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