- Thread starter
- #1
nefansince75
Well-Known Member
This call is a controversy because nobody really knows the rules...
The pylon itself is out of bounds. The moment a player strikes the pylon he is out of bounds too. It's fairly clear he lost complete control before he crossed the goal line. Two questions remain: did the ball cross the goal line before either the player hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds; and did he regain possession before he either hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds.
I have to assume replay officials saw what they needed. They have way more angles and the ability to stitch multiple angles together to view frame by frame simultaneously.
As for why a touchdown is ruled when the ball strikes the pylon even though the pylon is out of bounds? It's almost impossible to hit without part of the ball being inbounds. It's a rule to remove judgement calls. It's a rule that by it's nature is a contradictory exception.
The pylon itself is out of bounds. The moment a player strikes the pylon he is out of bounds too. It's fairly clear he lost complete control before he crossed the goal line. Two questions remain: did the ball cross the goal line before either the player hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds; and did he regain possession before he either hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds.
I have to assume replay officials saw what they needed. They have way more angles and the ability to stitch multiple angles together to view frame by frame simultaneously.
As for why a touchdown is ruled when the ball strikes the pylon even though the pylon is out of bounds? It's almost impossible to hit without part of the ball being inbounds. It's a rule to remove judgement calls. It's a rule that by it's nature is a contradictory exception.