Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by Darrell Green Fan, Oct 12, 2017.
I get that. But then why isn't it a TD when a player gets pushed out of bounds in the endzone in the same manner?
Because OB prevails? Just like on a sideline?
Because the player is out of bounds, just like he would be if pushed out at the 30. Not the case on this play.
That must be it. It just seems counter to when a catch becomes a catch to me.
Ask anybody, rules on catches are CLEAR CUT, no AMBIGUITIES.....
Two feet down in the endzone is not required for forward progress in a TD scenario. As long as the standard of breaking the plane of the goal with possession was met it's a TD provided the player maintains control and comes down in bounds in the field of play.
They use this same forward progress standard for first downs in both running and passing plays.
If you're talking about the Gurley play from last week, it's because he lost control of the ball (i.e. fumbled it) before it crossed the plane of the goal line *and* before his foot landed OB. The replay clearly showed that, and the correct call was made by rule on that play.
No one has any thoughts on this?
TBT - I don't think most NFL coaches understand exactly what can and what cannot be looked at.
No, I was just saying in general as I was reading OPs initial post.. Probably reading it incorrectly
Knock me over with a feather....
I'm pretty sure I've seen them notice something on a replay and act on it even if it wasn't the point challenged, although not on a fumble/recovery.
It may have been line of gain changed? When deciding on a catch being ruled good?
In this case they were reviewing a TD so obviously controlling the ball past the goal line is a part of that review.
I just wonder if they rule it a touchback if the refs had ruled Gurley short of the goal instead of a Touchdown on a Rams challenge?
okay, so let's say we have the same scenario but instead, the runner is tackled and the ball comes out when his elbow hits the ground - he is then ruled down by contact and the ball is no longer live
what the hell sense does that make?
read my next post
Uh, because the play is over the moment he's tackled! Do you really want things to count after the play is over?
no, both players are going down to the ground, his elbow hits the turf with the ball coming out, the play is over
if he isn't tackled, his elbow hits the turf and the ball comes out, it is a fumble
what's the difference?
The difference is down by contact or not. Once down by contact, the play is over. Period. I'm not really sure what you're so confused about. If a defender hits a ball carrier and that contact is the impetus for the ball carrier going to the ground, the play is over the very moment something other than the ball carrier's hand or foot touches the ground. Nothing after that matters.
Your original statement was that the ground cannot cause a fumble, and that is incorrect because it absolutely can. You can not like it, but that's a different discussion.
"The TUCK RULE"
- Jon Gruden
I guess the "down by contact" thing is what I hate
back in the day, whether you fall to the turn on your own, or you have 3 guys hanging on you, if the ball came out when you hit the turf, that was a fumble
Separate names with a comma.