View Full Version : Rule Change
Rascal
12-12-2005, 07:27 PM
I think the NFL needs to change the rule about the end zone line being infinite. IMO the ball must cross inside the pylon to be considered a TD. Looking at Vick's TD in the monday night game would be an example of why the rule needs to be changed. The guy extends his arm across the pylon, but the ball is outside of the pylon, and they give him a TD. That is ludicrous IMO.
Excuse my rant.
Archie
12-12-2005, 07:31 PM
I think the NFL needs to change the rule about the end zone line being infinite. IMO the ball must cross inside the pylon to be considered a TD. Looking at Vick's TD in the monday night game would be an example of why the rule needs to be changed. The guy extends his arm across the pylon, but the ball is outside of the pylon, and they give him a TD. That is ludicrous IMO.
Excuse my rant.
The pylon is in the endzone and if any part of the ball breaks the plane of the endzone it's a TD. But, if it is really outside the pylon it should not be a TD. I didn't see this touchdown but sounds like a bad call vs. a rule change.
DrFate
12-12-2005, 07:31 PM
Agreed. I didn't know that was the rule until Al Michaels said so, and I've been watching the NFL for 20+ years.
Rascal
12-12-2005, 07:37 PM
I've read the rule before somewhere but don't remember where. It was the correct call, I just think it is a bad rule and needs to be changed.
watermock
12-12-2005, 07:38 PM
the funny thing was these idiots were saying if any part of your body crosses the goal line, it's a TD...THE BALL HAS TO...do they have a moron farm at Disney?
Rascal
12-12-2005, 07:39 PM
The ball crossed the infinite end zone line outside of the pylon, but since his hand (part of his body) crossed the pylon (went inside the pylon) then it's a touchdown and that is exactly as the ref stated it.
Rascal
12-12-2005, 07:40 PM
No mock the ball does not have to...the ball can cross the goal line out of bounds basically and it will be a touchdown provided that part of the body crosses the goal line in bounds.
watermock
12-12-2005, 07:41 PM
I've read the rule before somewhere but don't remember where. It was the correct call, I just think it is a bad rule and needs to be changed.
The Pylon is in the endzone...I love it when people want something changed and give zero reason...ball hit's the pylon it's in...period...you don't have to clear the goal line, only touch it.
Broncoman13
12-12-2005, 07:45 PM
I used to think that the endzone extended indef. as well. But then they said on that play that his right hand was touching the ball and was inside the pylon...as if that made some sort of difference??
watermock
12-12-2005, 07:48 PM
The ball has to break the plane of the line....these announcers are idiots....
Broncoman13
12-12-2005, 07:52 PM
The ball has to break the plane of the line....these announcers are idiots....
So you have something in common with them I see...
bronco610
12-12-2005, 07:59 PM
No mock the ball does not have to...the ball can cross the goal line out of bounds basically and it will be a touchdown provided that part of the body crosses the goal line in bounds.
That is the correct answer.
Yea Rascal I saw it to and I was thinking no way that's a TD. The ball should have to cross the pylon or touch it for it to be a TD. The ball was outside the pylon. Stupid rule unless it was to sometime go in the Broncos favor of course. :)
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:09 PM
All of the pylon is in bounds, it doens't matter where you touch it...
The point is the idiots said if the BODY was across it was a TD that's wrong...if you step out on a return that's totally different...
You step past the line and your tackled while the ball is still in the end zone, that's a safety...
bronco610
12-12-2005, 08:09 PM
Yea Rascal I saw it to and I was thinking no way that's a TD. The ball should have to cross the pylon or touch it for it to be a TD. The ball was outside the pylon. Stupid rule unless it was to sometime go in the Broncos favor of course. :)
AMEN
Play2win
12-12-2005, 08:13 PM
I think the NFL needs to change the rule about the end zone line being infinite. IMO the ball must cross inside the pylon to be considered a TD. Looking at Vick's TD in the monday night game would be an example of why the rule needs to be changed. The guy extends his arm across the pylon, but the ball is outside of the pylon, and they give him a TD. That is ludicrous IMO.
Excuse my rant.
That is just a ridiculous rule. Its not football, and frankly, its Un-American. The Ball has to cross inside the pylon. Its been burnt into my brain since I first started watching football. Its one of the founding principles of Football. When I saw that, not heard- because my TV was on MUTE, I ABOUT GAVE BIRTH TO A QWEEFS FAN IN MY PANTS!!!
Fully ridiculous, but in today's NFL, nothing surprises me. Safeties can't hit, A fumble's not a fumble, you can fumble the ball forward OUT OF THE ENDZONE and its NOT a SAFETY (even with holding on the same play), so, HELL, why not, Pylons don't matter. Why do we even have them?!?
Oh, yeah, So Chad Johnson can PRETEND to be Tiger Woods...
Oh, yeah, and Excuse my RANT, too (it must be contagious...) ;D
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:15 PM
Wrong...all of the pylon is inbounds
only part of the ball has to cross the line...so even if you graze the outside, part of the ball was inside...jesus...how many times do i have to explain this? The BALL ONLY HAS TO TOUCH THE END ZONE AND THE PYLON IS INSIDE THE END ZONE...
The idiot announcer that said that any part of the body inside the endzone was wrong tho...
The Big E
12-12-2005, 08:15 PM
It was the correct call and one I'd never heard of before. I don't like the rule and I think they should make the ball cross the goal line inside or on the pylon, not goal line extended.
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:25 PM
I'm not going to explain it again...the pylon is part of the goal line...damn...if you touch it, part of the ball hit the goal line inbounds...part of the ball hit the goal line in bounds...for the last time, you don't have to cross the goal line, only touch it...WITH THE FOOTBALL...
That is just a ridiculous rule. Its not football, and frankly, its Un-American. The Ball has to cross inside the pylon. Its been burnt into my brain since I first started watching football. Its one of the founding principles of Football. When I saw that, not heard- because my TV was on MUTE, I ABOUT GAVE BIRTH TO A QWEEFS FAN IN MY PANTS!!!
Fully ridiculous, but in today's NFL, nothing surprises me. Safeties can't hit, A fumble's not a fumble, you can fumble the ball forward OUT OF THE ENDZONE and its NOT a SAFETY (even with holding on the same play), so, HELL, why not, Pylons don't matter. Why do we even have them?!?
Oh, yeah, So Chad Johnson can PRETEND to be Tiger Woods...
Oh, yeah, and Excuse my RANT, too (it must be contagious...) ;D
Nice rant and I agree :)
scorpio
12-12-2005, 08:31 PM
I'm not going to explain it again...the pylon is part of the goal line...damn...if you touch it, part of the ball hit the goal line inbounds...part of the ball hit the goal line in bounds...for the last time, you don't have to cross the goal line, only touch it...WITH THE FOOTBALL...
I don't think you understand.
The Big E
12-12-2005, 08:33 PM
I'm not going to explain it again...the pylon is part of the goal line...damn...if you touch it, part of the ball hit the goal line inbounds...part of the ball hit the goal line in bounds...for the last time, you don't have to cross the goal line, only touch it...WITH THE FOOTBALL...
Have another drink. Everyone else understands but either you are incapable of articulating it, or you don' understand it.
Play2win
12-12-2005, 08:35 PM
Nice rant and I agree :)
:thumbsup:
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:37 PM
What part of this can't you understand...any part of the ball that touches the line is a score...never mind...you go grow a brain...the ball doesn't have to literally "break the goal line" ...all it has to do is touch is you dimwit....
The rule has always been the same...it's part of the goaline...if it breaks "the plane" it's a score...so if your in bounds or even flying out but hit the pylon, it's a clear score...so biatch about the rule all you want...it's been this way for decades...I get tired of little girls trying to interpret rules...your clueless...
Eli_Cash
12-12-2005, 08:40 PM
31. Touchdown: When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent’s goal line, provided it is not a touchback.
http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/definitions
Broncoman13
12-12-2005, 08:43 PM
Wrong...all of the pylon is inbounds
only part of the ball has to cross the line...so even if you graze the outside, part of the ball was inside...jesus...how many times do i have to explain this? The BALL ONLY HAS TO TOUCH THE END ZONE AND THE PYLON IS INSIDE THE END ZONE...
The idiot announcer that said that any part of the body inside the endzone was wrong tho...
First off the announcer wasn't the one that said it, it was the offical that made the call (after replay).
Second, the ball doesn't have to touch the pylon... it never did in this case. Rascal's frustration (understandable) is that the endzone extends out of bounds. So basically you can fly out of bounds, hold the ball in the air and as long as you put the ball past that line... even out of bounds it's "supposedly" a TD, provided that you don't touch any part of your body out of bounds before the ball touches crosses that line.
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:45 PM
Oh, let's put in a rule that the ball has to hit inside the pylon? What if it his a little to the left or right...
IT'S IN THE END ZONE
Broncoman13
12-12-2005, 08:45 PM
What part of this can't you understand...any part of the ball that touches the line is a score...never mind...you go grow a brain...the ball doesn't have to literally "break the goal line" ...all it has to do is touch is you dimwit....
The rule has always been the same...it's part of the goaline...if it breaks "the plane" it's a score...so if your in bounds or even flying out but hit the pylon, it's a clear score...so biatch about the rule all you want...it's been this way for decades...I get tired of little girls trying to interpret rules...your clueless...
It's not your clueless... it's YOU'RE CLUELESS!!!
The ball never touched the pylon...now what?
Broncoman13
12-12-2005, 08:46 PM
Oh, let's put in a rule that the ball has to hit inside the pylon? What if it his a little to the left or right...
IT'S IN THE END ZONE
How bout it just has to hit the pylon period... the ball never touched the pylon in this case! And the rule, as written states that you don't have to. You can be 3 feet out of bounds from the pylon... the endzone extends out of bounds... kind of like the FG posts extend up beyond the end of the post. Are you clear b/c if you like I can draw you a fvcking picture!??
Wes Mantooth
12-12-2005, 08:47 PM
I think the NFL needs to change the rule about the end zone line being infinite. IMO the ball must cross inside the pylon to be considered a TD. Looking at Vick's TD in the monday night game would be an example of why the rule needs to be changed. The guy extends his arm across the pylon, but the ball is outside of the pylon, and they give him a TD. That is ludicrous IMO.
Excuse my rant.
How is this different that a wideout catching a fade in the corner of the endzone on his tiptoes? If a player is in bounds, has posession of the ball and it breaks the plane of the endzone it should always be a td.
Broncoman13
12-12-2005, 08:49 PM
Cheese and Rice... how many of you guys watched the play? He didn't superman it and hold the ball inside or even touch the pylon. He was on the outside reaching out of bounds. B/c he hadn't touched out of bounds yet he was given the "forward progress"... meaning the ball crossed over the goal line out of bounds, but before any part of his body touched out of bounds!
bronco610
12-12-2005, 08:51 PM
Cheese and Rice... how many of you guys watched the play? He didn't superman it and hold the ball inside or even touch the pylon. He was on the outside reaching out of bounds. B/c he hadn't touched out of bounds yet he was given the "forward progress"... meaning the ball crossed over the goal line out of bounds, but before any part of his body touched out of bounds!
Because the goal line streches infinately that is the correct call.
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:51 PM
First off the announcer wasn't the one that said it, it was the offical that made the call (after replay).
Second, the ball doesn't have to touch the pylon... it never did in this case. Rascal's frustration (understandable) is that the endzone extends out of bounds. So basically you can fly out of bounds, hold the ball in the air and as long as you put the ball past that line... even out of bounds it's "supposedly" a TD, provided that you don't touch any part of your body out of bounds before the ball touches crosses that line.
Oh Jesus Christ...yes the ball touched the bylon...it was even reviewed...no the endzone DOESN'T extend out of bounds at all...the pylon is in bounds...damn dimwit...you are in bounds as long as you haven't landed out of bounds...The replay clearly showed that it DID touch the pylon...now you have adjusted your argument even to a more ignorant posture....that's why it was replayed...your not out of bounds till you land out of bounds dimwit...
YOUR NOT OUT OF BOUNDS TILL YOU LAND OUT OF BOUNDS...jesus...
ClevelandBronco2
12-12-2005, 08:54 PM
Let me try.
Here's the deal. The ball was out of bounds when it crossed the end zone line. However, the man with the ball crossed the line in bounds. When the in-bounds man carried an out-of-bounds football across the line, he was awarded a touchdown, even though the ball itself was out of bounds when the man crossed the line.
It's pretty simple and it's the same concept at work when a man who catches the ball with both feet down in the end zone catches an out-of-bounds ball and is still awarded a touchdown. In an extreme example, a quarterback could be running to his right and throw a right handed pass when he's still in bounds but the ball is out of bounds. The ball travels out of bounds past the end zone line and is caught by a receiver with both feet in bounds (HAD TO EDIT THAT). During the entire pass and catch sequence the ball has been out of bounds, but the players have been in bounds. Touchdown.
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:55 PM
You can be flying out of bounds and touch the pylon, it's a TD...end of story...the ball has touched the goal line...and your not out of bounds even if your flying off the field if you haven't hit...if your elbow hits out of bounds and you touch the pylon, it's not a TD...this is like taling to a second grader...
watermock
12-12-2005, 08:57 PM
The man was in bounds and the ball wasn't huh? Oh man...
Here's the deal. The ball was out of bounds when it crossed the end zone line.
The ball can't be out of bounds if it hits the pylon you dimwit...
Rich Karlis
12-12-2005, 08:59 PM
The man was in bounds and the ball wasn't huh? Oh man...
The ball can't be out of bounds if it hits the pylon you dimwit...
The ball never touched the pylon...
ClevelandBronco2
12-12-2005, 09:00 PM
We've got a dozen guys who understand the rule and one Mock who doesn't. We must all be full of ****.
watermock
12-12-2005, 09:01 PM
The ball never touched the pylon...
The play went to replay...it barely touched, but whatever...that doesn't change the argument anyway...if you want to argue the replay, that's another argument...
bronco610
12-12-2005, 09:03 PM
You guys are putting way too much energy into this.
watermock
12-12-2005, 09:08 PM
I am actually amused
ClevelandBronco2
12-12-2005, 09:09 PM
Here it comes. Wait for it...
Sideburn
12-12-2005, 09:14 PM
After reading all of this, my only reply is "wow"
I can't believe I just read this thread. Let's see what else is next.
The Big E
12-12-2005, 09:16 PM
This is funny. Don't waste your energy on the guy whose brain is soaked in whiskey.
Broncoman13
12-12-2005, 10:16 PM
I am actually amused
So are we... it's amazing that you don't have a full time caretaker. It's amusing that you can't see what the hell is right in front of you. Maybe it's these small letters and your blurred vision?
Try this is may make it easier on you:
MOCK: YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!!!
I'd give you a cluepon but then you'd try and contact me and say something stupid like, go to the corner you dimwit... or some other lame shiit.
minibronco
12-12-2005, 10:17 PM
That's right! Rep for you.
Didn't that happen against us this week? :)
-Slap-
12-13-2005, 07:16 AM
If I had to nominate one single thread that typified the Orange Mane Experience, this is the bad boy I would place in the time capsule.
Rascal
12-13-2005, 07:18 AM
Thanks for destroying my thread mock.
Idiot.
NaptownChief
12-13-2005, 07:25 AM
It was the correct call and one I'd never heard of before. I don't like the rule and I think they should make the ball cross the goal line inside or on the pylon, not goal line extended.
I've know it to be the rule for many, many years but it is one that I certainly disagree with also....Since it is illegal to hit people out of bounds, it is illegal to block players out of bounds and it is even illegal to step out of bounds and come back in and be the first person to make a play on the ball then why the hell should it be legal to score a TD with the ball out of bounds? Doesn't make a any sense and should be changed.
The Big E
12-13-2005, 08:00 AM
If I had to nominate one single thread that typified the Orange Mane Experience, this is the bad boy I would place in the time capsule.
It's amazing what one idiot can do to a thread. Rascal clearly articulated the rule and then the resident Claven came in and blew it all up, unable to articulate a damn thing. It was kinda funny, though.
CUBuffman08
12-13-2005, 08:15 AM
Let me try to explain why the rule is the way it is (at least how I try to understand it)
Let me start off by saying the goalline is no different from any other place on the field. Now, lets pretend Lelie is running a reverse and dives (from in bounds 2 yards short of the first down) and lands out of bounds (3 yards past the first down line). They wont give him the spot of where he dove, they give him (are supposed to) the spot that they best determine the last part of his body went out of bounds. I think its an easier rule to understand when you think about the goal line as a firstdown marker.
NaptownChief
12-13-2005, 08:30 AM
They wont give him the spot of where he dove, they give him (are supposed to) the spot that they best determine the last part of his body went out of bounds. I think its an easier rule to understand when you think about the goal line as a firstdown marker.
But isn't that different than how they handle the goalline? Don't they give you the spot at which the ball is located at the point they go out of bounds? If the ball is the first thing to cross the out of bounds marker they give you the spot that the ball went out and not the furthest point the ball reaches up the field while yet out of bounds. Isn't that the case? Or do they actually give you the further point up the field that the ball reaches until some other part of the body goes out of bound?
Archie
12-13-2005, 08:54 AM
But isn't that different than how they handle the goalline? Don't they give you the spot at which the ball is located at the point they go out of bounds? If the ball is the first thing to cross the out of bounds marker they give you the spot that the ball went out and not the furthest point the ball reaches up the field while yet out of bounds. Isn't that the case? Or do they actually give you the further point up the field that the ball reaches until some other part of the body goes out of bound?
Actually I think it's consistent. They will spot the ball where the ball was at the time the body is ruled out of bounds, not the point that the ball "crossed into the plane" of out of bounds. Similiar to what someone stated earlier with the pass into the endzone. A runner could gallop down the sidelines with the ball held in the hand and hanging out over the out of bounds line. Until the runner himself is ruled as out the ball is still considred in bounds. At the point when the runner is ruled out, then at that point the location of the ball becomes the spot for the next down.
NaptownChief
12-13-2005, 09:10 AM
Actually I think it's consistent. They will spot the ball where the ball was at the time the body is ruled out of bounds, not the point that the ball "crossed into the plane" of out of bounds. Similiar to what someone stated earlier with the pass into the endzone. A runner could gallop down the sidelines with the ball held in the hand and hanging out over the out of bounds line. Until the runner himself is ruled as out the ball is still considred in bounds. At the point when the runner is ruled out, then at that point the location of the ball becomes the spot for the next down.
That makes sense. In reality is sure seems like when a player is diving for the 1st down marker however they tend to mark the ball close to where it breaks the out of bounds plane as opposed to the furtherest point up field that it reaches before another part of the body touches out of bounds. A lot of times when the player reaches forward around the first down marker and looks to clearly be well beyond the marker they end up spotting it much shorter than it looks like he reached. Probably just piss poor officiating more so than a rule issue however.
No1BroncoFan
12-13-2005, 11:41 AM
If a receiver is standing in the endzone with his toes almost touching the sideline he can catch a pass that is alreay out of bounds for a TD. As long as the player is not down, the ball does not have to cross the plane for the play to be a TD. The player must remain in-bounds though if the ball does not.
Personally, I've never understood how they mark the ball different ways depending on where you're at on the field. If you stretch the ball across the first down marker before your knee hits one foot short, you're marked down one foot short. Do the same thing at the goal line and it's a TD. Go figure.
Ben
It's amazing what one idiot can do to a thread. Rascal clearly articulated the rule and then the resident Claven came in and blew it all up, unable to articulate a damn thing. It was kinda funny, though.
Are you kidding me? I am in tears right now from laughing so hard.
This is classic idiot Mock. I prefer him to take down a thread in this manner, rather than the usual tractor and kitten stories.
I mean this was just ****in hysterical.
watermock
12-13-2005, 12:44 PM
The goal line is infinite you dimwit...
You don't even have a clue...the goal line actually extends PAST the Pylon...look it up...
You want to take your beating now like a man or have me throw you in the pond as a wet puppy?
watermock
12-13-2005, 12:47 PM
Do you honestly know what that means there moron? the goal line extends past the pylon...I didn't make the rule, it just what the rule is...
STFU you dimwit...go crawl back to your ckicken coop
watermock
12-13-2005, 12:50 PM
I have explained this to you neanderthals before..there is a plane, and it actually extends outside the pylon you morons...the goal line is infinite...so as long as he was still not out of bounds, and got the ball over the goal, it was a TD...
STFU your toasted...
Are you kidding me? I am in tears right now from laughing so hard.
This is classic idiot Mock. I prefer him to take down a thread in this manner, rather than the usual tractor and kitten stories.
I mean this was just ****in hysterical.
... and it just keeps getting better.
watermock
12-13-2005, 01:05 PM
Any real comprehension of the rules is obviously going to have to be sitting you down if you can keep from squrming...
the goal line is infinite...any part of the goal line is a TD...
'
I'm not responsible for your stupidity.
He can put the ball on the line OUTSIDE THE PYLON YOU DIMWITS...
The goal line is infinite you dimwit...
You don't even have a clue...the goal line actually extends PAST the Pylon...look it up..
Well now your confusing me Mock, didn't you just say a few posts back that the end zone doesn't extend out of bounds?
Nevermind that though, let's get to the real meat of the matter ... can you explain the pylon part for us again?
watermock
12-13-2005, 01:09 PM
WTF do you think infinite means?
Go back to the original argument about how he did or diidn't hit the pylon...
I never said the goal line didn't extend out of bounds ever...i said any part of the pylon was in bounds...
I never said the goal line didn't extend out of bounds ever...
Oh, my bad. I must have mistaken this post of yours then ...
Oh Jesus Christ...yes the ball touched the bylon...it was even reviewed...no the endzone DOESN'T extend out of bounds at all...the pylon is in bounds...damn dimwit...
watermock
12-13-2005, 01:21 PM
Oh, my bad. I must have mistaken this post of yours then ...
I stand corrected, but that is taken out of context...any time you touch the pylon with the ball, that's a TD....I have been thru this stupid argument for two days...you touch the pylon at any place it's a TD....
watermock
12-13-2005, 01:24 PM
Honestly, I looked it up and didn't know that the end zone was infinite on both sides...
It doesn't change the fact I knew if you even glanced the pylon it wasn't in bounds....this all started with someone telling me that if the ball hit the outside of the pylon it was out of bounds...
Well, I looked it up, and the goal line is infinite. That means you can fly over the goal outside the pylon by rule...
NEXT....
Regardless, I said it was the correct call, but had to battle...want to keep arguing now?
i'm the idiot but have been proven it was the correct call...classic...
It doesn't change the fact I knew if you even glanced the pylon it wasn't in bounds....this all started with someone telling me that if the ball hit the outside of the pylon it was out of bounds...
Regardless, I said it was the correct call, but had to battle...want to keep arguing now?
No need to argue, I think everyone understands your position now.
Oh wait, hold the phone ... now your saying that if you even glance the pylon it means it wasn't in bounds?
watermock
12-13-2005, 01:37 PM
No...the original argument was that if it even touched the outside of the pylon it was a td...
Now, I looked it up, and the line is actually infinite...
So tell me where i was wrong again? i was totally correct....you can argue the rule...whatever...
case closed.
No...the original argument was that if it even touched the outside of the pylon it was a td...
Now, I looked it up, and the line is actually infinite...
So tell me where i was wrong again? i was totally correct....you can argue the rule...whatever...
case closed.
Not to belabor the obvious, but Mock, you were the only one arguing this point. The intent of this thread was to discuss the end zone line and whether it should be infinite or not. Rascal thinks the ball should cross the goal line in between the pylons, not outside of the pylon as was the case last night with Vick.
Try reading the thread again Mock. I think you'll find it amusing. I know I do.
For the record, after reading the excellent points brought up by yoakum3 and ClevelandBronco2, I think the rule should remain as it is.
Broncoman13
12-13-2005, 01:55 PM
I stand corrected, but that is taken out of context...any time you touch the pylon with the ball, that's a TD....I have been thru this stupid argument for two days...you touch the pylon at any place it's a TD....
Holy Shiit... I'm in tears here!!! I'm litterally laughing my ass off as this.
No the endzone DOESN'T extend out of bounds at all... was taken out of context. How about you just admit for once Mock that you're a freaking fool and don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're losing your touch and telling us to go to the corner and calling us dimwits has really lost it's punch! Nyah!
Broncoman13
12-13-2005, 01:59 PM
Mock, if you touch the middle of the pylon or inside it you're inbounds and it's a TD. If you touch the outside of the pylon with your right foot still inbounds it's a TD, but if your mouthpiece falls out and touches the out of bounds marker while diving in, touching the inside portion of the back pylon then it's a safety. Get a freaking clue now woudl you!
Cowboys Fan
12-13-2005, 02:58 PM
The NFL should get rid of that stupid "horse collar tackle" rule. I heard they want to expand the rule to encompass grabbing the jersey from behind as well. Pretty soon you wont be able to tackle anyone from behind. Once they get a step, that's it.
Well now your confusing me Mock, didn't you just say a few posts back that the end zone doesn't extend out of bounds?
Nevermind that though, let's get to the real meat of the matter ... can you explain the pylon part for us again?
LOL Too damn funny :laugh:
The NFL should get rid of that stupid "horse collar tackle" rule. I heard they want to expand the rule to encompass grabbing the jersey from behind as well. Pretty soon you wont be able to tackle anyone from behind. Once they get a step, that's it.
Gettin' pretty ridiculous isn't it. Besides all that nonsense I've told my wife that sometimes I think that within my lifetime they will have the QB's in little pink tutu's and you wont be able to touch them at all. Wouldn't want anyone getting hurt playing FOOTBALL...
-Slap-
12-13-2005, 06:44 PM
It's amazing what one idiot can do to a thread. Rascal clearly articulated the rule and then the resident Claven came in and blew it all up, unable to articulate a damn thing. It was kinda funny, though.
The real Claven was sort of likable, though.
The Big E
12-13-2005, 06:56 PM
The real Claven was sort of likable, though.
True. The one here is sort of like Cliff Claven suffering from 'roid rage. Obviously the result of that combo is a bit frightening.
yavoon
12-14-2005, 02:23 AM
meh, doesn't matter.
Alkazar
12-14-2005, 08:21 AM
Wrong...all of the pylon is inbounds
only part of the ball has to cross the line...so even if you graze the outside, part of the ball was inside...jesus...how many times do i have to explain this? The BALL ONLY HAS TO TOUCH THE END ZONE AND THE PYLON IS INSIDE THE END ZONE...
The idiot announcer that said that any part of the body inside the endzone was wrong tho...
Mock, you're being stupid here. The ball was in Vick's LEFT hand, and every part of his body passed OUTSIDE of the pylon except his RIGHT hand which passed over the pylon. This should have NOT been called a TD by ANY stretch of the imagination. But Vick, like the Manning boys, is one of the NFL's golden boys. Like I said in another thread, pretty soon all they'll need to do is walk up to the LOS and declare a TD because that what they intended on the play. The officiating is getting just a might bit rediculous these days.
Alkazar
12-14-2005, 08:25 AM
I have explained this to you neanderthals before..there is a plane, and it actually extends outside the pylon you morons...the goal line is infinite...so as long as he was still not out of bounds, and got the ball over the goal, it was a TD...
STFU your toasted...
And that's what we're saying is bad about the rules. The goal line should NOT be infinite, it should stop at the out-of-bounds plane.
Broncoman13
12-14-2005, 08:28 AM
Sorry Alkie, they were right to call it a TD b/c the Endzone is infinitely extending beyond the marked pylons, provided that a player doesn't go out of bounds. That is, a player can run into the side of the endzone (still in bounds) but hold the ball out of bounds as he crosses the endzone and it would still be a TD. In this case Vick dove and held the ball out crossing the infinite plane. He touched out of bounds AFTER the ball crossed that plane. The ref's comments ("the ball was in both hands and the right hand crossed over the pylon" or something like that) were irrelevant and not necessary to the call. Hate to tell you bro, but you're in the same boat as Mock in your thinking.
Alkazar
12-14-2005, 08:31 AM
Sorry Alkie, they were right to call it a TD b/c the Endzone is infinitely extending beyond the marked pylons, provided that a player doesn't go out of bounds. That is, a player can run into the side of the endzone (still in bounds) but hold the ball out of bounds as he crosses the endzone and it would still be a TD. In this case Vick dove and held the ball out crossing the infinite plane. He touched out of bounds AFTER the ball crossed that plane. The ref's comments ("the ball was in both hands and the right hand crossed over the pylon" or something like that) were irrelevant and not necessary to the call. Hate to tell you bro, but you're in the same boat as Mock in your thinking.
I understand the rule, I'm just saying the rule is bad and desperately needs to be eliminated from the rule book.