These pylons caused a huge debate, and I am hoping someone here can sort this out.

Lets say a RB is heading for the Pylon as a LB closes in on him. As the RB gets close to the goal line, he realizes the LB has the angle on him to make the tackle. So the RB dives from the 3 yard line toward the pylon. Basically the RB crosses the goal line "extended" (on the outside of the pylon) before being considered down by contact. Is this still a TD? If so, why do so many players try to "tuck" the ball inside the pylon? Thanks for your time, Jerry

REPLY: Is this a TD? No...it's not. The concept of a goal line extended only applies when a runner is touching the ground inbounds (See NF 2-25-3). In the play you present, there <u>is</u> no goal line extended since the runner is not touching the ground inbounds. The purpose of the goal line extended is apparent in this play: Runner A10 is running down the sideline. He steps from the field of play into B's end zone while holding the ball out of bounds so that it crosses the extension of the goal line outside the sideline. This <u>is</u> a TD because the runner is touching the ground inbounds.

I believe the rule is if he left his feet, the ball should be marked where he left the field of play (i.e. the 1 yd line) unless he gets the ball inside the pylon, then it's a TD. If he dives without leaving his feet (more of a lunge), then it is a TD if he penetrates the goal-line extended.

REPLY: If he leaves his feet in the play that BigJWalt originally posted, then the ball should be placed at the point where it (the ball) crossed the sideline. In order for a TD to be awarded using the goal line extended, the runner must touch the ground inbounds in B's endzone. The extension of the goal line is solely for the purpose of seeing the ball pass over it. Observing the runner pass over the extension is of no significance. In the original play, if the runner had been able to reach and hold the ball inside the pylon, then it would have been a TD because the ball crossed the plane of the goal line itself like tundraRef said.

[Edited by Bob M. on Jul 29th, 2004 at 10:05 AM]

If he touches the ball to the pylon and his last contact with the field of play was inbounds, that's also a TD.

However, if he were to catch a pass and brush the pylon before landing in the end zone, he's OB. Same as if he goes airborn and while in the air, touches the pylon and then catches the ball and alights in the end zone - OB, no TD.

REPLY: I'm trying to visualize the two plays ("However,...") you offer. I'm assuming in the first that you're using the word "catch" to describe a situation where the receiver gains control of the pass while airborne and then brushes the pylon before touching the ground, as opposed to using "catch" in its defined sense. If so, you're right that the receiver is OOB. But as a result, you have an incomplete pass. Is that what you were getting at? For the second play, I visualize him jumping, contacting the pylon, gaining control of the ball, and then completing the catch by touching the ground inbounds in the endzone. Is that the play? If so, I have my own ideas, but I'd really be interested to hear how folks would rule on that one. My thoughts on this one would call for different rulings NF vs. NCAA.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. I guess I could have said 'secured possession of the ball' as catch implies completing the act of alighting in the field of play or end zone inbounds.

Now that I think about it, you could have IP if he goes airborn, touches the pylon, and catches the ball after which he alights in the end zone.

I think Fed and NCAA would agree on this.

REPLY: That's what I figured you meant. Just wanted to be sure. So incomplete is the correct ruling on the first play. Agree? And you're thinking along the same lines as I was on that second play. For Fed, it's technically IP during a loose ball play. But that's really a tough call. For NCAA, it's not IP, but rather a type of illegal touching since in NCAA a receiver loses his eligibilty when he voluntarily goes OOB and returns. The penalty is loss of down at the previous spot--the same as if you ruled an incomplete pass. Personally (and don't tell the rules lawyers) I'd be inclined to call the second play an incomplete pass in Fed as well even though it's technically IP. The penalty is just too harsh. And really how much different is it than your first play. I may now take some heat for that statement, but oh well...

I agree with you Bob, no heat from me. I'm probaly not going to call that IP even though it technically is, it is a pretty harsh penalty and the player did not gain any advantage.

See page 28 of the "comic" book (coaches' rulebook: it's got pictures...) This shows the rule. however it brings up a point. If the runner dives and is contacted by an opponent how many would call this OB instead of a TD?

Now if A's coach has been in my ear all afternoon about enforcing the 'letter of the rule', then......

There is a case book on this one.
 

AB thats a good one about the coach...

I recall reading a play in chapter one of the Federation case book (2004 version) that addresses an airborne A player who touches the pylon with the ball. The answer given is to award A a touchdown.

Strange but true.

If he touches the ball to the pylon and his last contact with the field of play was inbounds, that's also a TD.

That's what I meant by that, Mike. I asked about the reasoning behind this a few years ago with our interpretor and he told me that the ball is considered to have had to have crossed the goal line plane by the time it touches the pylon, even if minutely, so it is the same as an airborn runner who leaps over a pile at the goal line and reaches the ball out so the tip just barely breaks the plane of the goal line. Barely over = over. Sorta like "kind of pregnant".

While this call can be a most critcal call to make in a game, we seem to want to make it out to be more difficult to call than it really is. Proper positioning will greatly assist in making the correct call.

A runner diving (and is airborne) towards the pylon either has to hit the pylon with the ball, pass the ball over the top of it or pass the ball on the endzone side of it. Then it's a TD.

If the ball he is carring passes to the OOB side of the pylon, its NOT a TD and spotted at the point where it first crossed the sideline. Your best judgement is that spot.

These statements apply only to a runner who is diving at the pylon.

Lets say you have the following:

A1 is running with ball near the sideline and both feet are still in-bounds. When A1 reaches the opponents 2 yard line, he jumps for the goaline and lands two yards deep into the endzone, but out of bouands ( no part of the runner landed in bounds). Before A1 reached the opponents 2 yard line, the ball was tucked under his outside arm already over the sideline (Out of Bounds). The runner made no attempt to tuck the ball inside the pylon when he leaped for the endzone.

I believe this could be a touchdown because the runner never went Out of Bounds until he landed two yards deep into the endzone. Since an airborne player is not Out of Bounds until he touches out of bounds, I believe the extended goaline principle should apply.

The rule book states:

ART. 3 . . . The goal line is the vertical plane which separates the field of play from the end zone. When related to a live ball in a runner's possession (touching inbounds) while the ball is over the out-of-bounds area, the goal line includes the extension beyond the sidelines. A team's own goal line is the one it is defending.

I would think that "touching inbounds" would still apply until A1 was Out of Bounds by rule.

If the situtation I described is not a TD, then where would you spot the football? At the 1 inch line? Well, the runner never went out of bounds there.

This is a very interesting topic.