My understanding is that if the player in possession of the ball gets two feet in bounds and in the endzone, that the ball is not in the field of play is irrelevant. _
So if the receiver has two feet in the end zone and catches the ball on the one and the ball never gets into the EZ, is that a TD?
Yes, if you watch a goal line catch where the receiver has both feet in the endzone but he actually catches the ball with his hands on the other side of the goal line he'll get the call despite not being totally 100% what the rules state. I actually miss the old days when you had to actually get a certain amount of your body across the goal line and the ball itself didn't make a difference.
I think if he is in the field of play and the ball does not cross the goal line--never a TD. Must break the pane. If he catches the ball which is out of bounds but his feet are in bounds but the ball is past the goal line (OB), then it is a TD. Either the ball or 2 feet need to be in the endzone. I think the goal line is the pane of glass--I don't believe the endzone is a glass box. If that makes sense. _
It's the ball...not the body.. Think about it. If it was the body, all the RB would have to do Is dive head 1st and have his Helmet cross, or stick his hand or foot over the line... nah... It's the ball and the front of the EZ line.
agreed. ball has to pass the goal line, which includes the pylon. i don't think it ever did on the Stafford play.. only his feet did. the review results were not 'call is confirmed', it was just 'call stands', which is kind of a cop out considering the clear view of the play. they should have been able to make a definitive call one way or the other after review.
Yes, I agree..forgot to say that in the post. At the game, we all saw it.. and we all knew they were still gonna call it a TD.. The refs are insane when it comes to the JETS...
This is the correct answer. The ball carrier doesn't need two feet to touch the endzone, but there is an extended goal line when the carrier touches the endzone with any part of his body and the ball crosses the extended goal line prior to being touched down. Stupid rule, but it is what it is. BTW, if a ball carrier or receiver has one or both feet in the endzone and the ball never crosses the EZ, extended or not, it's not a touchdown.
Ok, so I think its pretty clear that the ball never crossed the goal line on the Stafford play, and there's certainly no rule variation that would permit a TD when the ball never crosses the plane of the goal line.
100%. I was in err thinking you need two feet, which you do not. And anyone thinking the ball didn't cross the extended goal line must not have seen Stafford, ball in hand, on the ground 7 yards past the extended goal line. _
Did you not see Stafford on the ground, ball in hand, 7 yards past the extended goal line? If the ball never crossed the extended goal line, how was he laying there with the football? _
Pretty deep in the rulebook. When they didn't reverse it I thought it might be something like the extended GL. Interesting if you think about it. You have to do a lot less as runner running into the EZ than as a receiver catching the pass in the EZ for it to be a TD
I did fucking read The ball never crossed the fucking extended goal line He went out of bounds with the ball about one yard behind him The ball never crossed the extended plane of the goal line when he was in bounds
Ok but here is my whole thing still, they said: "the ruling on the field stands" rather than "the ruling is confirmed", there is a significant difference between the two, or is this a type of play where they dont "confirm"? or dont they only "confirm" it when they have evidence to confirm it? how can they not have evidence when the play is as clear as daylight? its not like it was a bang-bang fumble recover in the middle of a pile....
