steelers@ravens winning touchdown
 

if you didn't see it, the steelers threw a pass and the guy caught it with both feet in the end zone, but the ball didn't cross the plane. is that a touchdown? i know when you go out of bounds, it's where the ball goes out, not where you do, but is it the same for the endzone? the announcers were saying yes that's how it works, but when the ref made the call (review under 2 minutes), he said "the receiver got both feet down with posession, touchdown". it doesn't make sense that he said that, because the question was did the ball cross the plane, not did he catch it. so basically he caught the ball with both feet in the end zone, but he was leaning forward as he caught it, so the ball never crossed the plane. touchdown or no?

First, it's a bit unfair to flat out say that the ball never crossed the plane of the GL...the receiver was ruled to be short of the GL by the official on the field, and replay was, IMHO, inconclusive. Therefore, based on what we have been told by the NFL, the play should not have been overturned on replay.

It is correct though, that the position of the feet do not matter...it is the position of the ball in relation to the GL. Perhaps (and forgive me for putting word's in Coleman's mouth) he meant that the catch was complete when both feet were put down, and he just never mentioned that the ball broke the plane at the time the catch was complete. Plus, I really doubt that Coleman did not know or ignored the rule on the ball crossing the plane of the GL, and he just went based on the position of the feet. Whether the call was right or wrong, the mic explanation was fairly poor.

It is a touchdown, when:
-ball in runner´s possession breaks a plane of goalline (this rule is used, when offense is running into the endzone. This wasn´t this case)
-there is a completed catch in the endzone (that´s the rule, that was used). When throwing a pass, all four boundary lines of the endzone are equal. Receiver can stand inside the endzone, can extend his arms beyond endline or sideline, and if he completes the catch (that means both feet down, firmly grasping the ball), it is a touchdown - no matter where the ball is - whether the ball is inside or outside the endzone. And the same rule applies, when it´s caugth across the goalline. Let say, endzone is a huge aquarium - if you extend your arms from the aquarium and you have your feet on "aquarium´s floor", it is a catch IN aquarium.
There were many many touchdowns like yesterday´s one. And it never was questionable.

Ref made poor announcement, but ruling was clear. During the game, when Holmes muffed a punt, ref for some unknown reason assured everybody, that receiving team can advance a punt. Also that announcement was strange...

What is really bad - all servers, NFL.com included, report about wild touchdown, etc. Is it really such a huge problem to call Perreira and say "Mike, you know, we and all the nation are so stupid, that we don´t know the rules, can you explain the rules for us"? And it is not necessary to call Perreira, even somebody with knowledge of rules can be asked...

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.

I disagree that all four boundary lines are treated the same. A TD is ruled when a pass is completed and the ball is on, above or behind the opponent's goal line. With that in mind, the other three planes created by the boundary lines are not relevant when ruling a TD. The only relevance is the goal line on whether the ball is in goal and the ruling on whether the pass was complete or not which involves the ground.

It is not a TD if you catch the ball on the non-goal side of the goal line, if it never crosses the line, regardless of where parts of your body are.

Aquarium "rule" applies only to passing game. For running game´s purposes, breaking the plane of goalline is rellevant.

Would Holmes catch the ball with left foot in the endzone and then rigth at "one-yard" (also something, what would cause the pass incomplete, would it be across the sideline, not goalline), he would be credited witch catch, but outside the aquarium (therefore no TD) and forward progress would be determined according to the position of the football in moment he would be down by contact

I also don't know the specific rule here but my understanding is the same as yours based on comments made by one of the studio guys who claimed to have talked to Pareira. I don't always trust those guys to interpret anything rules related. He did say Pereira agreed with the ruling so the crew ultimately got it right. Either the aquarium analogy is correct or they ruled the ball did cross the plane of the goal. It was so close I can't say for certain either way. I didn't think it was conclusive enough to overturn though. I was hoping the call on the field would stand because I wanted to see if the Steelers would go for it or kick a field goal to tie.

Crossing the goalline was questionable. May be yes, may be no. It this case, they would have to upheld onfield ruling (no TD), as there was no visual evidence.

Personally, I don't see how the replay provided enough evidence to overturn the official on the field. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the replay booth and in the official's locker room afterward.

I'm not fond of the aquarium analogy either. I think you only have to go to the definitions. A ball in possession of a player in the opponents EZ is always a TD. In this case, the ball was in possession of a player, but the ball was not in the EZ. No TD.

Or as my buddy and I discussed, in the case of passes to the side or back of the EZ, the ball did break the plane when it was thrown. A player gained possession while in the EZ, so TD. This idea is also flawed (think of a pass that enters the EZ, is batted/deflected back into the field, then caught outside of the EZ). I think if one sticks with the definitions, you are fine.

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.

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.

Putting aside what happened during the game in Baltimore, this is an interesting issue about the rules (and as a hope-to-be new ref next year, I'm trying to learn all I can).

Instead of the aquarium analogy, how about a glass wall at the goal line analogy?

If the receiver is in legal possession anytime after the glass wall has been "shattered" then its a touchdown.

So.....

Receiver in endzone leaning back to the one yard line to catch (and ball never crosses), no TD because glass wall not shattered.

Receiver in endzone leaning out-of-bounds to catch, TD because glass wall has been shattered and receiver in bounds regardless of the fact that the ball is not in bounds.

Is that right?

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

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.

i don't understand what you mean here.

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.

no, because what if the ball shatters this glass wall, but he doesn't have possession until he is falling towards the 1 yard line? this is possibly what happened in the steelers game.

i don't see the need for all these analogies, they are not needed. i'm extremely frustrated because 90% of the people here are trying to be helpful and are good people as far as forums go, but most don't know enough about the nfl, they are high school refs. i just want to know if, as far as the front of the goal line goes, you need possession with 2 feet down, or you need to have the ball inside the end zone also. announcers have been wrong before, but the announcers said it was the latter. if this is true, that call should not have been overturned.

Actually, I think 0% of the posters here are NFL officials. ;)

If you want to know about the NFL you might learn more by contacting Mike Pereira.

I'm 100% sure that you knew this when you posted the situation. So why bother?

Tune in to Mike P. segment on the NFL Network on Wednesday night.
I'm 100% sure he'll be covering this one.:cool:

And I'm 100% sure Mike P. will cover this in his Official Review segment on the NFL Network on Wed. night.

The networks can call the NFL master control center in NY if they really want an answer to a play. With about 30 sec. left, there might not have been time in this particular incident.

Coleman came out with a post-game statement explaining the whole possession-feet-goal line scenario. Mike P. has backed him up so for all intents, the overturn was correct if the boss says so.

Unless the rule has changed in the last two years (the most recent NFL rule book I have is 2006); it appears that the ball has to be on, above, or behind the opponents goal line while legally in possession of a player in bounds.

Touchdown is defined in 2 - 38
A Touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line (plane), provided it is not a touchback (11-2).

Possession is defined in 3-2-7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

Forget that crap about the aquarium. The ball must break the plane of the goal line.

From Peter King's column, si.com
Steelers continue to survive in tough games - Peter King - SI.com

After the game, Coleman told a pool reporter that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line ... When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane, and then he fell into the field of play. But to have a touchdown, all you have to have is a catch, which is the two feet down, possession and control of the ball breaking the plane."


I called NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira, who'd spoken with Coleman and the replay assistant following the game. Now, I have to tell you that in my jobs at NBC and Sports Illustrated I have occasion to speak with Pereira nearly every weekend about a play or two from the games, either to clarify something for the Football Night in America show or for my column. Pereira calls them the way he sees them. My experience is that Pereira does not whitewash a bad call. And last night, I asked him point blank if he thought there was indisputable visual evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. "Yes, I do,'' he said.

you can do that? he will respond to you? or is this just for the nfl network show or something where yours might get picked.

because you guys are quite helpful. if i did find another forum, there is a good chance it would be like most forums, where people argue like they are 16, angry, and looking for a boost in self esteem. this forum seems to be how all forums should operate. if this were a "normal" forum, most threads would have sentences like "wow, you're a complete idiot. you're a disgrace to football fans everywhere."

good, this is exactly what i thought was the case, the ref just forgot to mention it.

i just watched the halftime show of the cowboys game, and all 4 guys said absolutely no way should that have been overturned. they said that calling those replays "indisputable evidence" is a joke. however, they said had the play been called a touchdown on the field, they probably would have stayed with that also. so basically, everybody but steelers fan seem to agree that those replays don't show anything. i personally am about 60-80% sure that the ball didn't cross the goal line, but again, that means if i were the ref i would stay with the call on the field regardless of what it was.

I didn't think there was enough there to show that the ball was in the end zone but I will concede that it was very close. The cause of my confusion was the explanation given by Coleman and his lack of stating that he concluded that the ball had broken the plane while in player possession.

Because fanboys tend to get emotional.

[QUOTE=PackersFTW;558453]How many times do we say players (NCAA and NFL) attempt to keep a punt from going into the EZ that try to keep both feet in the field of play. In NFHS (and I think NCAA, you TX guys can confirm) it doesn't matter where you are in the field (note: OB is different), only where the ball is. However, those guys who try so hard to keep both feet out of the EZ when batting must learn it somewhere.

Is this just a common misconception that coaches and players have?

Or does the NFL have a rule related to where the player is located when batting a kicked ball?

Just a curiosity.

However, this situation is obviously not related to this, since we appear to have some confirmation from the NFL that the ball broke the plane in player possession.

I agree with the first sentence. I knew the rule, so I guess I didn't pay much attention to the explanation.

I don't like the precedent that this play sets for what counts as "indisputable visual evidence."

My bad! It wasn't the Steelers-Ravens I saw here in the UK, it was Cowboys-Giants.

Cant comment on the catch-nocatch in the Steelers-Ravens game.

[QUOTE=Suudy;558559]In the NFL on scrimmage kicks, if the player's body contacts the end zone while he is recovering or catching a punt, it is a touchback, even if the ball was not in the end zone.

However, this has absolutely nothing to do with scoring a touchdown in which the ball MUST be in the end zone.

wwcfoa43 is correct. This is why you see the player tip-toeing along the ¼-yard line right near the goal line - so that "when the ball gets there", they are not in the EZ.

Players can re-establish themselves as in the FOP in they were once in the EZ.

I think a lot of fans think that the ball has to cross over the entire line, not just the front edge of the line for a TD. I think the replay showed that the ball broke the plane, which is the front edge of the white line. I wonder if the networks or the NFL always have a camera looking down the GL because it seemed to be a perfect angle.

The NFL has had a lot of interesting plays this year.

This is the most sensible comment made by any of the participants in the game:


Ravens' Coach John Harbaugh:

"Our guys are men," he said yesterday. "They're strong guys, and they realize that it's our job not to put the officials in a situation to have to make that call. If we do our job better and finish in crunch time, it won't even be an issue. That's the way we look at it as a football team. We don't need the officials' help to win a football game. That's what good football teams do."

God, I hope not.

I mean, fans are sheep and they're not all that bright, usually, but surely someone points that out to you within a couple of weeks of your first football game, right?

Excuse me, but this is cr@p. Who really cares what 4 talking heads think on a show that generates ratings by helping to create controversies? Even if one of them is Bob Costas. The only thing that matters is Coleman thought it was enough and Pereira thought it was enough. I think I'll take their informed opinions over everyone else's because only their opinions matter.

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure if this is the case. But now on Friday when this occurs I can give the usual sly response, "Only on Sunday..." :)

Right. I threw this out as a possible explanation since the NFL sometimes takes into account the location of the player, not the ball. But now we know otherwise.

Don't you remember? Everybody on ESPN thought the Washington touchdown unsportsmanlike thing early in the season was unwarranted, therefore it was!

Ohhh....the Huskies I know are still bitter over this one. And they have mountains of evidence in the form of the Theisman's of the world to back them up!

Of course, I still have the (Cr)Apple Cup to shut them up if they get too unruly....

You might try asking in Usenet group rec.sport.officiating, where IIRC Mike Scott has actually officiated NFL games. I've had cases where he's infuriated me and a bunch of other participants in a thread, but turned out to be right.

High schools, having the most game plays, have the greatest call for officials. However, many also officiate in minor league adult games, which minor leagues frequently use the previous season's NFL rules or modified NFL rules.

The various North American codes have diverged enormously regarding treatment of kicks and end zones, but not regarding the scoring of touchdowns. AFAIK if an airborne player catches the ball while moving backward, once the necessary part(s) of the player's body touch(es) the ground in bounds, possession is ruled retroactive to where the player gained control of the ball, which in this case was ruled as having been in the end zone. I too was shocked that the call of no touchdown was overruled.

Robert

Last night's "Inside the NFL" featured several views of this play, and the results looked pretty evident. The camera angle along the goal line showed the ball beyond the goal line plane when the receiver gained possession. He then fell back into the field of play.

It is what it is, TD.

Mike Pereria reviewed it on Wednesday night's Total Access and the camera angle was perfect, the entire ball crossed the plane in possession of the receiver.

It was interesting to note the official on the opposite side of the field was screened by a player.

This was a Las Vegas call
 

The official on the field who made the call spotted the ball just short of the goal line. There was no way Coleman should of overturned that call. Earlier in the game there was a challenge on the spotting of the ball that was called a Steeler first down the replay CLEARLY showed the ball carrier did not get to the 30 yard line in fact his helmet didn't even get the first down marker it was a good one half yard or more short but Coleman comes out of replay and says the call on the field stands WHAT? There was no way. If he blew that call that was so clear then there is NO WAY he can overturn that last call. But HE DID. Walt Coleman should be FIRED his is flat out Pathetic!!. I think the Las Vegas boy's lined ole Walter's pockets with some CASH.

These are tough calls, as are pileups at the GL because of being screened.

I too, think the camera angle was perfect. If someone had used the telestrater to draw a line along the first edge of the GL, it would have crossed over the ball: TD

I know that's hard for some people to accept, but it was a TD. Case closed.

If you want to disagree with the call or post some other type of intelligent comment about it, please do, but please do not use the forum to defame people.

Last resort of the fanboy. Must be on the take. Oh, my.

TonyB, what's pathetic is a grown man acting like a spoiled child and throwing a hissy-fit because he's not getting his way. Walt Coleman got to be, where he is, because he's good at what he does, and he's stayed there, for as long as he has, by keeping up his level of performance.

Simply put, you are just not competent to comment on his being where he is, doing what he does. One of the best ways to avoid being considered a complete jerk, is simply stop saying really stupid things and acting like you know a lot more about what you're talking about, than you obviously do.

The difference with this forum, is that most participants are not biased fans of any of the teams that might be discussed. We may well be fans, but our primary interest is in the impartial management of the game itself and the relationship between the rules of the game and how they are actually administered.

Given the replays, that everyone subsequently knows were available, that Coleman had access to, he obviously concluded the ball broke the plane of the goal line while the receiver had possession and his both feet were touching the ground. Those 3 requirements being met equate to TD. That's it, it's over, move on.

If you are actually an official, you are pathetic.

Agreed.

OH, Mike and Mike both agreed with the touchdown call. Does that mean it's right? :D

Well, I'm pretty sure he's not an English teacher or a professional writer, either.

It is obvious the process of becoming an NFL official is not understood by TonyT. Also, Walt Coleman is one official who calls it like he sees it, remember the "tuck rule" call in the New England-Oakland playoff.

As for the game in question, when you viewed the goal line call from the goal line camera it was obvious the ball completely crossed the plane, not just broke the plane. The official who made the call short of the plane was blocked from the action when the ball crossed the line. Excellent review by Walt Coleman.

The first down play was called on the field and Walt Coleman needed incontrovertable evidence to overturn the call. Remember the nice little graphic on the TV screen is not always accurate and there was nothing to overturn the call. Again, an excellent review.

Football is a game played by humans and officiated by humans. Accept the results and move on.

Yeah, but isn't pretty obvious that Las Vegas wanted the Patriots to win that game??? (note the strong sarcasm in my voice)

this is the point of sports. btw, to the person you were responding to, i'm a packers fan (should be obvious), so i have no bias.

actually it's the opposite; if it's 50/50, they usually side with the officials or are neutral. they can be fined for saying certain things, not to mention they are probably told not to badmouth unless it was a really horrible call or something.

i'm a packers fan, i have no reason to cheer for either team. so i think my opinion is a fair one.

the replays they showed with the red line down the goal line were bad. why? because they made the red line so thick (i'd say at least 3 inches wide in relation to the field) that it appeared it was a touchdown. wouldn't be surprised if they purposely did that. also, did the officials have the red line while looking at the replays? no they didn't. i'm not saying it was clearly no touchdown, i'm saying that it was not indisputable evidence. if it's obvious (it has to be obvious, otherwise call on the field stands) and the right call, why did NON-ravens fans complain?

To be irrational?

The point of this forum is to discuss officiating. We try to keep it reasonable and the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

People who spout about Vegas lines and officials being paid off have ventured off the reservation and have no place here. They are worthy of our scorn and derision.

Tinfoil hats are not the point of sports. Stupidity is not the point of sports.

i totally agree with everything you said. the thing is, to basically state that somebody who is a huge fan (fanboy) is automatically an irrational idiot is retarded. he basically said that fanboy=idiot, which is totally false.

Actual Question
 

I would like to actually ask a rule question as it relates to this situation. (I am a new official so go easy on me) I understand its a touchdown by rule when the receiver is in possession of the football, with both feet down in the field of play and any portion of the ball intersects the EZ line. My question is at what point does the receiver establish possession?? It is my understanding (limited understanding) that the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established. When I watch this play on tape the receiver's first movement(tucking) of the ball takes the ball out of the endzone, if it was ever in, which establishes possession. So...in this situation was possession established a the second it touched his hands?? or after that??. A "What if" situation I have thought of, as it relates to this play, is: the receiver catches the ball just as he did in the game but is hit from behind almost immediately after his hands touch the ball (with both feet in bounds and the ball touching the EZ line) and losses possession of the ball while attemping to tuck it. Is it still a TD or incomplete pass?? Please Advise.

Go to the 2:27 mark in this video.

NFL Video Galleries

Thanks, very informative.

Juggling thanks

Somrthing you really need to think about and understand is the concept of forward progress, and how to respond to, and apply it. The Pittsburg-Ravens TD play is an excellent example.

There are several factors involved which are considered separately and are not necessarily related to, or dependent on each other. Taken separately, a "catch" requires possession of the ball, while there is contact with the ground (2 feet-NFL, 1 foot-College, HS or any other part of the body). For that catch to produce a TD, both factors have to be satisfied and the ball has to break the plane of the goal line. There is no absolute time limitation to completing the sequence.

Forward progress is defined (At the NFHS level) as (NF: 2.15.1) "the end of advancement of the ball in a runner's possession or the forward-most point of the ball when it is fumbled out of bounds towards the opponent's goal and it determines the dead ball spot." Normally, this is an eyeball judgment made without benefit of slide rule, slow motion or stop action photography or computer generated red lines.

(NF: 2.15.2) relates to this specific instance in stating, "When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a defender."

Mixing those points together to fit the play at hand, you have a player, with both feet on the ground, possessing a ball whose front edge clearly broke the plane of the goal line (as determined by replay). The issue of, "the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established" was completed after the receiver was knocked to the ground, out of the EZ, where the catch was ultimately completed.

When a decision is reached that the catch had satisfied all requirements to be considered completed, THEN forward progress is determined by the "furthest point of advancement" reached during the possession process, which in a situation like this did not occur at the same point where forward progress was determined.

At the NFL level, the Referee having benefit of IR technology, determined that the ball did break the goal line plane, and making that determination, as is his responsibility, reversed the call on the field.

No, "fanboy" is a derogatory term. A huge fan is a huge fan, a rabid fan, a hardcore fan. A fanboy is a schmo who usually is an idiot.

Bingo.

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

You're welcome.

Still a fan of a team, my zeal has died down because I'm older and I realize it's less important than what's for dinner, but still a fan. Just not a fanboy. :)

I'm still just as huge a fan of my teams. What's changed is I now realize the officials are not out to get them, they are not intentionally making calls AGAINST my team, and I now have a much better understanding of the rules and philosophies.

But you still know that Vegas pays the officials off, right? :D

FanMAN? :D

it used to be where you had to make "a football move", but they recently erased that from the rulebook. however, it seems they still use this, because there have been countless times this season where he had clear posession with both feet down, and they called it incomplete. so from all the challenges i have seen since this rule change, it appears they are ruling it the same as they have for decades, which is you have to have the ball for probably at least a half second or so, and you have to start to move. again though, i have seen so many plays where they call it incomplete when it was very clear it was a fumble after possession. i'd say more often than not, split second possessions are incorrectly called incomplete when they had a firm grasp on the ball and both feet down.


"Fanboy is a term used to describe any individual who is devoted to a single subject in an emotional or fanatical manner, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession."

unless you consider somebody who is obsessed to be an irrational idiot, i would have to disagree. i hate the term fanboy anyways, it sounds so stupid. anyways, you calling me a fanboy JUST because i said something somebody else claimed i already knew makes no sense. that's why i started this discussion. just because i said something somebody else claimed i already knew doesn't make me an irrationally obsessed idiot. it doesn't even make sense. of course you could have just been responding with a generic statement to the guy who said this and had no idea to what he was responding to.

It seems, PackersFTW, you suffer from a misconception. Although you have every right to form your opinions on whatever basis you so choose, there is no automatic guarantee that your opinion makes any sense or that anybody else must agree with you.

Despite your vast "viewing experience", you seem oblivious to the basic fact that although many plays may be very similar, no two plays are exactly alike and despite consistent effort, over long periods, and repetitve mechanics study and review, it's very unlikely that covering officials are in exactly the same spot and have exactly the same unobstructed view for any two plays, similar or not.

What you designate as clearly, "a fumble after possession" is your opinion.
You're certainly welcome to opine, "i'd say more often than not, split second possessions are incorrectly called incomplete when they had a firm grasp on the ball and both feet down", but what you seem to have a lot of difficulty accepting is that what you opine, doesn't really matter all that much, beyond the limited confines of your opinion.

Knowing the rules and the language of the rules is important, but al least as important, is the common sense and feel for the game to know how to apply the rules for the reasons and purpose they were created.

Remember, in the final analysis, it really doesn't make any relevant difference, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".