Okay, I’ve got the Saints-Falcons game on in the background. Mike Vick scored a TD (after video review) based on a lesser-known rule.
Here’s what happened: Vick scrambles out of the pocket. At about the 4-yard line he lunges headfirst to the left corner of the goal line, trying to avoid the defender that is coming at him from his right side. The ball, in his left hand, crosses the goal line well “out-of-bounds” as he flies through the air, though his right hand crosses over the pylon at the same time.
Based on the following three conditions he is awarded the goal: 1. his feet were in bounds when he lept, 2. any part of his body (his right hand, here) entered the imaginary 4-walled box that encloses the airspace of the endzone, and 3. the ball, crossed the goal line plane that, according to the rule, extends infinitely across the universe-- even into the out-of-bounds territory.
Fair enough. The refs made the right call according to the rulebook. But my question is this: What is a defender legally allowed to do to keep that ball from crossing that infinitely wide goal line plane?
Can he leap out of bounds? Step out of bounds? Stand out of bounds?
Is he allowed to deflect the ball-less"body part" (Vick’s empty hand) from crossing over the pylon, or is that a no-no like pushing a ball-catcher out of bounds before he lands?
As long as Vick is in the air and going for the goal on plays like this, it seems to me that he’s in bounds - he’s not out until some part of his body touches the ground - so hitting him or pushing him away ought to be legal. But I’m not really sure.
The commentators generally seem to get the calls right, and I don’t mind the replays. The sideline rule, as they explained it, is absurd. All the player has to do to score is pass any part of his body over the pylon? It’s not even the ball anymore??
I’m trying to get a handle on the operation of the rules by exploring some situations here.
A defender can’t be called for a late hit if the ball carrier is in the out-of-bounds airspace but hasn’t touched the ground yet?
2 . As a condition for this infinite goal line rule to work, the ball carrier must have possession of the ball on the ground in bounds at the time he leaps across the goal line. Otherwise the pylon rule would allow players to catch the ball in the air and land out of bounds for a TD, which we know is not the case.
Another thought is that a player can leap out of bounds, then lateral the ball back in bounds before he hits the ground. Is that right? It would make sense, as we see this kind of thing on punts when players leap from the field into the end zone and swat the ball out before touching ground. They are not “in the end zone” until they touch ground.
So, on a punt play, the player is not in the end zone until he hits ground in the end zone. On a scoring play, the player is in the end zone, even if his little toenail crosses over the pylon when the ball is in his hand 3 feet from the end zone box out of bounds.
I’m not sure the OP is totally accurate. The ball DID move over the pylon. The rule says that the ball AND a body part have to cross while he was out of bounds. So basically, and I may be wrong, if a player goes out of bounds with just one end of the ball crossing the pylon with his hands on the other end, it wouldn’t be a TD. This would have been the case in tonights game, but Vick managed to get his other hand (which wasn’t even touching the ball) over. Or I could be full of shit.
I’m pretty sure there’s no rule that prevents a defender from going out of bounds to tackle someone. It’s illegal (unsportsmanlike conduct) to deliberately run along the sideline to avoid blockers, but that isn’t the same thing.
Questions like this would be a lot easier to resolve if the NFL followed the example of some other leagues and put their full rulebook online. Their stripped-down Digest of Rules never seems adequate.
Nope, the OP is absolutely correct. The way the rule is currently written, no part of the ball has to cross the goal line in bounds so long as any part of the ball carrier crosses the goal line in bounds. Imagine this scenario: Stand in bounds with possession of the ball. Now hover horizontally just outside the goal line in such a position that all of your body is out of bounds except you right big toe. The ball is in your hands, extended beyond your head (about 8’ out of bounds). Now glide past the endline, making sure your big toe crosses over the pylon - Touchdown!
The reasoning behind the “still in bounds” part is easy: you were in bounds with possession when you left your feet and nothing changes that status until part of you touches the ground out of bounds. A player can dive out of bounds, catch the ball and lateral it back into play so long as he does it all before he touches the ground. I saw that happen in a college game once, it was one of the most astute plays I have ever seen. I have no clue, however, what the reasoning behind the “goaline stretches to infinity” part. That just doesn’t seem to make much sense.
FWIW, college rules are quite clear that this is not a touchdown. The ball must cross the pylon, not just any part of the ball carrier’s body. I’m skeptical that it’s different in the NFL, because I’ve seen ball carriers try to curl the ball inside the pylon, but it’s possible they’re doing it out of habits learned earlier.
This is absolutely correct as the OP stated it. It’s a weird rule, and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
My rationale is this. If the goalline indeed stretches to infinity, why would part of the players body need to cross the pylon? If the goalline indeed does stretch to infinity, logically all they should need to do is get the ball over that plane without touching the ground out of bounds. A better rule would be to have the “goal” be the imaginary box formed by goalline, the sidelines and endline extending upward to infinity. That would mean that the ball crossing the pylon would still be a TD regardless of where the body was, as long as it’s not out of bounds.
Still, the refs made the right call. My question is whether Vick knew this rule when he was making the play, and afterwards when he was calling for the challenge flag. I’m guessing he thought he’d gotten the ball over the pylon and the hand was simply a reflex or accident as a result of the collision. It was just good fortune that the lesser known rule agreed with him.
Sounds like they are. Michaels and Madden explained the rule pretty thoroughly, and Vick definitely didn’t move the ball over the pylon on this play - his right arm crossed the goal while the ball was in his left. We heard later from the sideline reporter that Vick told his coach to challenge the call because he knew he’d gotten his right arm over the goal line.
How many times have we seen runners getting pushed out or tackled at the 1 yard line? It happens all the time. I wonder if we’ll start seeing more players practicing for that scenario, perhaps as a goal-line play.
I would practice leaping from as far away as possible at various angles that would carry me as far out of bounds as possible, yet getting the ball over the goal line, while barely kicking the pylon. It could be hugely important to master that skill, to know exactly what your pysical limits are, and exactly what distance and angles work for you.
I doubt it changes tactics much. This isn’t the first time this rule has gotten chewed over in the TV booth and by replay officials. I don’t think it’s quite as obscure as people think.
I would practice leaping from as far away as possible at various angles that would carry me as far out of bounds as possible, yet getting the ball over the goal line, while barely kicking the pylon. It could be hugely important to master that skill, to know exactly what your pysical limits are, and exactly what distance and angles work for you.
If anything it would make it impossible to fumble the ball or have a defender knock it out, since likely a defender would have to be out-of-bounds to knock it toward the field of play. Keeping the ball on the nearest-sideline side of the body is a common tactic, as it reduces the chances a fumble can be recovered in-bounds.
I’m verging into GD territory here, but “touchdown” is becoming less and less descriptive of the play in question. Personally, I think the rule should be amended such that only a player in legal possession of the ball who either can touch the ball down in the end zone (or could if it weren’t for the presence of a defender in the end zone) should score 6. Vick may have technically scored, but that just ain’t football…
Why is this ruling any more surprising or extraordinary than when a receiver make a catch with his feet in bounds but the ball out of bounds?
This is an interesting idea and I wonder why it doesn’t seem to have occured to players and coaches to try this kind of play by design. The Vikings used to do something similar with Chris Carter where they had touchdown passes designed to be thown just “out of bounds” in the endzone where Carter could make his patented falling down, toes-on the-sidline catch- a skill that Carter actually practiced frequently and taught to other receivers. IIRC, Randy Moss said that Carter taught him how to do it. When executed correctly (it requires a precise throw), it’s almost impossible to defend.
I think we’re all used to seeing that play where the running-back runs for the corner of the end-zone and while flying out-of bounds reaches the ball over the pylon to get the score. The WR feet-in-bounds rule, while strange, we’ve seen enough to understand how it works. Am I to understand that the many times I’ve seen players lunge the ball to the pylon while flying out-of-bounds, that they were doing this to gain some extension to reach the goal-line? They could have also strecthed their leg or their free hand over the pylon? I understand it now, but against what I’ve seen over the years, it seems weird.
I think the rule is idiotic because it is n’t consistent. If the player leaps out of bounds at the 50 yard line the ball doesn’t get placed as far forward as he landed out of bounds. It is placed where the ball crossed the sideline, if I recall correctly.