View topic - Can Someone Post the Rule Explanation for the Holmes TD?

[TOMLINS-HAIR Profile]

Can someone please clarify the NFL rule that is applied on the Holmes TD

I've looked in the rulebook and am still not clear how this play is judged.

Does the ball have to break the plane of the goalline or since his feet were in bound inside of the endzone does that make this a TD?

[Hagerstown Steelman Profile]

WR has to have possession and the ball has to break the plane.

Feet in the end zone don't mean anything. The ball must break the plane.

As much as I will take the win. I thought the plan would stand as called. I could not see the conclusive evidence. However, to stick a dagger in the Ravens is beautiful.

[Steel_Buckeye Profile]

One thing you have to remember is the angle at which the network cameras are positioned, no shot I saw on T.V. was strait from the side. With that in mind, the shots they were showing looked to me that the ball kissed the goal line. That is all it takes as long as holmes had maintained possesion and was in bounds. The explanation wasn't right, but the call was! TD!

[TOMLINS-HAIR Profile]

So, was Walt Coleman's explanation fundamentally misleading? I.e. I think he refers to Holmes having 2 feet in the end zone.

When I watch the replay - I was looking to see if any piece of the ball breaks the plane.. it is very, very close. However, it is clear that his feet are in the endzone (btw, Holmes played an awful game and was clearly intimidated by the Ravens Defense. In fact, the TD shows that he was expecting to get hit and leaned away from the defender.)

I was talking to others tonight and they are telling me I am wrong. They say the rule is that if he is inbounded (in the end zone) then the ball does not matter.

[Hagerstown Steelman Profile]

Good point about the angle. That never does get mentioned.

That has to tear out the Ravens hearts to give up a 92 yd drive like that.

Music to my ears.

[TOMLINS-HAIR Profile]

Guys- take a look at this article / site. This seems to suggest that Coleman's explanation was correct. (Btw, I am just happy we won. I hate the rat-birds)

http://www.east-coast-bias.com/2007/10/ ... -line.html

The article would say that the Holmes TD would fit within the 3rd definition of the rule, where the TD is good, when 2 feet are in the end zone in bounds (regardless of the ball)

[Cras108er Profile]

I didn't think Holmes made the TD until I thought more about it. Let's say he was on the sideline and caught the pass - same scenario (feet in bounds, but ball out of bounds). We would ONLY look at his feet to see if they were in and whether he had possession - not whether the ball was actually in the end zone. Wouldn't the same rule apply here? I THINK (and I could be wrong) that the issue is that he was in the end zone, as opposed to in the field of play. Had he been in the field of play, the ball would have had to cross the goal line. Because he was in the end zone, he merely had to have possession. With that rationale, I have no problem with the call.

It will be interesting to see what the NFL says about the call. Admittedly, I would have been a lot less understanding if the call had gone against us.

Cras108er

[Steel_Buckeye Profile]

RULE 32 A-E

If this is correct, I stand corrected!

Right explanation, but still right call!!!! TD!!!!!

[Cras108er Profile]

I stand corrected. The ball does have to cross (or touch) the goal line. The replays I have seen shows that it WAS a touchdown. Some say instant replay was instituted to overturn obvious errors, and the calls like this should remain with the field crew. I disagree. replay was instituted in order to keep referees from determining the outcome of the game. That's what happened here on a VERY close call. Now we just need to do something about ticky tack personal foul calls on kickers in the waning minutes of a VERY physical game.

Cras108er

[SteelTank Profile]

The rule is fairly simple - the ball must break the plane of the goal line and the player must establish himself in-bounds.

First, A plane has no depth, so the plane of the goal line is the very front part of the white line. To break it, the ball merely needs to touch it.

So, All a player must do is posses the ball, even for a fraction of a second, past the plane of the goal to break the plane. The ball clearly did this while it was in Holmes' hands.

If, the player accomplishes this and then establishes himself in the field of play it is a touchdown. It makes no difference if the player establishes himself in the field of play in or out of the end-zone. It just needs to be somewhere in bounds.

The ref really did not explain it very well, but his post-game comments comfirmed that he knew and understood the rule.

Of course, all the faggots on NBC including Chrissy Collingsworth and his ESPN buddies refused to admit that it was a TD. That's why we are champions and they are who they are.

By the way, Tomlin's hair is looking better these days, but of course some will say that the verdict is not in on Tomlin yet. I guess we'll see over the next month or so how good of a coach he is.

[Elegy Profile]

I thought it was similar to when a WR catches the ball heading out of bounds, but still has 2 feet in. Though the ball is off the field of play, the players feet are planted in the end zone. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see the confusion or why it was even questioned.

[ChumChurum Profile]

I tried finding the official NFL rulebook, and found the following:

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/2006%20NFL%20RULEBOOK.pdf

While the hosting site is not the National Football League, it appears that the document is the official rulebook.

On page 71 of the document (corresponding to the 78th page of according to the .pdf page count), we find the description of the scoring events.

For touchdown, we have

"Rule 11, Scoring, Section 2, Touchdown, Article 1, It is a touchdown (3-38):
(a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’
goal line (plane); or
(b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line."

It appears that when a touchdown attempt is made by reception (or recovery), it is sufficient that the receiver catches the ball behind the opponents goal line.

Well, we all know what it means to catch a ball: (1) must have possession, and (2) must have the feet within whatever bounds that matter for that play.

So to decide if it was a touchdown in that particular play, it was not sufficient or necessary if the ball broke the goal line. In fact, the only necessary condition was that the receiver has possession WHILE in the goal line, because part (b) of the rule applies.

Thus, the referree made the CORRECT call, and all the BS on TV showing magic yellow lines over the white goal line have no relevance at all. I can not believe the incompetence of the media questioning the call while applying the part of the rule relevant for ADVANCING the ball for a touchdown, while the relevant rule was for CATCHING the ball BEHIND the goal line.

[westeelbelieve Profile]

This is not the first time that he had to make a critical call in a big game
like this photo back in '01, I say to myself everyday "What If"?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/images/09/11/p1.tuck.jpg

[SteelTank Profile]

ChumChurn, You are totally mis-reading the rule.

Rule B indicates that the ball must be on or behind the goal-line. Not the player.

Where the player actually stands is not relevant to the TD. It is only pertinent to establishing himself in-bounds.

[ChumChurum Profile]

ChumChurn, You are totally mis-reading the rule.

Rule B indicates that the ball must be on or behind the goal-line. Not the player.

Where the player actually stands is not relevant to the TD. It is only pertinent to establishing himself in-bounds.

I could be misreading it. But if you hear the exact words that the referee said after the review, it appears that he is referencing this exact rule.

The receiver was inbounds with two feet in possession of the ball. Touchdown.

No mention of where the ball was in relation to the goal line.

It also seems that IF Homes had not established possesion in the end zone, it would not have been a touchdown. For example, if he had bobbled the ball after having touched it well in the end-zone, then had caught the ball anyway say 3 inches from the endzone, then it would NOT have been a touch-down (despite thte fact that the ball touched that vertical plane).

So for the touchdown to count, it was critically important for Holmes to drag his feet across the ground as he was being tackled.

Of course, it was plenty obvious that the ball had hit the vertical plane that establishes the endzone when Holmes caught and established possession. But again, that did not seem relevant when the referred announced the ruling, i.e., the line judge had already confirmed that.

[justhikeit Profile]

According to the NFL Digest of rules:
"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football. Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."
The "breaking the plane" rule is for a runner, or once a receiver becomes a runner. That is why the ref emphasized the fact that both of Holmes' feet were down. The commentators are stirring up a lot of controversy because none of them know this aspect of the rule. It will all be cleared up by the end of the day tomorrow, when the NFL releases a statement confirming that since Holmes' feet both clearly touched down in the end zone, the catch was properly deemed a touchdown.
so that WAS a touchdown.

[StillDodger Profile]

I could not find the "both feet" rule on the web. (If you type part of the text quoted, it shows up only once- On a Steelers board.) I think this is why many are whining about the call being bogus. I wish the NFL at least would post these details online, so any call can unequivocally be validated or nullified.

[steelslep Profile]

Ok, how about this scenario...QB is rolling right and lets go of the pass just before stepping OOB..the ball is travelling along the sideline and the receiver catches the ball, both feet in but clearly the ball did not break the plane INBOUNDS. TD or not? If that scenario is a TD, then Holmes by having both feet in is a TD regardless of the ball breaking the plane or not...

[Hagerstown Steelman Profile]

I stand corrected.

I said above that the ball had to break the plane. However, after many posts here and on other sites this is if the ball is being run into the end zone. Both feet in bounds = TD for a forward pass.

The best part of this is it takes away the Ratbirds claim that they got screwed by a call.

They got screwed by their D being out played on a 92yd drive.

How sweet it is.

[BenStiller Profile]

According to the NFL Digest of rules:
"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football. Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."
The "breaking the plane" rule is for a runner, or once a receiver becomes a runner. That is why the ref emphasized the fact that both of Holmes' feet were down. The commentators are stirring up a lot of controversy because none of them know this aspect of the rule. It will all be cleared up by the end of the day tomorrow, when the NFL releases a statement confirming that since Holmes' feet both clearly touched down in the end zone, the catch was properly deemed a touchdown.
so that WAS a touchdown.

Do you have a link for that rule?