PDA

View Full Version : Two feet and the Toe Tap (and the rest of the foot)


Archie
09-21-2010, 06:52 PM
Ok - I am 100% sure I'm right (mostly because I'm never wrong :thumbs:) but I can't find anything that documents this and I have the annoying need to PROVE that I'm right to a friend.

Last night in the Saints vs. Niners game there was a catch near the end of the game in which the player caught the ball. The first foot was clearly and completely in bounds. The second foot, toe first, clearly came down in bounds and then as the player (facing towards the middle of the field) landed the rest of the foot, the back of the foot was oh so close to being out of bounds. (Upon further further inspection it was barely but clearly in bounds). However, because the announcers never said what I said and because they did in fact review it (under Official Review) my friend is convinced that it would not have been a catch if the later parts of the foot came down out of bounds. IE, that despite getting the toe in bounds, as the rest of the foot came down out of bounds it would have been ruled as no catch.

The argument makes no sense. If you toe tap and drag out of bounds that would be a catch. By definition the entire foot would then land out of bounds. It seems perfectly obvious to me but he does not believe it.
How do I prove I'm right... Help!

McDman
09-21-2010, 07:11 PM
Well, you're right. Just look at the rule book online.



Edit* actually I don't know if you're right or not now that I think about it.

McDman
09-21-2010, 07:12 PM
Also, I thought this was a thread about dancing when I clicked on it.

OABB
09-21-2010, 07:42 PM
If any of the foot touches the white it's out of bounds. It is ok if they slide over the white as long as they land clearly in bounds before sliding out. It's the slide that's ok, not landing on the white as a step.

Broncojef
09-21-2010, 08:14 PM
Ok - I am 100% sure I'm right (mostly because I'm never wrong :thumbs:) but I can't find anything that documents this and I have the annoying need to PROVE that I'm right to a friend.

Last night in the Saints vs. Niners game there was a catch near the end of the game in which the player caught the ball. The first foot was clearly and completely in bounds. The second foot, toe first, clearly came down in bounds and then as the player (facing towards the middle of the field) landed the rest of the foot, the back of the foot was oh so close to being out of bounds. (Upon further further inspection it was barely but clearly in bounds). However, because the announcers never said what I said and because they did in fact review it (under Official Review) my friend is convinced that it would not have been a catch if the later parts of the foot came down out of bounds. IE, that despite getting the toe in bounds, as the rest of the foot came down out of bounds it would have been ruled as no catch.

The argument makes no sense. If you toe tap and drag out of bounds that would be a catch. By definition the entire foot would then land out of bounds. It seems perfectly obvious to me but he does not believe it.
How do I prove I'm right... Help!

You are right...the problem with only getting a toe in as a second foot is sometimes proving the toe hit in-bounds prior. Sometimes depending on the angle the foot appears to land all at once. The catch last night for example would have been very hard to prove any initial toe was in before the heel landed out of bounds. You are correct though.

LRtagger
09-21-2010, 08:27 PM
If both toes touch the ground before any other part of the body, it doesnt matter whether the heel lands in bounds or not.

If the first toe lands in bounds and the heel falls out of bounds before the second foot touches the ground, it's an incomplete pass.

broncosteven
09-21-2010, 08:49 PM
If both toes touch the ground before any other part of the body, it doesnt matter whether the heel lands in bounds or not.

If the first toe lands in bounds and the heel falls out of bounds before the second foot touches the ground, it's an incomplete pass.

This

Archie
09-21-2010, 09:11 PM
Ok, so I think you are all in agreement - if the toe (or any part) of the 2nd foot lands in bounds (the first foot having already landed in bounds) before any part of the player lands out of bounds then the player is deemed to be in bounds.

I just wish I could find something that was more official - but on the other hand it's also (in my mind) so obvious that perhaps it does not need clarification.

Archie
09-21-2010, 09:14 PM
You are right...the problem with only getting a toe in as a second foot is sometimes proving the toe hit in-bounds prior. Sometimes depending on the angle the foot appears to land all at once. The catch last night for example would have been very hard to prove any initial toe was in before the heel landed out of bounds. You are correct though.

I thought the 2nd toe was clearly down first and then as his foot continued down the heel came close to landing out of bounds. But I thought the toe was most definitely down already. Perhaps that is why it was reviewed - if my recollection was not accurate.

Archie
09-21-2010, 09:17 PM
If any of the foot touches the white it's out of bounds. It is ok if they slide over the white as long as they land clearly in bounds before sliding out. It's the slide that's ok, not landing on the white as a step.

So - this is my point. I don't think what you are saying is accurate. Imagine facing the middle of the field and coming down out of the air having caught the ball. The first foot lands in bounds - completely. The 2nd foot, the toe comes down first and hits in bounds (that is a necessary part of my story). Then, as the momentum of the player continues towards the sidelines (so from their perspective - backwards) the foot continues downward and the ankle lands out of bounds - completeing the step.

I am saying that since the toe was down and in bounds the completion of the step is immaterial. The player would be in bounds.

OABB
09-21-2010, 09:23 PM
So - this is my point. I don't think what you are saying is accurate. Imagine facing the middle of the field and coming down out of the air having caught the ball. The first foot lands in bounds - completely. The 2nd foot, the toe comes down first and hits in bounds (that is a necessary part of my story). Then, as the momentum of the player continues towards the sidelines (so from their perspective - backwards) the foot continues downward and the ankle lands out of bounds - completeing the step.

I am saying that since the toe was down and in bounds the completion of the step is immaterial. The player would be in bounds.

I may be wrong, but i think if the planting foot touches the white as a step it's out of bounds. A traditional toe tap is when the reciever is facing the sideline so his heel is never an issue. The play you are referring to had the players back facing the sideline so a sliding toe tap is impossible. If he is faceing the white and his heel touches the field and than his toe plants on the white I believe he will be called out.

Again, I'm only guessing here.

Archie
09-21-2010, 09:31 PM
I may be wrong, but i think if the planting foot touches the white as a step it's out of bounds. A traditional toe tap is when the reciever is facing the sideline so his heel is never an issue. The play you are referring to had the players back facing the sideline so a sliding toe tap is impossible. If he is faceing the white and his heel touches the field and than his toe plants on the white I believe he will be called out.

Again, I'm only guessing here.

So - if the player toe taps both feet and then falls completely out of bounds it's a catch but if he toe taps and then his heels (or in this case one heel) comes down out of bounds it's not a catch. That would seem extraordinarily inconsistent. That would imply he could toe tap and then lift his legs up and fall out of bounds on his hip and it would be a catch but just completing the step would make it not a catch.

I think the key is that as long as parts of both feet touch down in bounds before any part of the player touches out of bounds it is a catch. I just don't know how to proove it. And now I really have to :)

SouthStndJunkie
09-21-2010, 09:41 PM
Two feet and the toe tap (and the rest of the foot)?

Whew....for a minute I thought this was a Larry Craig thread.

Archie
09-21-2010, 09:49 PM
Two feet and the toe tap (and the rest of the foot)?

Whew....for a minute I thought this was a Larry Craig thread.

Doh...

BigPlayShay
09-21-2010, 10:01 PM
Walter Sobchak: You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.
The Dude: Yeah, but Walter...
Walter Sobchak: Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These ****ing amateurs...

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0GaL7iOLAYyKtQgYYzMV84G2dv16qM 3qXFUdhXeBr0svYycQ&t=1&usg=__xipPzVXtN2LXUaMcwrtgZn9xP5g=

OABB
09-21-2010, 10:11 PM
So - if the player toe taps both feet and then falls completely out of bounds it's a catch but if he toe taps and then his heels (or in this case one heel) comes down out of bounds it's not a catch. That would seem extraordinarily inconsistent. That would imply he could toe tap and then lift his legs up and fall out of bounds on his hip and it would be a catch but just completing the step would make it not a catch.

I think the key is that as long as parts of both feet touch down in bounds before any part of the player touches out of bounds it is a catch. I just don't know how to proove it. And now I really have to :)

yeah, now I want to know the language of the rule, because I heard in a game recently that knees and elbows can count too. like one foot and an elbow count as two feet.

now the more we talk the less I know...

someone can find the language, right?

misturanderson
09-21-2010, 11:22 PM
yeah, now I want to know the language of the rule, because I heard in a game recently that knees and elbows can count too. like one foot and an elbow count as two feet.

now the more we talk the less I know...

someone can find the language, right?

Any part of the body other than the foot counts as two feet. You could put a hand down in bounds first and then fall completely out of bounds and it's a catch I'm pretty sure.

Lev Vyvanse
09-21-2010, 11:57 PM
If you want to download the rule book:
http://www.filedropper.com/file_214

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance
the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if
a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground;
and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than
his hands.
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered
a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there
has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body
other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,
it is not a catch.

HAT
09-22-2010, 12:18 AM
The correct answer is that the same exact scenario could happen in consecutive weeks and be ruled two different ways.

Archie
09-22-2010, 06:56 AM
The correct answer is that the same exact scenario could happen in consecutive weeks and be ruled two different ways.

I'm beginning to believe that this must be the right answer. There is no clarity on the subject.

missingnumber7
09-22-2010, 07:47 AM
Actually if his heel would have been out of bounds it would have been incomplete as he put his whole foot down. If he had done a toe tap and then stepped out of bounds it would be complete, but if you place your entire foot on the ground heel to toe must entirely be inbounds and it is not considered a complete pass until either a. both of your feet have touched the ground heel to toe, b. any portion of both feet have touched the ground and be picked up before going out of bounds.

They key is that he has not completed the catch with both established feet inbounds if his heel hits the line he has established possession out of bounds.

Archie
09-22-2010, 08:05 AM
Actually if his heel would have been out of bounds it would have been incomplete as he put his whole foot down. If he had done a toe tap and then stepped out of bounds it would be complete, but if you place your entire foot on the ground heel to toe must entirely be inbounds and it is not considered a complete pass until either a. both of your feet have touched the ground heel to toe, b. any portion of both feet have touched the ground and be picked up before going out of bounds.

They key is that he has not completed the catch with both established feet inbounds if his heel hits the line he has established possession out of bounds.

And where is this documented? If it's true, I find the rule inconsistent. A player who toe taps and drags his foot out of bounds has not "lifted" his foot. It seems very directionally biased. Anyway - right or wrong (I would be pissed to be wrong) but either way I would love some documentation on this vs. our various assertions.

IHaveALight
09-22-2010, 10:43 AM
Forgo the need to be right all the time and you will be a happier and more peaceful man.