MNF- Clarification

[BBMarley]

Hey all-

So- looks like NO got hosed on a call.. I thought the ruling read that the BALL needed to break the plane for it to be a TD. How was that Vick TD one when the ball was in his left hand which never crossed the plane, but his empty right hand did?

[BSmack]

The plane extends on both sides of the pylon. The ball passed on the left side of the pylon before Vick hit the ground. Therefore it was a TD.

[BBMarley]

The plane extends on both sides of the pylon. The ball passed on the left side of the pylon before Vick hit the ground. Therefore it was a TD.

That is such bullshit. The person's body should have to be in the endzone- the NFL has been so pussified its not even funny.

[BBMarley]

Hosed again... Not a NO fan- but this is ridiculous!

He threw the ball foward, outside the tackle box- should not have been intentional grounding

[BBMarley]

The plane extends on both sides of the pylon. The ball passed on the left side of the pylon before Vick hit the ground. Therefore it was a TD.

That is such bullshit. The person's body should have to be in the endzone- the NFL has been so pussified its not even funny.

BULLSHIT- the BALL needs to cross the plane, NOT a player's body. WTF are you smoking?

I know that's the rule- I'm saying it should be required. I know what the rule is- I just think the rule is bullshit.

[BBMarley]

BULLSHIT- the BALL needs to cross the plane, NOT a player's body. WTF are you smoking?

I know that's the rule- I'm saying it should be required. I know what the rule is- I just think the rule is bullshit.

Why EXACTLY should a player's body be required to cross the plane of the goal line?? The object of the game is to get the FOOTBALL in there.

So- how does Vick's empty hand crossing the goalline apply when the ball doesn't count as a TD? His body crossed- not the ball...

[rozy]

Hosed again... Not a NO fan- but this is ridiculous!

He threw the ball foward, outside the tackle box- should not have been intentional grounding

The ball has to get back to the line of scrimmage. It didn't. You're complaining on this play? Did you notice that the Saints didn't? It was grounding pure and simple.

As to the touchdown that had to be about the closest call I've ever seen. I much more expected the ref to claim not enough visual evidence. I would have personally thought the ball should have been at the 1 inch line but damn what a close call.

[G.O.]

So- how does Vick's empty hand crossing the goalline apply when the ball doesn't count as a TD? His body crossed- not the ball...

i was wondering what that was as well. what was confusing was the way the ref attempted to explain it- he said something about vicks 'empty right hand going over the pylon and the ball was in his left hand'.

[BSmack]

So- how does Vick's empty hand crossing the goalline apply when the ball doesn't count as a TD? His body crossed- not the ball...

It sure looked to me like the ball crossed the plane in his left hand. Again, the plane of the goal line extends to both sides of the pylon.

[BBMarley]

Hosed again... Not a NO fan- but this is ridiculous!

He threw the ball foward, outside the tackle box- should not have been intentional grounding

The ball has to get back to the line of scrimmage. It didn't. You're complaining on this play? Did you notice that the Saints didn't? It was grounding pure and simple.

As to the touchdown that had to be about the closest call I've ever seen. I much more expected the ref to claim not enough visual evidence. I would have personally thought the ball should have been at the 1 inch line but damn what a close call.

There were two- the second was grounding- but the first- the Falcons guy had Brooks by the jerseyr and when he went to throw the ball, his arm was restricted by the defenders arm- is not grounding. Would be equivalent to a QB throwing the ball and the defender hitting his arm.

[KUTTER]

The goal line extends infinitely from the pylon. The runner must have some part of his body in bounds when the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, even if the ball is crossing it out of bounds. Therefore, the explanation of his right hand crossing the pylon.

[See You Next Wednesday]

I'm still mad that all these years I thought yellow and red mixed together made orange and now I find out they make green. Thanks Prof. Madden.

[G.O.]

The goal line extends infinitely from the pylon. The runner must have some part of his body in bounds when the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, even if the ball is crossing it out of bounds. Therefore, the explanation of his right hand crossing the pylon.

you are saying that his right hand that didnt have the ball in it crossed over the pylon, even though the ball didnt- so its a TD?

wow- if that's true, i did not know that.

[RadioFan]

I'm still mad that all these years I thought yellow and red mixed together made orange and now I find out they make green. Thanks Prof. Madden.

I knew I should've watched the game last night.

Fuck.

[Cuda]

I'm still mad that all these years I thought yellow and red mixed together made orange and now I find out they make green. Thanks Prof. Madden.

Naturally the fat bastard was eating a fucking hot dog & spilled mustard on his tie.

[GrizBearStare]

So, let's say a guy breaks free down the sideline on a kickoff return and is going to score a touchdown without anyone around him. Then, abruptly, at the half yard line he stops and with ball still in hand and feet in bounds, reaches out of bounds with the football so that the ball is past the "plane" of the end line but the ball never crosses said plane in bounds. Is this ruled a touchdown?

[BSmack]

So, let's say a guy breaks free down the sideline on a kickoff return and is going to score a touchdown without anyone around him. Then, abruptly, at the half yard line he stops and with ball still in hand and feet in bounds, reaches out of bounds with the football so that the ball is past the "plane" of the end line but the ball never crosses said plane in bounds. Is this ruled a touchdown?

Yes it is.

[G.O.]

So, let's say a guy breaks free down the sideline on a kickoff return and is going to score a touchdown without anyone around him. Then, abruptly, at the half yard line he stops and with ball still in hand and feet in bounds, reaches out of bounds with the football so that the ball is past the "plane" of the end line but the ball never crosses said plane in bounds. Is this ruled a touchdown?

Yes it is.

by kutters given definition, wouldnt a part of the body have to cross inbounds over the plane (like vicks right hand) with the ball out of bounds, or am i misreading that?

[BSmack]

So, let's say a guy breaks free down the sideline on a kickoff return and is going to score a touchdown without anyone around him. Then, abruptly, at the half yard line he stops and with ball still in hand and feet in bounds, reaches out of bounds with the football so that the ball is past the "plane" of the end line but the ball never crosses said plane in bounds. Is this ruled a touchdown?

Yes it is.

by kutters given definition, wouldnt a part of the body have to cross inbounds over the plane (like vicks right hand) with the ball out of bounds, or am i misreading that?

I'm assuming that when GO said "feet in bounds" that the feet crossed the goal line in bounds. Unless it was Leon Lett holding the ball.

[GrizBearStare]

Yes it is.

by kutters given definition, wouldnt a part of the body have to cross inbounds over the plane (like vicks right hand) with the ball out of bounds, or am i misreading that?

I'm assuming that when GO said "feet in bounds" that the feet crossed the goal line in bounds. Unless it was Leon Lett holding the ball.

My original scenario assumes that no part of the body crosses the goal line in bounds (hence the reason the runner stops at the half yard line) in order to determine if that is a necessary condition of ruling a TD. So, if I understand correctly, my original scenario is not a TD. However, if that scenario were revised to say that at the same time the runner put the ball past the goalline plane out of bounds with one hand, he could take his other hand (which does not contain the ball) and break the plane of the goal line in bounds, and that would be considered a TD.



I think that the ball should have to break the plane in bounds to count. It makes more sense and is simpler.

[BSmack]

by kutters given definition, wouldnt a part of the body have to cross inbounds over the plane (like vicks right hand) with the ball out of bounds, or am i misreading that?

I'm assuming that when GO said "feet in bounds" that the feet crossed the goal line in bounds. Unless it was Leon Lett holding the ball.

My original scenario assumes that no part of the body crosses the goal line in bounds (hence the reason the runner stops at the half yard line) in order to determine if that is a necessary condition of ruling a TD. So, if I understand correctly, my original scenario is not a TD. However, if that scenario were revised to say that at the same time the runner put the ball past the goalline plane out of bounds with one hand, he could take his other hand (which does not contain the ball) and break the plane of the goal line in bounds, and that would be considered a TD.

I think that the ball should have to break the plane in bounds to count. It makes more sense and is simpler.

Your original scenario is retarded. I have a better chance of doing a three way with Carmen Electra and JTR than your scenario does of happening.

[G.O.]

Yes it is.

by kutters given definition, wouldnt a part of the body have to cross inbounds over the plane (like vicks right hand) with the ball out of bounds, or am i misreading that?

I'm assuming that when GO said "feet in bounds" that the feet crossed the goal line in bounds. Unless it was Leon Lett holding the ball.

no- check out kutters definition. i could understand feet being in the end zone even if the ball is not. we're talking about the ball being outside the sidelines but across the actual plane with nothing else across but a hand -without the ball- over the pylon.

[DallasFanatic]

Unless it was Leon Lett holding the ball.

Shit bitch, watch your mouth. I not only had the ball in bounds but my fat ass was too.

Sincerely,

[GrizBearStare]

I'm assuming that when GO said "feet in bounds" that the feet crossed the goal line in bounds. Unless it was Leon Lett holding the ball.

My original scenario assumes that no part of the body crosses the goal line in bounds (hence the reason the runner stops at the half yard line) in order to determine if that is a necessary condition of ruling a TD. So, if I understand correctly, my original scenario is not a TD. However, if that scenario were revised to say that at the same time the runner put the ball past the goalline plane out of bounds with one hand, he could take his other hand (which does not contain the ball) and break the plane of the goal line in bounds, and that would be considered a TD.

I think that the ball should have to break the plane in bounds to count. It makes more sense and is simpler.

Your original scenario is retarded. I have a better chance of doing a three way with Carmen Electra and JTR than your scenario does of happening.

Yes, it is an extreme example. I am just trying to understand the rule and it's application.

[BBMarley]

I think that the ball should have to break the plane in bounds to count. It makes more sense and is simpler.

It does. Anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Not according to the refs last night. He specifcally said- the ball was in his left hand, his empty right hand passed over the pylon- so it is a TD. The ball never broke the plane...

I personally think he was given the benefit of the doubt b/c this is the league's money boy and they want to see him rush balls in b/c it helps sell more jerseys.

Like I said- I don't like the Saints- but it was a BS call.

[BSmack]

I think that the ball should have to break the plane in bounds to count. It makes more sense and is simpler.

It does. Anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Not according to the refs last night. He specifcally said- the ball was in his left hand, his empty right hand passed over the pylon- so it is a TD. The ball never broke the plane...

I personally think he was given the benefit of the doubt b/c this is the league's money boy and they want to see him rush balls in b/c it helps sell more jerseys.

Like I said- I don't like the Saints- but it was a BS call.

Wrong. The ball broke the plane in his left hand. I don't care what he said. Watch the replay. Or watch NFL total access tonight and they'll explain the ruling again.

[G.O.]

It does. Anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Not according to the refs last night. He specifcally said- the ball was in his left hand, his empty right hand passed over the pylon- so it is a TD. The ball never broke the plane...

I personally think he was given the benefit of the doubt b/c this is the league's money boy and they want to see him rush balls in b/c it helps sell more jerseys.

Like I said- I don't like the Saints- but it was a BS call.

Wrong. The ball broke the plane in his left hand. I don't care what he said. Watch the replay. Or watch NFL total access tonight and they'll explain the ruling again.

i thought that must have been the case, but when the reg went to explain it, he said something about vicks empty right hand and something resembling what kutter said. anybody got a rule book?

[BSmack]

Not according to the refs last night. He specifcally said- the ball was in his left hand, his empty right hand passed over the pylon- so it is a TD. The ball never broke the plane...

I personally think he was given the benefit of the doubt b/c this is the league's money boy and they want to see him rush balls in b/c it helps sell more jerseys.

Like I said- I don't like the Saints- but it was a BS call.

Wrong. The ball broke the plane in his left hand. I don't care what he said. Watch the replay. Or watch NFL total access tonight and they'll explain the ruling again.

i thought that must have been the case, but when the reg went to explain it, he said something about vicks empty right hand and something resembling what kutter said. anybody got a rule book?

The right hand is only important in that it establishes that a part of Vick's body was in bounds when the ball crossed the plane. The ref gave a fairly poorly worded explaination, but he got the call right.

This is the closest you will find online to the rule book.

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules

[BBMarley]

The ball breaking the plane was iffy- looked out of bounds to me. Regardless- it was ruled out of bounds at the one. IMO there was no indisputable evidence. Looked like hi right hand was in, but the ball was out...

[Red]

As the MNF crew explained it: The ball can be out of bounds when it crosses the plane of the goalline which, as Kutter said, extends infinitely out from the pylons. As long as the player is not down (i.e., no part of his body has come down out of bounds) and part of the player (e.g., his hand) crosses the goalline inbounds, then it is a touchdown.

It's kind of a crazy rule in this instance, but think of a receiver who is catching a fade route. His feet come down in bounds, but the ball in his outstretched arms is out of bounds. Any problem with this being a touchdown?

[BBMarley]

As the MNF crew explained it: The ball can be out of bounds when it crosses the plane of the goalline which, as Kutter said, extends infinitely out from the pylons. As long as the player is not down (i.e., no part of his body has come down out of bounds) and part of the player (e.g., his hand) crosses the goalline inbounds, then it is a touchdown.

It's kind of a crazy rule in this instance, but think of a receiver who is catching a fade route. His feet come down in bounds, but the ball in his outstretched arms is out of bounds. Any problem with this being a touchdown?

Then why would a RB who is driving and his helmet crosses the line, but the ball doesn't not get the TD? That is more legitimate example then the WR.

The ball did not break the plane, he went out of bounds- just because a part of his body gets in doesn't matter- the BALL needs to break the plane.

[Red]

Then why would a RB who is driving and his helmet crosses the line, but the ball doesn't not get the TD? That is more legitimate example then the WR.

The ball did not break the plane, he went out of bounds- just because a part of his body gets in doesn't matter- the BALL needs to break the plane.

Obviously I don't have an NFL rule book to refer to, but the way it was explained was that for the purposes of the ball crossing the plane, the goalline extends "around the world." So a player who has the ball in his hand is not down until his knee comes down or forward prorgess has been stopped, in the case of your running back, or part of him touches the ground out of bounds.

Think of another scenario. A running back is running down the left sideline. Where does he tuck (sorry, 'duhfan) the ball? In his left arm, right? Now if he's got his left foot 1" from the sideline, the ball in his left hand is likely out of bounds. When he crosses the goalline with both feet inbounds but with a ball that isn't neccessarily inbounds, isn't that a touchdown?

[UCant Unretires Again]

Obviously I don't have an NFL rule book to refer to, but the way it was explained was that for the purposes of the ball crossing the plane, the goalline extends "around the world."

Exactly. The goal plane extends infinitely north, east, and west. I would include south too, but I'm sure there's some rule against digging a hole underground and crossing the goal line in some Hogan's Heros-like manner.

I see Nut Ting...

[Goober McTuber]

Who do you see nutting, Irie?