Shipley TD Catch

[VAMike]

Watching the game for the 1st time (on ESPNU) -
I can see why many are convinced it was not a catch. Suggestion - turn off the audio, the commentators do not have a clue. They claim the rule says the whole foot has to be inbounds. Not true.

Player's toe clearly touches green before rest of foot comes down and hits white.

End zone is green but has some burnt orange near the point where green and white (endline) touch. The green is inbounds.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by VAMike
the commentators do not have a clue.
Amazing! :evillol: :evillol: ;)

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by VAMike
Watching the game for the 1st time (on ESPNU) -
I can see why many are convinced it was not a catch. Suggestion - turn off the audio, the commentators do not have a clue. They claim the rule says the whole foot has to be inbounds. Not true.

Player's toe clearly touches green before rest of foot comes down and hits white.

End zone is green but has some burnt orange near the point where green and white (endline) touch. The green is inbounds.

Thank You!!!! I knew his toe came down inbounds and we rarely listen to the TV when watching games, we always turn on the radio. The radio broadcasters were saying the same thing. Even my husband, a HUGE Texas Tech fan said it was a TD.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Amazing! :evillol: :evillol: ;) who'da thunk it?

[GWOOD]

Yeah, that was a new one on me. I am a Tech fan but it looked like a TD to me. I had seen many catches where dragging the toe inbounds was considered a catch and had never heard the mention of the heel--ever.

[luvhoops34]

Originally posted by VAMike
the commentators do not have a clue.


:eek: That describes several posters on here, too!:D

Thanks for clearing that up, VA Mike. You tha' man. It's so nice to have you on the board!:D

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by VAMike
Watching the game for the 1st time (on ESPNU) -
I can see why many are convinced it was not a catch. Suggestion - turn off the audio, the commentators do not have a clue. They claim the rule says the whole foot has to be inbounds. Not true.

Player's toe clearly touches green before rest of foot comes down and hits white.

End zone is green but has some burnt orange near the point where green and white (endline) touch. The green is inbounds.

I can't find anything in the rulebook discussing toe/heel or anything to that effect. Here's what I can find though. Could you please clarify? Thanks.


RULE 4.
SECTION 2. Out of Bounds Player Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 1. a. A player or an airborne player is out of bounds when any part of his person touches anything, other than another player or game official, on or outside a boundary line (A.R. 4-2-1-I and II).

[oldcrow]

Go Horns

[VAMike]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
I can't find anything in the rulebook discussing toe/heel or anything to that effect. Here's what I can find though. Could you please clarify? Thanks.


Not sure what is unclear? The toe hit and he had possession, TD at that moment. His foot continued down and the rest of it then touched OOB which was immaterial here as ball was already dead due to the TD.

What is your sticking point?

[BMOC]

This has been an argument before on ESPN. According to those guys, the only time the foot becomes an argument depends on which way the player is facing. If the player catches the ball and is facing out-of-bounds, and if toe hits in-bounds, the heel will naturally come down in-bounds. If the player is facing the field and goes up to catch a pass and his toes are in-bounds, then it depends if the heel comes down in-bounds or not, since the ruling is one FOOT. If the player is knocked out-of-bounds while he is coming down, and his toes catch the in-bounds area, then it becomes a judgement call by the referee where the heel would have landed.

[Rabbit'93]

I don't think he is questioning the Shipley TD. I believe he's asking for clarification of a different rule that he's posted.....then again i've been known to be wrong a time or two.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by Rabbit'93
I don't think he is questioning the Shipley TD. I believe he's asking for clarification of a different rule that he's posted.....then again i've been known to be wrong a time or two.

I'm questioning what the rule is saying and how it (if it does) applies to the Shipley TD. From the way that it reads, I'm reading it as saying that a player is out of bounds once any part of his lands on or outside the OOB line. In this case, he landed with part of his foot in the endzone and part of his foot on the OOB line. That's why I'm asking for an interpretation of the rule.

Mike,
You said that once his toes hit in bounds that he's in...end of story. However, isn't that assuming that he has possession at the time that he lands in bounds? I'm not questioning whether or not he made the catch (he did) but the way you stated it made it sound like a hard and fast rule. However, any official in that situation would watch for him to land and determine that he did secure the catch. Am I wrong?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
I'm questioning what the rule is saying and how it (if it does) applies to the Shipley TD. From the way that it reads, I'm reading it as saying that a player is out of bounds once any part of his lands on or outside the OOB line. In this case, he landed with part of his foot in the endzone and part of his foot on the OOB line. That's why I'm asking for an interpretation of the rule.

Mike,
You said that once his toes hit in bounds that he's in...end of story. However, isn't that assuming that he has possession at the time that he lands in bounds? I'm not questioning whether or not he made the catch (he did) but the way you stated it made it sound like a hard and fast rule. However, any official in that situation would watch for him to land and determine that he did secure the catch. Am I wrong? The way I understand it was his toe hit first and he had possession of the ball. Touchdown. It doesn't matter if other parts of his body hit out of bounds after the initial touching of the toe inbounds with possession. If his entire foot had hit at once, he would have been ruled out of bounds.

[VAMike]

OK Now I see where you are going.

1 - I do not see any part of his foot on the white initially but if you do, then you should rule incomplete.

2 - I did not address the "continuing possession" situation as that did not apply in this specific situation. (And frankly a discussion of it will likely only confuse the fan although it is a great exercise/debate for officials). I can discuss it with you through PM's if you wish