I mean we are both kind of wasting our time trying to logic OD jr. He'll have none of it.
He and AG both are already outstanding duck fans.
What you’re missing is the ball has to cross the goal line in bounds, what you’re saying about being able to continue in bounds as long as no part of the body touches out of bounds is irrelevant, the ball has to cross the goal line.
I don’t care what teams are involved.The wrs foot grazed the top of the pylon while it was elevated. It never touches the actual ground. The ball is across the goal line before his foot touches the ground in the field of play. This is why the pylon is considered in bounds in the NFL. If the pylon is going to function as an obstruction it’s a rule that needs to be corrected imo. Otherwise by that logic any player who’s elevated 18 inches or less over the sidelines is out of bounds..... The college football pylon rule is majorly flawed by design
And that’s the problem the pylon should be used to gauge whether the ball is in bounds. It was determined the player was out of bounds when his foot grazed the top. If the pylon isn’t there. This plays no different than a wr straddling the sideline and never actually touching the paint. Using the pylon as a gauge for the balls one thing. Saying a players out of bounds for grazing the top of it while never hitting the actual paint on the ground... Kinda defeats the purpose of the pylon
Key word he kicked it... his foot hit the top of the pylon and came down in bounds. His foot was over a foot off the field. By your standard it’s no different than saying a player is out of bounds if they have a body part a foot over the paint. Otherwise you’re taking the pylon which is intended to gauge if the ball is in. And using it as an upright extension of out of bounds. The rule is completely flawed by design.
His foot touches the top of the pylon which is where it was marked out of bounds. His foot comes down in bounds from that angle. If his foot plants in the end zone. I can’t say the ball didn’t shot inside the pylon or cross the line. Regardless I can’t buy grazing the top of a structure that stands over a foot above field level as out of bounds. If a players foot hits anything but the ground.....The rule needs revisions
I’m going to make it easy for you. If this same play happens on the sidelines. Where there is no pylon to obstruct the runner. The runner is still able to continue advancing the ball
You'd rather have more human interpretation instead of having something simple that takes it out of the refs hands? And yet what to tell us how often those same refs blow calls they are responsible for? 
I’ve got the gif version up....But you can clearly see in this pic the runners foot. Hits the top inside of the pylon. It never touches the ground or the white paint. His momentum actually carryschis foot into the end zone never touches white. Like I told Trojan fan. If this play happens on the sideline where there’s no pylon to obstruct a player. He’s allowed to advance the ball without question. The pylons good for gauging end zone dives....over a foot off the ground isn’t out of bounds by logicWhat?
It doesn’t get any clearer than this, the play is dead right there, doesn’t matter where his foot lands, out of bounds, right there. And it should be whether the pylon is there or not, the play doesn’t extend beyond that point when you’re advancing the ball.
