My question centers around the pylon on the goal line. In the NFL, if a receiver catches a forward pass and has one foot clearly in bounds and his second foot touches or kicks the outside of the pylon before his second foot touches the ground (and in this case his second foot lands clearly out of bounds), is that a touchdown?

No the pylon is OOB so when he touches the pylon he is OOB.

Yeah I saw the same thing in one of the end-of-half Seattle debockle close calls. In NFL you need both feet down inbounds (or any other part of the body other than hands). In NCAA or HIgh School this is a TD (or down at 1, I don't remember exact position of ball at time)

Here's the question I have on this.

In 2002, the NFL changed the rule involing the pylon. The old rule stated that a player was out of bounds if he touched the pylon (no matter where he is on the field).

I'm confused on what the new rule says (I have two links that counter each other).

"A player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. For example, a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayt...n/1354105.html


"A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/5153800

Here's a picture of the play
http://msn.foxsports.com/id/5309302_7_2.jpg

Is a play a catch, if a player catches the ball, one foot touches in bounds and the other touches the pylon.

People are so confused on this one.

Touching the inside of the pylon (for example, by a diving player who has already established himself in bounds) can be proof that the ball crossed the goalline before crossing the out of bounds line.

However, on a catch, you must have TWO FEET ON THE GROUND IN BOUNDS.

The pylon is NOT part of the ground for purposes of this rule. Touching it with a foot does not constitute touching the ground in bounds, regardless of what side of the pylon you touch.

I have no idea who's right and who is wrong. I am curious as well.. Should the play have been called a catch.. according to this statement from
John Clayton it should have been.


http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayt...n/1354105.html


it the example setforth legit.. or is this his interpretation of the rule??

My guess is that Clayton may be confusing two concepts. The first is when a catch constitutes a legal completion. The second is when a player is OOB.

The fact that the pylon is considered in bounds for a touchdown does not necessarily mean that it is considered in bounds for purposes of determining whether a catch was completed. E.g., if a player gets both feet in bounds and then kicks the pylon, it's a touchdown, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a guy could dive for a pass, catch it in the air, and then slap the pylon with his elbow on the way OOB and claim a completed pass.

rulesmaven, that's how I'm interperting the rule.