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

[isfry Profile]

I would love to see that in NFL's writing. After all the Seattle Whining a couple years ago, I would at least like to have a rule to quote on this one. Personally, I thought it did cross the plane anyway.

[stillcello Profile]

I think this rule only refers to the side or back of the endzone as the NFL refs statements today all reference the 'plane' as part of their explanation.... if the plane was not relevant, they would have immediately stated such. Here is the link to some of their official statements

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcnorth/0-1 ... plane.html

[steelmoney Profile]

So here is Sunday night's transcript of NFL referee Walt Coleman, who reversed the call after reviewing the instant replay.

Why was it ruled a touchdown?

Walt Coleman: You have to have two feet down to complete the catch. He had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line.

So the ball broke the plane in your view?

WC: Yeah, the ball was breaking the plane. He had two feet down. 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 two feet down, possession and control of the ball breaking the plane.

Why was the original call not ruled a touchdown?

WC: [Paul Weidner] felt like when the receiver gained possession of the ball, the ball was not breaking the plane of the goal line.

[Steelhope 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...

The "plane" goes around the world. You describe a TD

[shawnlucas Profile]

If the ref had access to the overhead, that was the one that cinched it for me. He clearly had possession and the ball crossed the plane of the goal line in the view. In all of the other shots, it was not conclusive, but the overhead shot showed it clearly, IMO.

[NOVAStiller Profile]

Joe Bugel and Sonny Jurgenson just said it was a TD... "touched the plane" here on the local DC news.

The national media are idiots! They just like to stir up a controversy to keep their lucrative jobs.

[shawnlucas Profile]

Joe Bugel and Sonny Jurgenson just said it was a TD... "touched the plane" here on the local DC news.

The national media are idiots! They just like to stir up a controversy to keep their lucrative jobs.

I've noticed that the national media outlets never use the overhead replay in their discussion of the "controversy" surrounding the touchdown.

[Teegre Profile]

I think that most importantly, Mike Periera, the head of officiating, who also happens to readily admit when his officials make mistakes, stated that it was "indisputably" a touchdown.

Next topic, please.

[Steel_Buckeye 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...

The "plane" goes around the world. You describe a TD

This is no longer the "rule", they have changed the rule to only include inside the pylon when reaching in. No more Michael Vick's reaching in with their empty hand over the goal line while they are going out-of-bounds.

I think it is new for this year?

[Teegre Profile]

[
This is no longer the "rule", they have changed the rule to only include inside the pylon when reaching in. No more Michael Vick's reaching in with their empty hand over the goal line while they are going out-of-bounds.

I think it is new for this year?

You are correct:
1) it now stops at the pylon.
2) it was put in place due to Vick.