Wednesday question - Page 3

ljudge · #31 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 06, 2005, 06:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob M.
Back to my question...how would you handle it if a scrimmage kick rolled into the pylon (the one "at the intersection of the goal line and sideline" )??

I'm guessing if it's directly into the pylon or field-of-play side of the pylon then easily TB. If it's to the outside of the edge (and it's real obvious) then I guess you can say OOB ball on the 1-inch line. Which is what I was originally guessing around the play we have been discussing.

If the ball was stretched OOB and it's real obvious it's OUT AWAY from the pylon when the runner is airborne then I guess you could make a case for the play being OOB vs. a TD. In my original post I had this technically being OOB all the way but when I read some of the messages I'm thinking perhaps I was wrong the whole time.

Does anyone know if there is a way to ask the Fed these kinds of questions and really get their official answer?

I see a lot of excellent (and valid) points being brought up here and in cases like this it would be nice to ask someone for a "final answer." Maybe Regis? :-)

kentref · #32 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 06, 2005, 09:07pm

Given the length of debate on this play, I'm going to post what actually happened on the play.

The applicable rule is 2-25-3. It states that "... if the runner is not touching inbounds when the ball breaks the plane of the goal-line extended, it is not a touchdown ...."

In the play, the ball was clearly breaking the plane of the sideline and the runner was clearly not touching inbounds, when the ball hit the pylon. By definition the pylon is out of bounds.

I was the Line Judge and the play happened right in front of me. I immediately signalled that the try was no good. Rule 2-25-3 is very clear that the runner has to be touching in bounds for the "goal-line extended" to come into play. The comic book, page 28, probably has the best explanation and illustration.

What about the Case Book 1.2.4 example? From my perspective this represents a play where the runner is clearly in bounds and the ball is clearly in bounds (not breaking the plane of the sideline), when the ball contacts the pylon. In the play I described, the ball was clearly breaking the vertical plane of the sideline. This meant that the goal-line extended would come into play, but only if the runner was touching inbounds.

The try is no good.

PSU213 · #33 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 07, 2005, 12:26am

Quote:

Originally posted by kentref

Quote:

Originally posted by PSU213

Quote:

Originally posted by kentref
To add some clarification:

The holder had his knee on the ground when he fumbled the snap. He then picked up the ball and started to run.

When the runner was airborne the ball was over the sideline when it contacted the pylon. No part of the runner was touching the ground when the ball contacted the pylon.

I'll post the ruling we had this weekend.

I don't want to be a stickler for using the correct terms, but this is a muff, not a fumble (assuming that holder "dropped" the snap without gaining possession). The only reason this really matters here is that the NF rule deals with a muffed snap, not a fumbled snap (am I correct to say that a fumbled snap cannot happen?).

Duh, my bad. You are correct. I should have said, "muffed the snap." Thanks for catching that.

And please don't take offense at that. I was just trying to clear it up because it mattered in this situation...I was not trying to be anal retentive about the wording.

kentref · #34 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 07, 2005, 08:09am

I don't want to be a stickler for using the correct terms, but this is a muff, not a fumble (assuming that holder "dropped" the snap without gaining possession). The only reason this really matters here is that the NF rule deals with a muffed snap, not a fumbled snap (am I correct to say that a fumbled snap cannot happen?). [/B][/QUOTE]

Duh, my bad. You are correct. I should have said, "muffed the snap." Thanks for catching that. [/B][/QUOTE]

And please don't take offense at that. I was just trying to clear it up because it mattered in this situation...I was not trying to be anal retentive about the wording. [/B][/QUOTE]

No offense taken. I'm glad you pointed it out.

Bob M. · #35 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 07, 2005, 09:28am

Quote:

Originally posted by ljudge

(snip) ...it would be nice to ask someone for a "final answer." Maybe Regis? :-)

REPLY: I would suggest you send an e-mail to Jerry Diehl and Regis. My guess is that you're more likely to get a response from Regis. His response is likely to be that he doesn't care how you rule as long as Notre Dame wins!

Bob M. · #36 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 07, 2005, 10:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by kentref
(snip)...What about the Case Book 1.2.4 example? From my perspective this represents a play where the runner is clearly in bounds and the ball is clearly in bounds (not breaking the plane of the sideline), when the ball contacts the pylon. In the play I described, the ball was clearly breaking the vertical plane of the sideline. This meant that the goal-line extended would come into play, but only if the runner was touching inbounds.

The try is no good.

REPLY: I want to make sure I understand this. In both plays, an airborne player reaches the ball out which then touches the pylon. In one, the airborne player (and the ball) is over the field of play, and in the other he, or at least the ball, were passing over--but not touching--the out of bounds area just short of the goal line. You would rule the first play a TD (in accordance with NF Case Book play 1.2.4), but in the second play you would rule the player out of bounds somewhere short of the goal line. Is that what you're saying?

mcrowder · #37 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 07, 2005, 11:38am

Based on the rules in the book, that's what I would rule as well. The crux of this situation is really simple... for an airborne player, did the ball cross the goalline inbounds, or did it cross the out-of-bounds line short of the goalline. That's the rule.

When you really think about it, by the time the ball touches the pylon, the play is already over (by milliseconds, yes, but over nonetheless). Any ruling based on the pylon is simply a shorter (and likely easier) way of determining whether the ball crossed the goalline inbounds or the out-of-bounds line short of the goalline first.

A ball that hits the pylon on the side MUST have already crossed the goalline inbounds. A ball that hits the pylon on the front MUST have already crossed the out-of-bounds line short of the goalline.

A ball that hits the CORNER of the pylon (where it's dang-near impossible to really tell, without super-slo-mo replay and a perfectly placed camera, which line was crossed first) is ruled a TD based on the caseplays.

Opie · #38 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 07, 2005, 06:58pm

Just a question. On NF rule 4-3-2. If a ball is out of bounds behind the goal line, like the rule states, didn't it have to cross the goal line to get there?

Cougman · #39 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 07, 2005, 08:20pm

I am still unsure of this. My understanding of the rule is that the player is ruled in or out of bounds based on where there feet had last touched the ground. Thus if the player jumped from in the field of play crossed the goal line prior to landing it does not matter where he is since he would not be out of bounds till he landed. Since the goal line extends to infinity I still do not understand how the play would not be a score.

ljudge · #40 (**permalink**) Sat Jan 08, 2005, 10:47am

If the ball breaks the plane of the goal line in the out of bounds area the player in possession of the ball must have his feet touching in bounds when the ball breaks the plane of the extended goal line....it's that simple.

Theisey · #41 (**permalink**) Sat Jan 08, 2005, 07:18pm

The goal line and the goal line pylons per NCAA rules are (and I quote) "are in the end zone".

You dive at the pylon and strike it with the ball it's a score. You dive and the ball passes over the top of the pylon, it's a score. You dive and the ball passes to the inside of the pylon it's a score.

You dive and the ball passes to the outside of the pylon its a NO score.

This is the same in NF as it is in NCAA. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

mcrowder · #42 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 09:16am

Good point, Theisey, except that it's flat wrong. It IS simple, but opposite from what you say. If the ball went out of bounds first, it's out of bounds. Simple. If the ball crossed the endzone line in bounds first, it's a TD - also simple.

The definition of the pylon is that it's in the endzone, but nowhere would anyone imply that the pylon is IN bounds. In fact, there are numerous other references saying that it is OUT of bounds, (including 4.2.3-b and the rule refering to a receiver that touches the pylon while making a catch).

Think of it this way - even if you insist that 423b applies here, and that a ball touching a pylon is, at that moment, out of bounds beyond the end line, that does NOT say that the ball in question is a TD, and while at that moment the ball is out of bounds beyond the end line, if the ball hits the FRONT of the pylon, it was previously out of bounds SHORT OF the endline. It doesn't suddenly become a TD just because the ball, already out of bounds, is stretched to meet the pylon. This argument is ludicrous.

PS - just to make sure I'm not the idiot here, I consulted with the local NCAA rules gurus (2 high school, 2 college). Unanimously, they stated that a ball striking the "front" of the pylon carried by an airborne player is OUT OF BOUNDS, and not a TD.

Opie · #43 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 09:42am

So where do you spot a ball that is out of bounds beyond the goal line?

mcrowder · #44 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 09:44am

You spot it where it went out of bounds. Didn't I say that already?

Theisey · #45 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 10:07am

What part about the pylons being in the Endzone don't your Gurus understand? I do not think I am flat wrong. Anyone else care to comment?

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
Good point, Theisey, except that it's flat wrong. It IS simple, but opposite from what you say. If the ball went out of bounds first, it's out of bounds. Simple. If the ball crossed the endzone line in bounds first, it's a TD - also simple.

The definition of the pylon is that it's in the endzone, but nowhere would anyone imply that the pylon is IN bounds. In fact, there are numerous other references saying that it is OUT of bounds, (including 4.2.3-b and the rule refering to a receiver that touches the pylon while making a catch).

Think of it this way - even if you insist that 423b applies here, and that a ball touching a pylon is, at that moment, out of bounds beyond the end line, that does NOT say that the ball in question is a TD, and while at that moment the ball is out of bounds beyond the end line, if the ball hits the FRONT of the pylon, it was previously out of bounds SHORT OF the endline. It doesn't suddenly become a TD just because the ball, already out of bounds, is stretched to meet the pylon. This argument is ludicrous.

PS - just to make sure I'm not the idiot here, I consulted with the local NCAA rules gurus (2 high school, 2 college). Unanimously, they stated that a ball striking the "front" of the pylon carried by an airborne player is OUT OF BOUNDS, and not a TD.