Just the toes or the whole foot?

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was watching the Nebraska/Missouri game and saw the would-be-touchdown ruled incomplete because the receive didn't have his foot down in bounds. Replays showed he landed on his toe and kept the heel off the ground for a moment, maintaining control the whole time, before falling backwards out of bounds.

His toe was inside the line, but once the heel came down it was on the line.

They reviewed it in the booth but upheld the call on the field.

My question: what's the rule on this? Does a planted toe qualify as in bounds, or only a dragged toe?

I know it's possible my view was week, the reception isn't that great in the hotel room and I just don't trust announcers; I'm just wondering what the rule is on this play.

I watched it too and he made one heck of an effort. In fact, I worked two or three of his games when he was in HS. Great athlete.

The Big 12, and some other conferences possible, have a "heel-toe" philosophy. If only the toe comes down, it is a catch. If the toe contacts first and the the heel comes down OOB, then no catch. In this case, he clearly hits inbounds with his toe but then the heel comes down on the line so OOB.

The thing I noticed was that when they announced the results after review, they said the play stands as called. That shows me that there wasn't enough evidence to support or over rule the call made on field. I was always under the impression it was "Stands as called", "confirms the ruling on the field", or "overturns the call on the field."