Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Toes on both feet inbounds equals a catch, right? Yeah, not exactly, as Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Tee Higgins found out Sunday. Gotta get those heels inbounds, too   (sports.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Cincinnati Bengals, American football, National Football League, wide receiver Tee Higgins, Marvin Lewis, Cincinnati, toe-tapping catch, Bengals head coach Zac Taylor  
•       •       •

894 clicks; posted to Sports » on 26 Sep 2022 at 11:08 AM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



57 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-09-26 10:16:27 AM  
FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.
 
2022-09-26 10:20:16 AM  
Toes on BOTH feet would exclude you from living in West Virginia.
 
2022-09-26 10:24:41 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Toes on BOTH feet would exclude you from living in West Virginia.


No toes means you're related to mtg?
 
2022-09-26 10:52:48 AM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-26 11:20:04 AM  

HugeMistake: FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.


Right.

Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds and it doesn't matter if your heels touch inside the field of play or not.

If your back is to the boundary, you have to have your whole foot in bounds. That's why the rule changes is suggested because it's really stupid.
 
2022-09-26 11:22:09 AM  
Why is this a controversy?

If you are running on the sideline and your foot touches the white AT ALL, you are out. You can have 99.9% in and one fraction of shoe sole hits the line and you are out of bounds. Everyone gets this. This guy gets a toe in and his a good sized portion of foot out and no one can believe it.

How do you get one and not the other?

Acrobatic play, just not quite good enough. Dems the brakes. And the rules.
 
2022-09-26 11:22:57 AM  
It looks like his heel on his right foot was flat and out of bounds when he made the catch. His left heel doesn't look like it even touched the ground, but the view from the one video in the article doesn't show his right heel.
I'm fine with this. The ref saw what he saw and made the call. Without more video, looks like the right call to me. 
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-26 11:26:03 AM  
Either way what's most important is that we all get our weekly mid-game episode of CSI: What is a Catch?.
 
2022-09-26 11:28:35 AM  

Hillbilly Jim: HugeMistake: FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.

Right.

Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds and it doesn't matter if your heels touch inside the field of play or not.

If your back is to the boundary, you have to have your whole foot in bounds. That's why the rule changes is suggested because it's really stupid.


Umm. No.

Makes perfect sense.

You touch out of bounds, you are out out of bounds. The first example does not touch out of bounds before play complete. The second one he does.

Are people just now discovering football? This is not new.

That is the whole reason for the toe tap in the first place.

Without that rule, no one would toe tap, they would just step on the line.

Take it to its (il)logical conclusion. When is a player in/out of bounds? When on the line? Over it. Only when he toe taps?

Can he have both feet on the line as long as 50% is in? How do you call this?

Sounds to me like people are fantasy or betting butt hurt.
 
2022-09-26 11:29:24 AM  

onestr8: Why is this a controversy?

If you are running on the sideline and your foot touches the white AT ALL, you are out. You can have 99.9% in and one fraction of shoe sole hits the line and you are out of bounds. Everyone gets this. This guy gets a toe in and his a good sized portion of foot out and no one can believe it.

How do you get one and not the other?

Acrobatic play, just not quite good enough. Dems the brakes. And the rules.


I don't believe you are looking at it right.  There are 3 scenarios with different rules.  If you are facing out of bounds and catch the ball, all you need is your toes in (or a knee/body part down in) and what happens with the heel doesn't matter.  If you are facing toward the field of play and catch on the boundary, you need not just the toes in, but the heel which appears to be an odd inconsistency with the first scenario.  And if you are running down the sideline, any part of the foot that goes out is where the ball is dead.

There doesn't appear to be a good reason that scenario 1 or 2 differ, yet in the rules the do.  That is what people are irritated at.  Making a catch doesn't seem to warrant different rules based upon which way you are facing.  Either make it you need the toe and heel in, or just the toes.  My view is that both feet in just means the toes need to be in, or the heels if those hit first, whatever happens with the rest of the foot is irrelevant.
 
2022-09-26 11:29:33 AM  

onestr8: Why is this a controversy?

If you are running on the sideline and your foot touches the white AT ALL, you are out. You can have 99.9% in and one fraction of shoe sole hits the line and you are out of bounds. Everyone gets this. This guy gets a toe in and his a good sized portion of foot out and no one can believe it.


Because this isn't about running with the football.  It's establishing two feet in bounds on a catch.  If a receiver can simply tap both toes in while facing the sideline, it does seem odd that the same can't be ruled in reverse.
 
2022-09-26 11:35:17 AM  
So a multimillionaire who earns his crust by playing a game feels hurt and bullied and offended because during the game there was a moment when his form was not as good as it normally is and he recieved no award or appreciation for that moment. Therefore the rest of us, out of respect for his pain and great talent (or charity and kindness concerning his fragile mental health state) are supposed to pretend that a heels is no longer considered to be a part of a foot, and never should have been linked to feet in the first place? Is that how this is supposed to work?

God we live in magical times of language and anatomy, dont we?
 
2022-09-26 11:37:02 AM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: onestr8: Why is this a controversy?

If you are running on the sideline and your foot touches the white AT ALL, you are out. You can have 99.9% in and one fraction of shoe sole hits the line and you are out of bounds. Everyone gets this. This guy gets a toe in and his a good sized portion of foot out and no one can believe it.

Because this isn't about running with the football.  It's establishing two feet in bounds on a catch.  If a receiver can simply tap both toes in while facing the sideline, it does seem odd that the same can't be ruled in reverse.


But what if he had tapped two heels in bounds? That would have been a catch. If you face a different direction, different rules. I'm OK with that.
 
2022-09-26 11:38:07 AM  
I see most people have realized how stupid an idea this is. Like...you can think before you post stuff, people.
 
2022-09-26 11:39:10 AM  

mikaloyd: So a multimillionaire who earns his crust by playing a game feels hurt and bullied and offended because during the game there was a moment when his form was not as good as it normally is and he recieved no award or appreciation for that moment. Therefore the rest of us, out of respect for his pain and great talent (or charity and kindness concerning his fragile mental health state) are supposed to pretend that a heels is no longer considered to be a part of a foot, and never should have been linked to feet in the first place? Is that how this is supposed to work?

God we live in magical times of language and anatomy, dont we?


Switch to decaf dude.
 
2022-09-26 11:42:19 AM  

Khryswhy: If you face a different direction, different rules.


But why?  Seems weird to me.  A toe is a toe.

I mean I'm not going to lose sleep over this or anything but having different sets of rules just adds more needless complexity.
 
2022-09-26 11:45:51 AM  

Hillbilly Jim: Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds


You could I guess but that would almost certainly be a fine of $15k or more  from to the NFL. They will fine a guy $5k for just forgetting to monitor his fashion situation well enough to keep his socks pulled up to a polite and modest height. If anybody went barefoot long enough to touch their toes inbounds it is a sure bet that the NFL would go Full Old Testament on his ass and send locusts after his paycheck
 
2022-09-26 11:47:45 AM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Switch to decaf dude.


You are such a nag, next you'll be telling me to quit smoking too
 
2022-09-26 11:52:21 AM  

mikaloyd: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Switch to decaf dude.

You are such a nag, next you'll be telling me to quit smoking too


Ha, in that case you can ignore my previous advice.  But quit smoking.
 
2022-09-26 12:20:44 PM  
You can hover the ball over the line on a run for a TD but not a pass? What's the difference, really?
 
2022-09-26 1:20:21 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: HugeMistake: FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.

Right.

Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds and it doesn't matter if your heels touch inside the field of play or not.

If your back is to the boundary, you have to have your whole foot in bounds. That's why the rule changes is suggested because it's really stupid.


Thanks.

It'd be nice if TFA suggesting the NFL might want to change a rule have, you know, some indication of what that rule is.
 
2022-09-26 1:20:40 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-26 1:31:27 PM  
your whole foot has to land inbounds, that's all that matters

bringing up facing the other way is ridiculous because all it means is your whole foot has to be inbounds because the heels are just further inbounds.  "but he had his heels in!"  isn't a thing so neither is it for toes - a foot is a foot, doesn't matter which part of the foot touches out

if he could tiptoe and then not have his heels come down, then awesome it's a catch, but part of the foot was out so it's not

wtf is so confusing about this to people?
 
2022-09-26 1:40:32 PM  
If any part of your foot touches the ground it has to be in bounds or it's not a catch. If your heel doesn't touch the ground, it can't be out of bounds. Where is the confusion?
 
2022-09-26 1:44:03 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: your whole foot has to land inbounds, that's all that matters

bringing up facing the other way is ridiculous because all it means is your whole foot has to be inbounds because the heels are just further inbounds.  "but he had his heels in!"  isn't a thing so neither is it for toes - a foot is a foot, doesn't matter which part of the foot touches out

if he could tiptoe and then not have his heels come down, then awesome it's a catch, but part of the foot was out so it's not

wtf is so confusing about this to people?


Because it seems inconsistent to have the difference.  All football fans know the amazing catches with the toe tapping that occur every game.  However if the body is oriented differently, the rule is interpreted different so that even though the first parts touching the ground is inbound, it is not treated like the toe tap if the remainder of the foot goes out of bounds.  Here is an older article describing how the different interpretation works depending on the context of the toe touching.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/12/in-the-nfl-a-toe-is-a-foot-but-a-heel-isnt/
 
2022-09-26 1:46:10 PM  

SuperChuck: If any part of your foot touches the ground it has to be in bounds or it's not a catch. If your heel doesn't touch the ground, it can't be out of bounds. Where is the confusion?


The heel will always touch the ground at some point in the play, and in the toe tapping scenario that is usually out of bounds.  Yet it is interpreted as a catch.  In the context of the play last night the toes tapped in, but heel came down out of bounds yet it was not a catch due to the facing.  That is the confusion.
 
2022-09-26 1:52:18 PM  

Daedalus27: SuperChuck: If any part of your foot touches the ground it has to be in bounds or it's not a catch. If your heel doesn't touch the ground, it can't be out of bounds. Where is the confusion?

The heel will always touch the ground at some point in the play, and in the toe tapping scenario that is usually out of bounds.  Yet it is interpreted as a catch.  In the context of the play last night the toes tapped in, but heel came down out of bounds yet it was not a catch due to the facing.  That is the confusion.


This sounds like a Gregory Hines thread.
 
2022-09-26 1:52:23 PM  

Daedalus27: SuperChuck: If any part of your foot touches the ground it has to be in bounds or it's not a catch. If your heel doesn't touch the ground, it can't be out of bounds. Where is the confusion?

The heel will always touch the ground at some point in the play, and in the toe tapping scenario that is usually out of bounds.  Yet it is interpreted as a catch.  In the context of the play last night the toes tapped in, but heel came down out of bounds yet it was not a catch due to the facing.  That is the confusion.


If only your toe touches the ground, and then your foot leaves the ground, the heel never touches during that step.  See walking on your toes or toe tapping.

It is significantly more difficult to walk on your heels in a similar manner.
 
2022-09-26 2:01:07 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: HugeMistake: FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.

Right.

Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds and it doesn't matter if your heels touch inside the field of play or not.

If your back is to the boundary, you have to have your whole foot in bounds. That's why the rule changes is suggested because it's really stupid.


Except that isn't the rule. It just tends to end up that way because of physics and the human body, but it isn't the rule.

The rule is that both feet must come down in bounds considering any part of the foot that comes down on the play.

If you are going backwards and can get your toes down without you heels hiatting the line it is a catch. Just like you are facing towards the sideline. It is just much more difficult to do so because of how a foot in structured.

Is it a good rule? Probably not. And I would likely change it if I had the choice. But it is far from the stupidest or most illogical NFL rules.
 
2022-09-26 2:17:40 PM  

dywed88: Hillbilly Jim: HugeMistake: FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.

Right.

Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds and it doesn't matter if your heels touch inside the field of play or not.

If your back is to the boundary, you have to have your whole foot in bounds. That's why the rule changes is suggested because it's really stupid.

Except that isn't the rule. It just tends to end up that way because of physics and the human body, but it isn't the rule.

The rule is that both feet must come down in bounds considering any part of the foot that comes down on the play.

If you are going backwards and can get your toes down without you heels hiatting the line it is a catch. Just like you are facing towards the sideline. It is just much more difficult to do so because of how a foot in structured.

Is it a good rule? Probably not. And I would likely change it if I had the choice. But it is far from the stupidest or most illogical NFL rules.


Tbh that play kinda looked like he managed to do it that way and it should be a TD.

/I'm sure actual viewers got 100,000 replays with zooms, that video in the article had none.
 
2022-09-26 2:19:48 PM  
Like it looked like he came down on his toes and dragged and then later the heels came down. IMO that's a catch. The more common non-catch version is when the guy has his toe in and then just fully sets his foot down and the heel is OOB. That should definitely be out.
 
2022-09-26 2:21:34 PM  

IAmRight: dywed88: Hillbilly Jim: HugeMistake: FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.

Right.

Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds and it doesn't matter if your heels touch inside the field of play or not.

If your back is to the boundary, you have to have your whole foot in bounds. That's why the rule changes is suggested because it's really stupid.

Except that isn't the rule. It just tends to end up that way because of physics and the human body, but it isn't the rule.

The rule is that both feet must come down in bounds considering any part of the foot that comes down on the play.

If you are going backwards and can get your toes down without you heels hiatting the line it is a catch. Just like you are facing towards the sideline. It is just much more difficult to do so because of how a foot in structured.

Is it a good rule? Probably not. And I would likely change it if I had the choice. But it is far from the stupidest or most illogical NFL rules.

Tbh that play kinda looked like he managed to do it that way and it should be a TD.

/I'm sure actual viewers got 100,000 replays with zooms, that video in the article had none.


Except his toes landed and his heels came down as part of the same motion and they were clearly on the white.
 
2022-09-26 2:22:42 PM  
Simpler times

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-26 2:44:04 PM  
Was a great athletic play, regardless.  I'm a big fan of tee.  I have literally dozens of his shirts.
 
2022-09-26 2:45:13 PM  

little big man: Simpler times

[Fark user image image 600x338]


Ah, back when you could just say a catch was a catch based on the fact that the person clearly caught it instead of attempting to determine how many degrees of wiggle within a frame constitutes a lack of control.
 
2022-09-26 2:46:25 PM  

Daedalus27: Dead for Tax Reasons: your whole foot has to land inbounds, that's all that matters

bringing up facing the other way is ridiculous because all it means is your whole foot has to be inbounds because the heels are just further inbounds.  "but he had his heels in!"  isn't a thing so neither is it for toes - a foot is a foot, doesn't matter which part of the foot touches out

if he could tiptoe and then not have his heels come down, then awesome it's a catch, but part of the foot was out so it's not

wtf is so confusing about this to people?

Because it seems inconsistent to have the difference.  All football fans know the amazing catches with the toe tapping that occur every game.  However if the body is oriented differently, the rule is interpreted different so that even though the first parts touching the ground is inbound, it is not treated like the toe tap if the remainder of the foot goes out of bounds.  Here is an older article describing how the different interpretation works depending on the context of the toe touching.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/12/in-the-nfl-a-toe-is-a-foot-but-a-heel-isnt/


it's really not confusing in the least bit.

this is a one motion step - toe comes down in bounds then the heel immediately follows out of bounds so it's not a catch.  it's all one instantaneous action

if your heel is in and then the toe comes down out of bounds, is it a catch?  of course not.  neither is this

toe taps, comes off ground - catch

toe drags, no other part touches before going out - catch

heel touches in, then toe comes down out - no catch

toe hits ground in, followed by heel out of bounds while toe is still on ground - no catch


the toe tap is more equivalent of if you were falling out backwards and only the heels touched with the toes up in the air and you fall out so the toes get farther away from the ground.  a heel tap would be a catch
 
2022-09-26 3:10:51 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: HugeMistake: FTFA: Since Higgins' heel landed out of bounds, the pass was ruled incomplete. But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way.

So basically: he landed out of bounds, but if he handed landed out of bounds, he would have been inbounds? That's some fine analysis right there.

Either that or the writer is suggesting that there is some way he could have landed facing the touchline but with his feet turned through 180 degrees. With writing like this, it's hard to say which one was intended.

Right.

Facing the boundary, you can tap both sets of toes inbounds and it doesn't matter if your heels touch inside the field of play or not.

If your back is to the boundary, you have to have your whole foot in bounds. That's why the rule changes is suggested because it's really stupid.


So basically, if his heels didn't land out of bounds he would have been called inbounds? I'm not sure the author has the stunning epiphany they think.
 
2022-09-26 3:17:56 PM  

Daedalus27: onestr8: Why is this a controversy?

If you are running on the sideline and your foot touches the white AT ALL, you are out. You can have 99.9% in and one fraction of shoe sole hits the line and you are out of bounds. Everyone gets this. This guy gets a toe in and his a good sized portion of foot out and no one can believe it.

How do you get one and not the other?

Acrobatic play, just not quite good enough. Dems the brakes. And the rules.

I don't believe you are looking at it right.  There are 3 scenarios with different rules.  If you are facing out of bounds and catch the ball, all you need is your toes in (or a knee/body part down in) and what happens with the heel doesn't matter.  If you are facing toward the field of play and catch on the boundary, you need not just the toes in, but the heel which appears to be an odd inconsistency with the first scenario.  And if you are running down the sideline, any part of the foot that goes out is where the ball is dead.

There doesn't appear to be a good reason that scenario 1 or 2 differ, yet in the rules the do.  That is what people are irritated at.  Making a catch doesn't seem to warrant different rules based upon which way you are facing.  Either make it you need the toe and heel in, or just the toes.  My view is that both feet in just means the toes need to be in, or the heels if those hit first, whatever happens with the rest of the foot is irrelevant.


In your first scenario, you failed to mention which body part is touching out of bounds. You are framing it as equivalent so there must be one.

Let's go another direction. A WR catches a ball with two whole feet flat on inbounds ground. But he's matrixing so something (shoulder/hand/ top of head) is out of bounds. Guess what? He's out of bounds.

Heck, on kicks you can receive the ball with one foot out of bounds and even though the ball wass headed nowhere OB the kicking team is still penalized for an OB kick
 
2022-09-26 3:18:41 PM  
Is that the actual reason given by the officials? The way I saw it on the replay, one reason they probably called it OOB was that he was still juggling the football between the time the second foot came off the ground and then landed out of bounds.
 
2022-09-26 3:22:12 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Khryswhy: If you face a different direction, different rules.

But why?  Seems weird to me.  A toe is a toe.

I mean I'm not going to lose sleep over this or anything but having different sets of rules just adds more needless complexity.


And if the guy was facing the boundary and caught the ball on his heels (for some reason) but his toes landed out, he would be out.

It isn't about the toes. It's about having a body part out
 
2022-09-26 3:52:33 PM  
Higgins supposes his toeses composes.
But Higgins supposes erroneously.
 
2022-09-26 4:17:55 PM  

little big man: Simpler times

[Fark user image 600x338] [View Full Size image _x_]


Or the team relevant to my interests - "one cheek equals two feet"
 
2022-09-26 4:28:02 PM  
Those arguing there is no confusion here are ignoring the magic of the end zone. The instant a player has possession inbounds and the ball has crossed the plane of the end zone, it's a touchdown, the play ends, and everything after is magically irrelevant. So Cinci fans are pissed because the dude had posession with the toes of each foot inbounds, which in their minds should be a touchdown, rendering the fall of his heels in or out irrelevant.
 
2022-09-26 4:44:38 PM  
But it did so after his toes touched, and his heel wouldn't have even mattered if he was turned the other way. This might be a rule the NFL wants to reconsider because just about everyone except the NFL considers what Higgins did a catch and a touchdown.

This is so obviously out of bounds and consistent with what I've always understood to be the rules, I'd like to see this author's understanding of "just about everyone." Did he take a survey?

Or is this the same dumbass Yahoo writer who tried to make a controversy out of Mark Sanchez's PG-rated joke last week?
 
2022-09-26 4:46:24 PM  

correction: Those arguing there is no confusion here are ignoring the magic of the end zone. The instant a player has possession inbounds and the ball has crossed the plane of the end zone, it's a touchdown, the play ends, and everything after is magically irrelevant. So Cinci fans are pissed because the dude had posession with the toes of each foot inbounds, which in their minds should be a touchdown, rendering the fall of his heels in or out irrelevant.


This is begging the question in the literal sense. You assume he "has possession inbounds." That is the very question they are asking. And the answer is no.
 
2022-09-26 4:53:09 PM  

Super Chronic: correction: Those arguing there is no confusion here are ignoring the magic of the end zone. The instant a player has possession inbounds and the ball has crossed the plane of the end zone, it's a touchdown, the play ends, and everything after is magically irrelevant. So Cinci fans are pissed because the dude had posession with the toes of each foot inbounds, which in their minds should be a touchdown, rendering the fall of his heels in or out irrelevant.

This is begging the question in the literal sense. You assume he "has possession inbounds." That is the very question they are asking. And the answer is no.


... And in any event, the "magic of the end zone" is only a thing with respect to a ball crossing the plane in the hands of a carrier. After that, the play is over and the ball can't be fumbled or pulled back. That's as far as the magic goes. A catch has to be a catch.
 
2022-09-26 5:05:54 PM  
On sideline toe-touch receptions, often the heel does not hit the ground in-bounds yet it is still a catch. Both toes can touch and first full foot on the ground OOB (Heinz Ward's TD vs Cardinals for example).

I have not seen alternative views of this catch (that may show his heel OOB), but it does look    to me like both toes touch and then both feet land OOB, just like Ward's but in reverse.

Yes, foot mechanics make it difficult to land on your toes going backwards, which makes the heel rule a good indicator most of the time, but the sheer athleticism of players today defies normal body mechanics frequently.
 
2022-09-26 5:20:13 PM  

ex_dilbert: On sideline toe-touch receptions, often the heel does not hit the ground in-bounds yet it is still a catch. Both toes can touch and first full foot on the ground OOB (Heinz Ward's TD vs Cardinals for example).

I have not seen alternative views of this catch (that may show his heel OOB), but it does look    to me like both toes touch and then both feet land OOB, just like Ward's but in reverse.

Yes, foot mechanics make it difficult to land on your toes going backwards, which makes the heel rule a good indicator most of the time, but the sheer athleticism of players today defies normal body mechanics frequently.


You are misunderstanding. The heel doesn't need to land in bounds, it just cannot land out of bounds.

If you are diving forward, your heel won't touch the ground in or out to of bounds until the play is complete because it is facing upward.

Here, if the receiver could have somehow touched the ground with his toes and pushed off such that his heels didn't touch the ground, he would have been fine on the exact same basis.
 
2022-09-26 5:27:01 PM  

correction: Those arguing there is no confusion here are ignoring the magic of the end zone. The instant a player has possession inbounds and the ball has crossed the plane of the end zone, it's a touchdown, the play ends, and everything after is magically irrelevant. So Cinci fans are pissed because the dude had posession with the toes of each foot inbounds, which in their minds should be a touchdown, rendering the fall of his heels in or out irrelevant.


You are correct that the moment he has possession past the goal line it is a touchdown.

However, he only obtains possession possession once the catch is completed. Completing the catch required both feet (or another body part other than the hands) to land in bounds.

Having both feet land in bounds requires that the entirety of the foot that lands be in bounds.

In this case, part of the foot (the heel) landed out of bounds, even if the toe landed in bounds a split second earlier. Therefore both feet did not land in bounds, there was never a catch made, and he never had possession of the ball. Therefore he could not score.
 
2022-09-26 5:49:18 PM  
So this is a catch...
cdn.vox-cdn.comView Full Size

...but if you do the exact same thing facing the opposite direction, it's not? That's really silly.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.