YTF is the Pylon out of bounds in CFB?

[TheDayMan]

i already spelled it out.
Read.

Inbounds touchdown is supposed to be vertical over the goal line. Out of bounds isn’t until you touch the ground outside. Touching the pylon with the ball is supposed to be a touchdown.
For these reasons, the pylons should be INBOUNDS.

if you kick the pylon placed inbounds, the ref can just ignore it and still have to make a judgment call if the ball crossed over the goal line before you actually touch the ground out of bounds JUST AS the ref has to do if his foot passes outside the pylon.

It’s much smarter for the pylons to be placed inbounds.

That’s stupid.

 

[ElTexan]

That’s stupid.

Excellent substantive retort

 

[WizardHawk]

Not necessarily. But that’s better than NOT touching out of bounds while trying to pull the ball over the goal line and being declared OUT because of some pylon getting in the way

You have over thought this to the point of confusing yourself.

The pylons sit at the same point in all levels of football. They are not sitting in bounds in the NFL or any other level that im aware of.

They used to have the dumb rule that the goal line went past the sidelines so the ball didn't have to be in bounds when crossing it as long as no part of the player touched out of bounds before the ball crossed. Now THAT was confusing. People still act as though that is true today. It is not. That was fixed around '05 or so.

The rule and location of the pylon makes perfect sense if you read it.

 

[TheDayMan]

Excellent substantive retort

Agreed. What else do you say to “the pylons should be placed in bounds?”

I thought you were arguing they should be concisered in bounds like the other tards, you took it further and actually want them moved.

 

[cwerph]

It really doesn't make sense for it to be considered in bounds when the ball touches it but out when the player does especially when it's considered out if the ball passes the goal line but on the outside of the pylon . I know it is the rules but it's pretty non sensical

Why the rule is enforced as it is:

Physically, it is impossible not to break the plane of the goal line with the ball if you touch it with the ball. Therefore, Touchdown.

Physically, it is impossible not to be out of bounds if any other body part touches the pylon before the ball crosses the goal line. Therefore, out of bounds.

 

[NolePride]

Don't confuse 1st and 3rd base with pylons. That's what people
do. 1st and 3rd base are in fair territory, a pylon isn't.

Then remember that we didn't always have pylons. We had flags
mounted on iron posts. That's where the "flag" route got its name.
You ran your route toward the flag in the corner of the end zone.

That iron post would give but it was still a iron post and it could
hurt you. They got rid of it for the safer pylon.

This is way to long of a thread for a pylon

 

[ElTexan]

Yes. The pylons should be placed inbounds.

Is it a TD if the ball touches the pylon before stepping out? Yes. For this reason alone, the pylons should be in.

If you reach to put the ball over the goal line and you also step out of bounds at the one yard line, does the ref need to make a judgment call if you crossed the ball over before stepping? Yes.

Does the ref need to make a similar judgment call if your carrying the ball inside the pylon and your leg swings outside the pylon and you step out of bounds a foot past the goal line? Yes.

So similarly, we could place the pylon inbounds and just ignore kicking it, and still just make the same judgment call when the player actually touches the ground out of bounds. Completely consistent.

Everywhere else on the field INCLUDING the goal line, the ball is placed where it is VERTICALLY over the field when you’re either down by contact or TOUCH THE GROUND out of bounds. This shows there is a third dimension to being INBOUNDS but you’re only out when you touch THE GROUND out of bounds. So why JUST FOR THE PYLON are we arbitrarily adding a third vertical dimension to OUT OF BOUNDS?

For all the above easily articulable and logically consistent football reasons, the pylons should be INBOUNDS

 

[TheDayMan]

Why the rule is enforced as it is:

Physically, it is impossible not to break the plane of the goal line with the ball if you touch it with the ball. Therefore, Touchdown.

Physically, it is impossible not to be out of bounds if any other body part touches the pylon before the ball crosses the goal line. Therefore, out of bounds.

Pretty easy and straight forward. Don’t know why this is all of the sudden so hard for people.

 

[OregonDucks]

The pylon is either in or out, depending on what the PAC refs want it to be for that moment.

 

[TheDayMan]

The pylon is either in or out, depending on what the PAC refs want it to be for that moment.

No...

Know how I know Oregon sucks? Out of all the pac 12 ref’s bullshit, you have to make an issue out of something they did right to make excuses for your shitty team that couldn’t hold a blowout lead.

 

[tnapucco]

Think of it like a sub-atomic particle.

It's spatial existence and attribute is determined by where a player or ball is when it is "called into existence". It is "called into existence" if it is contacted in any way.

If a player has come into contact with an area outside of the field of play and then contacts the pylon, the pylon is also out of bounds....if that player or the ball held by a player contacts the pylon before the player or ball has come into contact with an area outside the playing field, the pylon is inbounds.

Real simple.

You ham-headed dunce.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

You are over thinking this. If a player makes contact with the pylon inside of the line its all good. Its the line not the pylon

why would you facepalm you brittle bitch?

 

[rmilia1]

Except it’s never considered in bounds, not when a player touches it, not when the ball touches it, never. The pylon is out of bounds.

The idea is an outreached ball has to cross the goal line to make contact with the pylon. As soon as it hits the pylon it is out of bounds, but out of bounds across the goal line.

So what anout when it crosses on the other side of the pylon ? That's where the rule loses me. We all know s ball can be out of bounds yet the player still be in bounds with control so why is that not s touchdown but it is when it you've the pylon ? That's the part that makes no sense to me

 

[WizardHawk]

Yes. The pylons should be placed inbounds.

Is it a TD if the ball touches the pylon before stepping out? Yes. For this reason alone, the pylons should be in.

If you reach to put the ball over the goal line and you also step out of bounds at the one yard line, does the ref need to make a judgment call if you crossed the ball over before stepping? Yes.

Does the ref need to make a similar judgment call if your carrying the ball inside the pylon and your leg swings outside the pylon and you step out of bounds a foot past the goal line? Yes.

So similarly, we could place the pylon inbounds and just ignore kicking it, and still just make the same judgment call when the player actually touches the ground out of bounds. Completely consistent.

Everywhere else on the field INCLUDING the goal line, the ball is placed where it is VERTICALLY over the field when you’re either down by contact or TOUCH THE GROUND out of bounds. This shows there is a third dimension to being INBOUNDS but you’re only out when you touch THE GROUND out of bounds. So why JUST FOR THE PYLON are we arbitrarily adding a third vertical dimension to OUT OF BOUNDS?

For all the above easily articulable and logically consistent football reasons, the pylons should be INBOUNDS

All that duck player had to do is the same thing you see nearly everyone pushing for a first down or going for the goal line near the OB, just extend the football out in front of you ffs. It's just that easy. He had it tucked under his left arm, which was the side closest to the sideline and his foot hit OB before the ball was across the plane.

This is seriously a lot of fuss over what really is boiled down to an unfortunate, but entirely by the rulebook example of why you extend that ball out. That's a TD easily if he does this. He didn't. So it wasn't.

There is no doubt this isn't a topic of conversation today if the ducks didn't follow that up a couple of plays later by hiking the ball up nearly over Herberts head that lead to a 99y TD return by Stanford. Again, another preventable facet of this story the ducks simply blew.

 

[rmilia1]

Why the rule is enforced as it is:

Physically, it is impossible not to break the plane of the goal line with the ball if you touch it with the ball. Therefore, Touchdown.

Physically, it is impossible not to be out of bounds if any other body part touches the pylon before the ball crosses the goal line. Therefore, out of bounds.

I get all that but why , when a player dives from in bounds and the ball crosses the plane but in front of the pylon, I'd that not s td? Dude is in bounds , ball hasn't touched the ground . Yet they don't award the td.

 

[ElTexan]

All that duck player had to do is the same thing you see nearly everyone pushing for a first down or going for the goal line near the OB, just extend the football out in front of you ffs. It's just that easy. He had it tucked under his left arm, which was the side closest to the sideline and his foot hit OB before the ball was across the plane.

This is seriously a lot of fuss over what really is boiled down to an unfortunate, but entirely by the rulebook example of why you extend that ball out. That's a TD easily if he does this. He didn't. So it wasn't.

There is no doubt this isn't a topic of conversation today if the ducks didn't follow that up a couple of plays later by hiking the ball up nearly over Herberts head that lead to a 99y TD return by Stanford. Again, another preventable facet of this story the ducks simply blew.

You did not and cannot refute the explicit and logical points I made. You actually argue that the pylon is now some obstacle to be avoided. Can you see how dumb that is compared to what I’ve EXPLICITLY AND LOGICALLY AND CONSISTENTLY pointed out above?

 

[WizardHawk]

You did not and cannot refute the explicit and logical points I made. You actually argue that the pylon is now some obstacle to be avoided. Can you see how dumb that is compared to what I’ve EXPLICITLY AND LOGICALLY AND CONSISTENTLY pointed out above?

I did clearly refute it in the most basic of terms. If it would benefit the game and the refs ability to determine what a TD is and when a ball/player is OB then they would move it IB. It doesn't so they don't. It can't be more simple.

Again, you want to mix and match NFL and College rules and appear to be lost on them. You have confused yourself into a corner IMO. They changed the rules for the NFL some time ago. It now reads: (11.2.1.b)
(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon.

So it is no longer the case that simply making contact with the pylon with the ball is a TD. That is a rule that makes more sense and in that context it entirely makes sense to have the pylon sit OB and at the point of the goal plane.

The college rule is still a bit behind the times. (8.2.1.a)
a. A ball carrier advancing from the field of play has possession of a live ball when it penetrates the plane of the opponent’s goal line. This plane extends beyond the pylons only for a player who touches the ground in the end zone or a pylon.

It's entirely fair criticism to question the wording and intent of that rule vs the NFL's more modern version, however as it reads they still have the plane of the goal line extend beyond the out of bounds FOR THE BALL. Moving the pylon in no way changes that.

So no, your points aren't valid considering you want to move the pylons as a reaction to the still out dated notion that the ball can cross OB and still be a TD to begin with. Your issue is with the rule, not the tools placed to help determine how to adjudicate that rule.

Clear enough for you?

 

[ElTexan]

I did clearly refute it in the most basic of terms. If it would benefit the game and the refs ability to determine what a TD is and when a ball/player is OB then they would move it IB. It doesn't so they don't. It can't be more simple.

Again, you want to mix and match NFL and College rules and appear to be lost on them. You have confused yourself into a corner IMO. They changed the rules for the NFL some time ago. It now reads: (11.2.1.b)
(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon.

So it is no longer the case that simply making contact with the pylon with the ball is a TD. That is a rule that makes more sense and in that context it entirely makes sense to have the pylon sit OB and at the point of the goal plane.

The college rule is still a bit behind the times. (8.2.1.a)
a. A ball carrier advancing from the field of play has possession of a live ball when it penetrates the plane of the opponent’s goal line. This plane extends beyond the pylons only for a player who touches the ground in the end zone or a pylon.

It's entirely fair criticism to question the wording and intent of that rule vs the NFL's more modern version, however as it reads they still have the plane of the goal line extend beyond the out of bounds FOR THE BALL. Moving the pylon in no way changes that.

So no, your points aren't valid considering you want to move the pylons as a reaction to the still out dated notion that the ball can cross OB and still be a TD to begin with. Your issue is with the rule, not the tools placed to help determine how to adjudicate that rule.

Clear enough for you?

No. That’s not clear at all.

If you dive out of bounds in the air and touch the very tIp of the ball to the very outside edge of the pylon before you hit the ground out of bounds, is it a TD? Yes. For this reason alone, the pylon should be placed in bounds.

As I articulated above, all the other goal line adjacent scenarios are still judgement calls, so YTF do we make touching the pylon with a foot a non-judgment call?

Also as I articulated, out of bounds is always a two dimensional thing while inbounds has a third dimensional component , when placing the ball for example. So YTF do we, just for the couple of square inches of the pylon, do we make out of bounds a three dimensional thing?

My way makes complete consistent football sense in accordance with everywhere on the field.

The current way makes the pylon into an obstacle and also gives a one-time three dimensional aspect to OUT OF BOUNDS.

Makes no sense.

 

[WizardHawk]

No. That’s not clear at all.

If you dive out of bounds in the air and touch the very tIp of the ball to the very outside edge of the pylon before you hit the ground out of bounds, is it a TD? Yes. For this reason alone, the pylon should be placed in bounds.

As I articulated above, all the other goal line adjacent scenarios are still judgement calls, so YTF do we make touching the pylon with a foot a non-judgment call?

Also as I articulated, out of bounds is always a two dimensional thing while inbounds has a third dimensional component , when placing the ball for example. So YTF do we, just for the couple of square inches of the pylon, do we make out of bounds a three dimensional thing?

My way makes complete consistent football sense in accordance with everywhere on the field.

The current way makes the pylon into an obstacle and also gives a one-time three dimensional aspect to OUT OF BOUNDS.

Makes no sense.

You are still confused. For some reason.

If they made the college rule more like the NFL rule which modernized it, this problem isn't here. There is no need to change where the pylon is located. Just fix the rule so the plane doesn't extend beyond the OB for the ball anymore. The NFL changed it and college should as well. It's simple.

 

[NU_FTW]

We need to setup laser identification grids, the only reason out of bounds is only called with paint is because that is the only definitive way to prove out of bounds so its been long accepted.

It is time to use laser grids/walls to call a player out of bounds should any part cross the boundary