forums

OT: Sugar Bowl and Playoffs

Advertisement
Miami[]_[]Smoke said:
I don’t think you understand the rule. it’s where the ball is when a part of his body touches OB. The ball was clearly beyond the marker before he stepped out
Click to expand...
I know the rule, and that isn’t the rule. It’s where the ball cross out of bounds.

Their was no conclusive shot they showed that you could see where he got the first down.


1672589434306.png
 
gacaneaddict said:
I know the rule, and that isn’t the rule. It’s where the ball cross out of bounds.

Their was no conclusive shot they showed that you could see where he got the first down.


View attachment 223009
Click to expand...
I k ow what you’re saying but You’re not Interpreting your own post correctly. He’s not declared out until he touches OB unless he goes airborne, like the exception states. He didn’t go airborne, and as you can see he’s still not out by the pic below. By your interpretation someone running down the right sideline with the ball in the right hand would be out because the ball would be OB or a catch in the end zone wouldn’t be a td if the ball was caught over the sideline
73EE0C49-A330-463B-9BB8-159A1975E0B2.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
WanderFranco said:
But if it's targeting, isn't it first down Michigan? It happened while the ball was live.
Click to expand...


Yes it would have been first down michigan. But Jim Harbaugh would still have been coaching and this game would still have been considered "a big one."

:haha-smiley:
 
Suhrthing said:
No. He wasn't airborne. It was the right call.
Click to expand...


If he was crossing the goal line and not a random first down line, would it have been a TD?

To answer this, please make note of the position of the football in relation to the plane of the pylon.
 
SFbayCane said:
If he was crossing the goal line and not a random first down line, would it have been a TD?

To answer this, please make note of the position of the football in relation to the plane of the pylon.
Click to expand...
Yes, if circumstances were the same its a td.

"The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress."

In that case the ball carrier is never declared out of bounds. Therefore a TD.
 
SFbayCane said:
Really? Correct me if Im wrong but wouldn't the ball have passed outside of the pylon and not crossed the plane of the end zone?
Click to expand...
The goal line extends across the the globe for a ball carrier as long as he's not 'airborne'. Which is why you see runners who don't have to dive just tip-toe their feet inside the pylon without trying to extend the ball.

The same logic as to why a receiver just needs feet inbounds when catching a pass, and not the ball.
 
SFbayCane said:
Really? Correct me if Im wrong but wouldn't the ball have passed outside of the pylon and not crossed the plane of the end zone?
Click to expand...
Honestly, it’s a dumb rule and isn’t applied the same in all circumstances, it’s usually applied differently in the end zone (either feet in OR the ball in). Per my examples above, sometimes it’s where the feet are and sometimes it matters where the ball is, but you can’t do that in the field of play when spotting the ball, you have to pick one. It’s contradictory and there is no overhead view a ref could have so it can’t be judged accurately
 
Advertisement
Miami[]_[]Smoke said:
Honestly, it’s a dumb rule and isn’t applied the same in all circumstances, it’s usually applied differently in the end zone (either feet in OR the ball in). Per my examples above, sometimes it’s where the feet are and sometimes it matters where the ball is, but you can’t do that in the field of play when spotting the ball, you have to pick one. It’s contradictory and there is no overhead view a ref could have so it can’t be judged accurately
Click to expand...
Agreed. IMO the sidelines should only apply to the body; the ball should be spotted whever it exists when the ball carrier/receiver is deemed out of bounds. I think that would bridge some inconsistencies.
 
Suhrthing said:
No. He wasn't airborne. It was the right call.
Click to expand...
He was airborne first, then he stuck his hand down, And it was too close to make a reversal. Ball hit out of bounds mark imo same time hand hit. It was so close and no way can you just reverse it based on those views. There is doubt there.

Also pac 12 refs for game with ax to grind against big 10 for poaching their flagship program. Four 50-50 calls in 2nd half all went UGA’s way. Hmm
 
gacaneaddict said:
He was airborne first, then he stuck his hand down, And it was too close to make a reversal. Ball hit out of bounds mark imo same time hand hit. It was so close and no way can you just reverse it based on those views. There is doubt there.

Also pac 12 refs for game with ax to grind against big 10 for poaching their flagship program. Four 50-50 calls in 2nd half all went UGA’s way. Hmm
Click to expand...
Wrong again. It was an easy reversal.
 
Suhrthing said:
Wrong again. It was an easy reversal.
Click to expand...

No you’re wrong again it wasn’t Easy. I already posted the rules when his hand finally hits ground it’s bam bam with ball touching the out of bounds. Obviously the ball crosses out of bounds line short, but what I’m arguing is ball hit sideline simultaneously with hand hitting ground. Also that Angle is from off to side enough to distort. It’s not right in line with out of bounds.

If it was called on field other way I wouldn’t reverse it.
 
Back
Top