[Bob M.]

First question - from where did you learn that your interpretation was the official one - I've not read that elsewhere. [I’m not making the interpretation here—the Federation is. It’s their case play I’m quoting. I’m adding no innuendo to it. They say it’s a TD—not me.]
Second - if the ball misses the pylon and instead goes left of it (in the case of a play on the left front corner of the EZ), but crosses the GL-extended (4 inches out of bounds) while the player is completely airborne, what do you rule? [Like you, I’d rule the ball dead where it crossed the sideline, presumably somewhere short of the goal line. The extension of the goal line has no significance in this play. I’m sure you’re aware of that and agree with that ruling.] After you answer this, why does the existence of an object outside the field of play cause you to change your ruling to allow a football slightly less than 4 inches out of bounds count as in-bounds? [Because both the Federation and the NCAA say that if the ball touches the pylon, it is to be considered “out of bounds behind the goal line.” Note they don’t say behind the goal line extended; they distinctly say behind the goal line. If they made no such statement, I’d agree wholeheartedly with you. That they did is sufficient evidence to me that they want it handled somewhat differently as they describe in their case play. And since we’re asking follow-up questions…how would you rule it if a scrimmage kick rolls from the field of play into that pylon?]

Also note that in other plays, the pylon is clearly defined as part of the out-of-bounds territory (for instance, on a pass reception where the receiver hits the pylon).

To rule on this correctly, ignore the pylon and read the rule [I have read the rule…and the case play—a number of times.] . Your interpretation of that one caseplay is clouding your interpretation of the rules. [I’ll say it again. I’m not making any interpretation here. The Federation is in case play 1.2.4. No clouds here…the sun’s shining !]

I apologize that I sound so stubborn here. But to me this is clear. Out of bounds is out of bounds, and the existence of an object placed on the field of play, but out of bounds to HELP us, is hindering the ruling on this particular play. [I apologize too if I sound pig-headed on this, but I feel that both the Fed and the NCAA are making it equally clear that they want this ruled a TD. If they didn’t, there would be no reason for them to make the explicit statement that a ball touching the pylon is considered OOB behind the goal line. The problem we have is that the pylon is a necessary ‘boundary’ that separates both the field of play from the endzone and inbounds from out of bounds. Whether you make it a 4” x 4” pylon or a pencil-thin stick, you need to account for what happens when the ball hits that boundary. In theory, such a boundary has no dimension so there’s no such thing as hitting the side or front of it. Therefore, they need to accommodate that limitation in their respective rule codes. They do that with NCAA 4-2-3b and NF 4-3-2.]