Mich St/ Mich

[zenman]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

As stated, an airborne player touching a pylon is out of bounds and the pass is incomplete. Forward progress is a term indicating the end of advancement. Forward progress was not yet stopped in this play. He was still going forward. Notice in the AR's that I posted all involve a defensive player. A defensive player has to be the one stopping a players forward progress.

His progress stopped when he hit the pylon. Anytime you are ruled out of bounds your progress is stopped. And in this case he is by definition in the end zone and since an airborne receiver whos progress is stopped in the end zone with a firm grip on the ball which seems to be all that is required. I would agree that it was not a touchdown if he hit or was outside of the boundry line when his progress was stopped but he was clearly by all of the rules I could find in the end zone. Just like in the navy utah bowl game a fumble that hit the pylon even though it did not go past the goal line was incorrectly ruled down at the one yard line. It should have ruled a touchback since the pylons are in the end zone. Which is what the NCAA said.

The ref in this game must have read the rule book and I wish that Delany would also.

The exceptions for completed and incomplete rules in the end zone were put in for a reason just as the definition that the end zone includes the pylons on the goal line for a reason. If plays like this should not be ruled a touchdown the rules committee should rewrite them.

I laughed as soon as they reviewed the play during the game because I new he was judging the play by the rule book and most people who have never read the rule book would never agree. It defied common sense but sometimes rules do.

[TXMike]

You clearly are a rules expert and are wasting your time here Why not contact Delaney and the Big Ten direct and let them know you are available to straighten them (and every other person who actualy understands NCAA Rules) out:
James E. Delany
Commissioner
1500 West Higgins Road
Park Ridge, IL 60068-6300
(847) 696-1010

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by zenman

His progress stopped when he hit the pylon. Anytime you are ruled out of bounds your progress is stopped. And in this case he is by definition in the end zone and since an airborne receiver whos progress is stopped in the end zone with a firm grip on the ball which seems to be all that is required. I would agree that it was not a touchdown if he hit or was outside of the boundry line when his progress was stopped but he was clearly by all of the rules I could find in the end zone. Just like in the navy utah bowl game a fumble that hit the pylon even though it did not go past the goal line was incorrectly ruled down at the one yard line. It should have ruled a touchback since the pylons are in the end zone. Which is what the NCAA said.

The ref in this game must have read the rule book and I wish that Delany would also.

The exceptions for completed and incomplete rules in the end zone were put in for a reason just as the definition that the end zone includes the pylons on the goal line for a reason. If plays like this should not be ruled a touchdown the rules committee should rewrite them.

I laughed as soon as they reviewed the play during the game because I new he was judging the play by the rule book and most people who have never read the rule book would never agree. It defied common sense but sometimes rules do.

Did you not even read the rule that states "an airborne player is out of bounds when he touches a pylon". There is not other rule that can trump that. Every rule in the book requires a player to COMPLETE the catch. By rule, to complete a catch you have to have firm control of the football AND some part of your body touching the ground (not the pylon) INBOUNDS. Again, the rule states that an airborne player is out of bounds NOT INBOUNDS when he touches the pylon. It appears however that you don't believe what the book says and I suspect you would argue with God over the words in the Bible.

[jjrye22]

Jason:
I expect he would have more success arguing the wording in the Bible - there are a lot of different translations of that book. Various organizations each claim theirs is the 'correct' version.
With the Rulebook, it is covered by 1 organization and 1 release that is valid (the current edition). Less wiggle room.