        the heel. At that instant, it should be ruled two feet in, so
        it should be a touchdown.

        It seems to me that the rule book can't simply say that the receiver
        must have the entire foot in bounds because so many times receivers
        drag just the tips of their feet in bounds and that's a catch!

There was an exhausting string of discussion about this play. If I recall correctly,
the following two points were accepted (correct me if I'm wrong) :

        1. The rulebook states that the above is true only if no other part of the foot
        comes down out-of-bounds, or something like that. In other words, when you see
        receptions at the sidelines, the receiver either DRAGS his toes out-of-bounds
        or he falls out-of-bounds after landing his toes in-bounds. You never see the
        case where his toes touch in, then his heels touch out - he's on the line. That's
        incomplete, or at least it should be. That's what Monk's foot did (but reverse).

        2. If you accept 1, then the more important question is "Did the Buffalo defender
        push Monk hard enough to cause his foot to land out-of-bounds ?" If you agree
        with this, then it's a touchdown, if not, then it's incomplete. Unfortunately,
        this is always an officials judgement call.

Hope this helped.

Kevin
--
"Sometimes you're the windshield,            |  Kevin DeLuca
 sometimes you're the bug...                 |  SUNY Albany
 sometimes you're the Lousiville Slugger,    |  Computer Science

 
 
 

Superbowl 92: Art Monk's incomplete catch

Post by Donald P Boe » Thu, 11 Jun 1992 01:15:06

The rule is geared towards getting ones toes inbounds.  If Monk's toes (rather
than his heel) on his second foot had been inbounds than it would be a
touchdown.  As it was, his toes were on the line which is out of bounds.

************************************************
* Donald Boell - Hewlett Packard               *
*                                              *
* When you're chewing on life's gristle        *
* Don't grumble, give a whistle - Monty Python *
*                                 Life of Brian*
************************************************