steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[PackersFTW]

clearly nobody knows for sure what the actual rule is. this is frustrating.

Originally Posted by sloth

I'm not going to speak too authorative on this as I'm not familiar with NFL interperations in this area, but I think that aquarium analogy is a bit flawed. The recievers feet and not the ball position doesn't matter in the back or side of the endzone because of the "goal line extended". The idea that the goal line does not stop at the out of bounds line and as long as the player is not out of bounds and the ball is over the extened goal line you have a touchdown. My understanding of the interperation is that you have to treat the front of the endzone different than the sides and back becasue of this principal.

there is one situation where the goal line extended kinda changed. that is where you are diving for the front corner of the end zone. the rule used to be that if you dove out of bounds at the 1, and ANY part of your body crossed over the pylon in the end zone, it was a TD. i thought this was an insanely stupid rule. so stupid some players thought you needed to cross the ball over the corner of the end zone, some fumbling while trying, when all you needed to do was wave your arm over it. the rule was recently changed so that you must cross the ball over the goal line while in bounds.

Originally Posted by Suudy

Now, I don't know NFL interpretations. Doesn't the NFL have some different interpretation of batting kicks away from the goal that the players feet have to be out of the EZ? Perhaps a similar principal applies. But you'd think the same principal would apply to the running game as well.

i don't understand what you mean here.

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Saw that game over here in the UK. The replays that UK TV showed over here actually froze it at the moment of the catch and the ball had just penetrated the GL so it was a TD. UK commentators seemed to agree it was a TD.
Surprised to read on this forum that there is any controversy. I think the replay guy got it right - tight call but correct.

an inch of the tip of the ball did cross the goal line, BUT it was not in the receivers possession at that time. there is no way you can say it absolutely crossed the goal line while in his possession. i'd say based on the replays, there is like an 80% chance it didn't cross the goal line, but that means it's not definitive, thus can't be overturned. many people forget it must be 100%, otherwise the call on the field stands. i think this "must be conclusive" rule should be removed, because who says the call on the field is best just because you can't tell from the replay? refs make mistakes, let the replay tell you. even if you are only 55% sure on something, choose that.