Out of bounds spot...

[OverAndBack]

Just so I make sure my education hasn't gone to waste.

It's not where the runner steps out, it's where the ball is when the runner steps out, correct?

Yesterday in Jets/Cowboys, late first half, a guy caught a pass out of the backfield and went out along the sideline. His foot was at a strange angle and it's possible that while his heel was over the sideline, his toes and the ball of his foot never touched the sideline. The Jets challenged (and lost), but that's not the real issue.

The issue is that usually, when a runner standing upright and carrying the ball normally goes out of bounds, the spot where he steps out and the forward point of the ball will be in about the same vertical plane. In that case, the spot where he steps out is as good a spot as any to use for the end of the play.

In this case, the runner was stretched and contorted forward, so that the ball was well ahead of the spot where his foot was ruled to have touched the sideline. Yet I believe the ball was spotted where the foot touched and Nantz and Simms didn't say anything about the spot (the spot was the challenge). I thought I was losing it, so I thought I'd ask you folks if I'm crazy or not.

[Forksref]

It's next to impossible to not use the foot spot. You can't see the angle of the ball breaking the plane unless the arm is really extended. Otherwise it's pure guesswork. A wing is trailing the runner and doesn't have an angle to do anything other than the foot spot. Anything otherwise is pure guesswork. I've never heard anyone complain about the foot vs. the ball breaking the sideline plane.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

It's not where the runner steps out, it's where the ball is when the runner steps out, correct?

Actually the above applies only when the runner but not the ball goes out of bounds. For instance, if a player is carrying the ball in his left hand (which would usually be bad form in this case) and his right foot steps on the sideline, the ball is dead at its foremost point (which happens to be in bounds) when the runner stepped out of bounds. The ball is technically out of bounds by virtue of being in contact with a person who is touching the ground on or outside the sideline, but the spot where it's dead is in bounds.

OTOH, if a runner is running at an angle to the sideline and is off the ground and lands out of bounds, the dead ball spot is where the ball crossed the plane of the sideline. However, that doesn't stop a touchdown from occurring first.

Robert

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Actually the above applies only when the runner but not the ball goes out of bounds. For instance, if a player is carrying the ball in his left hand (which would usually be bad form in this case) and his right foot steps on the sideline, the ball is dead at its foremost point (which happens to be in bounds) when the runner stepped out of bounds. The ball is technically out of bounds by virtue of being in contact with a person who is touching the ground on or outside the sideline, but the spot where it's dead is in bounds.

Right. Which, in the play in question (which I guess you had to see) is what happened.

Ball was in bounds. Foot touched out of bounds. Ball should be spotted at the foremost point of the ball when the foot touched out of bounds. Not where the foot touched out of bounds. Everyone looks to see where the foot touched, and, in most cases, if you're standing more or less straight up, the ball should be vertically above where your foot is.

It's if you're leaning forward or holding the ball out that it becomes dicey.

OTOH, if a runner is running at an angle to the sideline and is off the ground and lands out of bounds, the dead ball spot is where the ball crossed the plane of the sideline. However, that doesn't stop a touchdown from occurring first.

Right. But you wouldn't use the spot where the foot touched (if it touches) as the OOB spot if the ball was ahead of that spot at that instant, right?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

But you wouldn't use the spot where the foot touched (if it touches) as the OOB spot if the ball was ahead of that spot at that instant, right?

In the case where the run was angling out of bounds, and it wasn't a matter of stepping on the sideline while running parallel to it, where the foot landed on the sideline is as good an approximation of the spot as most. That's probably about where the ball crossed the plane of the sideline, which occurred approximately the same time as the ball became dead. If the foot landed well outside of the boundary, then the out of bounds spot will be somewhat behind where the foot landed, if the ball is being carried "straight", and it will be established some time before the ball became dead. If the player is shielding the ball with his body by carrying it to the sideline side, as most will do, there's some justif'n in the case of a run at a high angle to the sideline for the out of bounds spot's being a little behind where the player steps on the sideline.

Nearly all spotting of the ball involves some imagination, no less so in the out-of-bounds case. If you always used exactly the dent in the chalk, that indicates failure of the imagination.

Robert

[OverAndBack]

Exactly.

I just wish I had a vidcap of the play in question, because he's leaning way forward with the ball, and not standing upright, when he steps out of bounds.