JV game - NFHS rules.
A is lined up in scrimmage kick formation for a try. The snap is fumbled and the holder picks up the ball and takes off around the left end. He is nearing the sideline when he takes aim at the goal line pylon and goes airborne. He is completely airborne and directly above the sideline when he holds the ball out and contacts the pylon. The pylon is knocked back towards the back of the end zone as the runner contacts the ground out of bounds. At the time the runner contacted the ground the ball was clearly beyond the plane of the goal line (extended) and clearly out of bounds.

Successful try ... or not?

Sounds like a TD, but I'm not sure if I'm getting it right. The ball hit the pylon before he touched OOB?

I'm am a little concerned about the holder "fumbling" the snap (if he fumbled it, it would mean he had possession of the ball, but doesn't that mean the snap is over?). Rule 4-2-2 doesn't really deal with a holder fumbling and recovering a snap without his knees leaving the ground.

Also, does it matter that it is a JV game? (sorry to be smart)

I have him out of bounds, as described. More detail is needed about where the ball is when it strikes the pylon though.

No problem with the snapper. He can get up to run or pitch the a grounded snap. What he cannot do is "rise to get a grounded snap and then go back down to a knee."

No detail needed ... by definition it is out of bounds behind the goal line. Since the runner was airborne he was not yet OOB until the ball hit the pylon.

This is a successful 2-point try, assuming the holder picked up the ball clean after the muffed snap (see MJT post).

I don't believe that's correct in either code, middle. Goal-line extended applies to a runner that is NOT airborne.

Try is good.

Hitting the (properly placed) pylon with the ball (in runner's possession), whether you're airborne or not is always a score.

Rule reference (the whole rule, not just the number)?

REPLY: Here you go...

<b>NCAA 4-2-3b:</b> “A ball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line.”

<b>NF 4-3-2:</b> “…If the ball touches a pylon, it is out-of-bounds behind the goal line.”

Note that both codes describe the situation as the ball being "behind the goal line" -- not the goal line extended. That would mean that any ball striking the pylon would have had to cross the goal line itself -- a TD by rule if in possession of the opponent of the team defending the goal line in question.

For NCAA, AR 8-2-1 III is the closest thing to the play we're discussing: "Runner A1, advancing in the field of play, becomes airborne at the two-yard line. His first contact with the ground is out of bounds three yards beyond the goal line. The ball, in possession of the runner, passed over the pylon. RULING: Touchdown (Rule 4-2-4-e)." Note that the player did not touch the ground inbounds so the extension of the goal line is immaterial. However, the ruling is still a TD with the ball passing over the pylon. By extension, hitting the pylon with the ball should result in the same ruling.

For Federation, I'm pretty sure there's also a case book play that backs up the ruling of TD. However, I don't have my Case Book with me and the online version is currently offline. I'll see what I can dig up at home tonight to support the Federation ruling of TD.

Technically you could argue ABoselli's ruling, but HOW could you explain to a coach that the ball touched the outside of the pylon vs. the inside of the pylon OR BETTER YET did it hit the exact inside corner of the pylon. You will need very good vision to see this exactly perfect in order to make a ruling.

Here's a pylon (corners 2 and 4 touching on the sideline)

1...2
3...4

#4 is the exact intersection of the goalline / sideline. As per 2.25.3 if the ball is outside of area 1 & 3 while the player is still airborne then it's not a score. If the ball is outside of area 1 & 3 while still touching inbounds it's a score as per 2.25.3.

But, now in the situation listed. If the ball hits the pylon at points 2 or 4 you should rule TD. If it hits anywhere to the left of 4 then you should rule no TD.

Now HOW can you with full-speed action rule no good. The only way I can see it is if the player has the ball extended pretty far out of bounds (as far as his arm will reach) and while still airborne brings the ball and whacks the side of the pylon between corners 1&3.

Most officials always rule hitting the pylon a TD. Actually I have never seen on any highlights (HS, NCAA, Canadian, NFL, etc.) an official not ruling a TD when the ball hits the pylon. If you want to get technical then I suppose you could rule no score, but you better have the car running if it's a big game and you make that call in the end.

TECHNICALLY the play would be OB and not a TD. PRACTICALLY, call this one a TD.

Why, oh why, are you trying to make this more complicated than it is?

Thank you.

Score it.

Not sure if the comments were directed my way. I agree it's technically OB but would also rule TD. I was trying to give mcrowder a "letter of the law" interp as he requested.

In a nutshell I was trying to articulate what Jim S was saying but did a poor job I guess at showing WHY I would go TD.

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 sure hope you ruled a Score since that is what it was :)

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.

Sorry to be the lone wolf on this, but if the ball went out of bounds before crossing the goalline on a play where the player is airborne, it's out of bounds, not a TD. This is why I asked for clarification on where it hit the pylon. If it first hit the pylon on the side labelled 1-3 or on the side labelled 3-4 above, it's NOT a TD (as it would have had to be out of bounds before crossing the goal line), and you're being purposely inaccurate (and lazy) if you just say it's "easier" to sell the TD on this play. If it first hit the pylon on side 2-4 above, it's a TD, as it would have had to cross the goalline inbounds.

All this assuming the Fed rule's intent is the same as NCAA. From the small piece of the rule posted above, it sounds like it is.

REPLY: Here's the FEDERATION Case Book Play (1.2.4)

<b>NF Case Book 1.2.4:</b> Ball carrier A10 dives into the pylon at the intersection of the goal line and sideline. <b>RULING:</b> Touchdown. Assuming that the pylon was placed properly, the ball broke the plane of the goal line prior to touching the pylon.

Key difference there - AT the intersection. If he hit the pylon AT the intersection, it's a TD - but that is the border-point. Re-read the rule.

Besides - this is a rules Stump-the-Chump. At LEAST we should get the rule right here, even if you are going to intentionally rule it wrong on the field.

ABoselli, Middleman --- why are we making it more complicated than it is? Why are you making it simpler than it is? It's not as simple as you seem to think, and your thinking, quite frankly, is wrong.

REPLY: The only reason they include the words <i>"...at the intersection of the goal line and sideline"</i> is to distinguish this pylon from the others on the field, like those at the endline. There's nothing to imply that they're talking about <u>where</u> on the pylon the player hits. I think their play is really quite definitive. It's a TD.

I understand your thinking that the since the pylon is OOB, you have to cross the sideline before hitting it even if only a fraction of an inch before the goal line. However, both codes are very clear that the pylon is OOB behind the goal line. And their interpretations calling this a TD is no doubt designed to keep us from having to split a hair down near the goal line.

I have always thought this was a **TD but for the wrong reasons. In that particular case play I always thought they meant the corner of the pylon so thanks for the official interpretation. The logistics however baffle me as it would have to be one helluva leap to go airborne and hit an endline pylon.

** - I never had this actually happen where the player was airborne and had the ball over the OOB area.

First question - from where did you learn that your interpretation was the official one - I've not read that elsewhere.

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? 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?

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. Your interpretation of that one caseplay is clouding your interpretation of the rules.

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.

First question - from where did you learn that your interpretation was the official one - I've not read that elsewhere. <b>[I’m not making the interpretation here—the Federation is. It’s <u>their</u> case play I’m quoting. I’m adding no innuendo to it. They say it’s a TD—not me.]</b>
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? <b>[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.]</b> 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? <b>[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 <u>extended</u>; 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?]</b>

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 <b>[I have read the rule…and the case play—a number of times.] </b>. Your interpretation of that one caseplay is clouding your interpretation of the rules. <b>[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 !]</b>

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. <b>[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 <u>behind</u> 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.]</b>

Actually, NCAA and Fed make the point of saying that if the ball touches the pylon at the intersection of the goalline and the OOB line, it's a TD. What I meant by "your interpretation" is your statement that both ruling bodies put in the statement "At the intersection..." to direct us to which pylon they meant.

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone make that assumption, so I'm wondering why you (or others) do.

Don't you think it would be a little comical for them to add the "At the intersection..." part to tell us which pylon they meant (and, um, would you not say that in the bizarre case where Julius Erving dives for a TD and touches the pylon at the intersection of the BACK line and OOB, that it's still a touchdown!?!?!) :)

Surely that is not the reason they put in "at the intersection...". Surely they are putting that in to define what happens if the ball hits the corner, since the rulebook doesn't explicitly spell that out (the rulebooks DO say that if the ball is out of bounds before it's across the endline it's out of bounds, and vice versa). The "At the intersection" part is to tell us that if it hits the pylon "at the intersection" (which is EXACTLY what is says), it's a TD (and I suppose to tell us, basically, when in doubt of which side of the pylon was hit by the ball first, call it a TD).

What I find strange is that there seems to be a desire (not just by Bob, but by most here) to ignore the rulebook in this case. An apathy in that direction, in fact (as evidenced by the "Why make this hard?" type commentary). Maybe this would have gotten more agreement if the casebook play did not exist, but I truly feel that the majority here is misinterpreting the "at the intersection" part to make the caseplay contradictory to the rulebook. (PS - in other cases where the casebook has clearly contradicted the rulebook, the default is ALWAYS the rulebook, not the casebook, right?)

REPLY: Actually, I have no apathy for the rules. In fact, I believe that the rules support a TD in the case we've been discussing--to wit NF 4-3-2. I've never suggested that it's OOB by rule but aw...let's just call it a TD. I've always claimed that by rule, it's a TD.

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" :))??

And I was never suggesting that Dr. J was diving from the field of play to the end line. Let's face it...the Fed is not the best in the world when it comes to wording their rules or their Case Book plays, or their exams for that matter. I think the Fed is just telling you which pylon they're referring to. In fact, if they meant it the way you think they do, they would have said "...at the intersection of the front edge and inside side edge" of the pylon, and not the intersection of the sideline and goal line. Right??

And I'm surprised that no one has questioned the Case Book play I quoted. It says that "Ball carrier A10 dives into the pylon at the intersection of the goal line and sideline." Never once mentions where the ball is. It might be carried outside the pylon (OOB where it crossed the sideline) or might be crossing the goal line inside the pylon (TD) or it might be carried short of the goal line when the player hits the pylon so it would be dead in the field of play or it might be the first thing to hit the pylon which is the play we're discussing. With the Fed, you never can tell what they really are looking for.

Oh well, I just think we should put this one on the "We-really-don't-know" shelf and agree to professionally disagree.

Let me ask this, in absense of the caseplay, and on a field with no pylon (for some reason), if an airborne player carried the ball out of bounds before the ball crossed the goalline, is it out of bounds in Fed (it is in NCAA).

Why the difference?

The rule sliver quoted above doesn't even specify where the ball is coming from when it strikes the pylon, and makes no mention whatsoever of TD vs OOB. It merely states that a ball touching the pylon is out of bounds (just like a receiver's foot touching the pylon, even if doing so while not touching the ground, is considered to be touching out of bounds) There are a number of situations where I believe this may come into play (a receiver diving for a catch, feet not touching ground, ball hits pylon before a foot touches inbounds - incomplete - the ball hit out of bounds, or a loose ball play where the ball is rolling around near the pylon, doesn't touch the ground out of bounds, but strikes the pylon - the ball is out of bounds, etc). But I don't believe this play is even relevant.

We all agree that when the ball goes out of bounds, it's out of bounds (in the hands of an airborne player, obviously). So on a play where the airborne player is diving toward the pylon --- if the ball is carried out of bounds at the 1 inch line, it's OUT. Period. It hasn't yet hit the pylon, but it's OUT. The play is dead. Subsequent touching of the pylon doesn't suddenly make it back IN again. That's silly.

I think you're letting the poorly worded caseplay and a rule that doesn't say a word about TD vs OOB convince you that you should over-rule the other rules in the rulebook.

PS - I never meant to say that YOU (Bob) personally had apathy here, it's obvious you don't. But it was implied earlier by a few that this was a simple case and we need not complicate it (and echoed by one other). Apathy. It was also implied by others that it might be easier to just call this a TD even though by rule it's OOB. Again, apathy (worse here - intentional apathy). Obviously, this is not simple. I've discussed this with 3 of the rules gurus I know not on this board, and they all agree that this is out of bounds, and not a TD. I actually find it odd that the board seems to have overwhelming support for a TD on this. It's counterintuitive.

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 <b>real</b> 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 <u>real obvious</u> it's <b>OUT AWAY</b> from the pylon when the runner is airborne then I <i><b>guess</i></b> 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? :-)

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 <u>over</u> the field of play, and in the other he, or at least the ball, were passing <u>over</u>--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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

I am kind of new at this, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, I'm just trying to understand.
There are times when a ball breaks the sideline plane, but is still not out of bounds, i.e. a ball carrier with the ball in his outside hand running very close to the sideline. If he goes out of bounds the ball is spotted where the front of the ball is where he goes out of bounds.
If a player near the sideline leaps toward the EZ and has the ball in his outside hand the ball may be out of bounds momentarily beyond the plane of the sideline, but it could be brought back and cross the EZ inside the pylon.
Or he could smack the front of the pylon with the ball. Considering the width of a football, wouldn't part of the ball be breaking the goaline plane? Does all of the ball have to break the plan or just part of it? I thought that any part of the ball breaking the plane was a TD. Just my humble opinion.

I have been watching this thread and have been enjoying the discussion and think that it is time to join in. What mcrowder has stated is what I have always been taught. Try to look at it in this prospective, A20 is running with the ball in his right arm and dives toward the end zone. The ball crosses the sideline at the one yard line. A20 then lands out of bounds after the ball has penetrated the goal line extended. The result of the play not a TD but the ball is placed where it went OB at the one yard line. Using that philosophy, when a ball carrier is diving toward the pylon and the ball hits the front surface, the ball had to cross the sideline at some point prior to crossing the goal line extended. The covering official must determine the point at which the ball crossed the sideline. That is what we get paid for.
Dale Smith

REPLY: And by the same argument, if the ball hits the inside face of the pylon, it would have crossed the goal line first and therfore be a TD. Right?? So...what if the ball hits the corner where the front and inside faces of the pylon intersect??

[/B][/QUOTE]

REPLY: And by the same argument, if the ball hits the inside face of the pylon, it would have crossed the goal line first and therfore be a TD. Right?? So...what if the ball hits the corner where the front and inside faces of the pylon intersect?? [/B][/QUOTE]

Bob M you are correct. If the ball hits the inside face of the pylon it is a TD. The ball has penetrated the goal line prior to going OB. As far as hitting the corner of the pylon, I think that the odds of that happening would be very small. More than likely I would award a TD.
The one thing that this thread points out is that the official responsible the goal line has to be at the goal line prior to the ball getting there. Touchdowns can be earned and unearned in a blink of an eye. We owe it to the players to be at the proper place at the proper time to make the correct ruling.
Dale Smith

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theisey

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?

The mascot is also in the endzone. So what. The existence of the pylons in the endzone (out of bounds, no less ... or are you trying to say they are IN bounds?!?!) is irrelevant to whether the ball went out of bounds before crossing the endzone line or not.

Let me stretch this point to the absurd, to make the point clear. Player A11 dives out of bounds from the 3 yard line, and is airborne, out of bounds, The ball is at the 3 when it goes out of bounds in flight. Player A11, just about to hit the ground, but still airborne, 3 feet out of bounds stretches his hand with the ball back toward the field and A) grazes or B) misses the pylon with the ball on the back/outside corner.

Are you calling this a TD? Of course not .... but if not - how does this differ from the original scenario in anything other than distance where you should spot the ball. In both scenarios, the ball is placed at the 3 yard line.

Stretch it further. Earlier in the play, another player hit the pylon, so it is no longer where it used to be. In diving for the endzone, the ball, when reached back toward in-bounds, crosses the goalline 3 inches out of bounds (where the pylon USED to be). Is this a TD? Of course not. So if you're ruling the 1st sitch a TD, and this one not, are you saying that the superfluous equipment on the field (the pylon) changes the dimensions of the field to allow a ball crossing the goalline 3 inches out of bounds to be ruled a TD, but only if the pylon has not moved?

Absurd. All of it.

The rules are VERY clear - if the ball (in possession of an airborne player) passes out of bounds before it crosses the goalline, it is spotted where it went out. Period. Please stop trying to use a rule that was not intended for this scenario to change the dimensions of the field, or the correct ruling that you would have gotten right had the pylon not been there at all.

Bob - that is exactly right...

If it hits the inside of the pylon, it MUST have crossed the goalline first, and if it hits the front, it MUST have crossed out of bounds first. There is a caseplay that tells us what to rule if the ball hits the corner (ie - hits the pylon AT the intersection of the goalline and sideline) - it's a TD.

Opie - what's being discussed here is ONLY the case of an airborne player. If the player is touching the ground and reaches across the goalline, he gets the benefit of the Goal-Line Extended (through infinity, according to Al Michaels (:)) ). The rules differ for an airborne player, and specifically tell us that if the ball crosses the out of bounds line before crossing the goal line, it's out of bounds. The point of contention exists because of 4.2.3-b that tells us that if the ball hits the pylon, it's out of bounds beyond the endline. That one statement seems to be leading some people to throw out the other rules and give a TD ANY time the ball hits the pylon. My contention on that is that it is true that if the ball hits the pylon, then AT THAT MOMENT, it is out of bounds beyond the endline --- but that is irrelevant, as the ball was ALREADY out of bounds before it struck the endline (the play was over prior to the ball striking the pylon).

4-2-3b is really meant for other situations. Like - a loose ball bouncing in the endzone bounces up, strikes the pylon, and comes back in bounds. The ball is OUT of bounds when it strikes the pylon, and is beyond the endline - so rule safety/touchback accordingly.

Thanks. Getting clearer. There are still questions in my mind.
If the airborne player holds the ball so that it passes inside the pylon, TD, right?

If the airborne player holds it so it strikes the front of the pylon, is it safe to assume that part of the ball is breaking the goalline plane inside the pylon (base on the width of the ball being wider than the pylon)at the same time that part of it is also out of bounds as it strikes the pylon? Does the entire ball have to break the goalline plane or just part of it?

I know on a play not near the sideline only part of the ball must break the plane for a TD.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm a second year official and have been working the wings and I want to be clear in my mind on this.

REPLY:
<i>If the airborne player holds the ball so that it passes inside the pylon, TD, right?</i> <b> YES...always--provided it's his <u>opponent's</u> goal line</b>

<i>...Does the entire ball have to break the goalline plane or just part of it?</i> <b>In my opinion, just part of it</b>

Opie - if the ball strikes the pylon on the front, it was already out of bounds when it did so. Only the smallest tip of the ball must cross the goalline, to answer your question directly, but the ball must not have been out of bounds before that. If it strikes the pylon on the front, it MUST have been out of bounds first, since the pylon is entirely out of bounds.

.....|
..P.|
___|______goalline________
.....|
.....|
.....o
.....o
.....b
.....|

P is the pylon. For the ball to hit the pylon on the front (bottom in this picture), it would have HAD to cross the OOB line first. Similarly, if it hits the pylon on the side (right side in this picture), it would have HAD to cross the goalline first. (periods used as spacers only)


[Edited by mcrowder on Jan 10th, 2005 at 03:20 PM]

Thanks all. I think I've got it straight, in my stubborn mind anyway. Good thing I got Lasik last year, I'll never miss one now. :)

I'm with Theisey. The ball hits the pylon, while being held by a player touching inbounds or airborn when last touching inbounds, it's a score.

If it touches the outside of the pylon, where are you placing it? At the .0000001 inch line where is supposedly went OB? That's why it is ruled a TD - you can't place it there.

NCAA 4-2-b. - A ball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line.

There's nothing in there about what part of the pylon got touched. There's nothing in there about goal line extended. Just OB behind the goal line. If it got behind the goal line before it was OB, that's a TD.



This try was good.

REPLY: I agree also. The Federation rule is almost identical to the NCAA rule.

This is one of the reasons I am having such a blast with this new vocation, "discussions" of the rules.
I appreciate all the comments here.
After reading them all again I've come to the conclusion that if I see this, my arms are going up.
I don't want to split hairs but, even with my new eyes, determining the exact angle at which the ball strikes the pylon is easier said than done.
Since rule NF 4-3-2 says the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line, I think it had to cross it to get there.

I'm at a loss to try to understand why, in this specific case, you feel compelled to rule in contradiction to the rules. I just don't get it. I can restate my position ad infinitum, but it's just that - repeating. I'll try one last time.

You both keep quoting a rule that says if the ball hits the pylon, it's out of bounds in the endzone when it hits the pylon. Great. So what? It was already out of bounds. Let me say it this way. Say, for instance, that the pylon is missing, or that in this play, the ball never hits the pylon. Player A11 dives (airborne) from the 2, with the ball going out at the 2, and lands, ball-first- 2 feet out of bounds, 1 yard past the goal line. By rule, when the ball hits the ground 2 feet out of bounds, it's out of bounds beyond the endline (just exactly like the pylon rule you keep quoting). Right? But you don't overrule logic in this case - you put the ball at the 2, where it went out of bounds. By rule. Why? Because it went OUT OF BOUNDS before it went ACROSS THE GOAL LINE.

ABoselli - why can't we spot the ball at the .0001 yard line, if that's where it belongs? That particular sentence makes no sense at all. If a player is fighting for the end zone in the middle of the field, and ends up half an inch short of the goalline, you spot it right there - half an inch short. By your logic, you're giving him a TD.

You keep also asking where to spot the ball. You spot it exactly where you would have spotted it had the player missed the pylon entirely --- AT THE POINT WHERE THE BALL WENT OUT OF BOUNDS.

The existence of the pylon does not change the dimensions of the field or the rules by which we should rule in this case. The rule you are quoting is not applicable here, as the play was over prior to the ball hitting the pylon. The rule you are quoting tells us what to do when the ball hits the pylon, but was otherwise not yet dead. Why, oh, why, do you want to use this to make live a ball that was previously dead.

Neither of you told me what you'd do in the case of the guy reaching back from 2 feet out of bounds to graze the outside of the pylon. By your logic, you're giving that guy a TD too, but that makes no sense at all either.

REPLY: With all due respect, I don't feel that any of the recent posters are feeling "...compelled to rule in contradiction to the rules." They are just ruling in a way that's inconsistent with <u>your</u> interpretation of the rules.

As I mentioned earlier, I can see validity in your logic, that since the pylon is OOB and a ball striking it <u>may</u> have crossed the sideline prior to striking it. And both codes have a rule that this--in normal circumstances--should be ruled OOB at the point where the ball crossed the sideline. However, the FED and the NCAA have both put in a rule that supersedes that logic when the pylon is involved in NF 4-3-2 and NCAA 4-2-3b. The issue these rules are designed to address is one of human frailty. In theory, a pylon has only one dimension, that being infinite height with no width or depth. Such a 'pylon' would be properly positioned at the intersection of the inside edge of the sideline and the field-facing edge of the goal line. This would exactly correspond with the intersection of the front face and inside face of the real pylon. I'm pretty certain that you would agree that any ball striking or passing through such a theoretical 'pylon' would be considered in the endzone as opposed to out of bounds. But no one--including us--could ever see such a 'pylon.' So we're 'forced' to give it some visible dimensions, namely 4" x 4" x 18". All the Federation and NCAA have decided to do is codify that this imperfect pylon is to be considered the same way you would consider the dimensionless pylon that can only exist in theory.

So, we're just going to have to agree to disagree (unless Mr. Diehl gets back to me with a definitive answer). Each of us will need to consider all we've read, all we've learned, all our mentors have told us and process it accordingly. We probably will rule this play differently. If a scrimmage kick rolls into the front face of the pylon, I'll be ruling a touchback; you'll be awarding the ball to R at their own half-inch line.

But as Roberto Duran once said, "No mas." Unless someone has something more definitive to offer, I suggest we just move on to other topics. I'm grateful that we've all been able to professionally disagree here with no malice and no juvenile bickering. We've seen plenty of that on some of these discussion boards.

You both keep quoting a rule that says if the ball hits the pylon, it's out of bounds in the endzone when it hits the pylon. Great. So what? It was already out of bounds

No, I said it was OB behind the goal line. To get behind the goal line, it had to cross the goal line. If it crossed the goal line, it's a TD.

You and I know you never would spot a ball .0000001 inches from the goal line. It's just not done - at least I've never seen it done by anyone. If you want to be the guy who explains to a coach or another official that, even though the ball hit the pylon, it hit the wrong side of the pylon, hence it is not a TD, but rather we will be spotting the ball within a micron on the goal line, go ahead.

I'm at a loss to see that an official, one who seems to have a solid grasp of the rules, also subscribes to this line of reasoning. At every level, if you get the pylon, you're in - no matter what side of the pylon you get. The NFL is even more liberal, but Fed and NCAA are clear on this. If the ball passes even over the top of the pylon, the NCAA book says it's in - no matter what part of the pylon (which is properly placed OB at the intersection of the goal line and sideline) it passes over - outside, inside, whatever.

You and I will have to disagree. If there is word from a higher authority that says I am wrong - Jerry Diehl or Dave Parry, I'm ready to say I am wrong.

I'm sorry if I'm off base here or if I'm flogging a dead horse so please forgive me. Let's remove the pylon from the field. Let's look at the S & I, page 28. If a player is touching inbounds and reaches over the goal line extended it's a score, right?

Is that 16 square inches the pylon sits on (4" sideline x 4 " goalline) out of bounds or part of the goal line extended when a player, inbounds, reaches over it with the ball?

Technically only the front edge is on the goal line extended- which is actually a plane (go figure).