Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

[Fritsch_the_cat]

I explained why it's better this way in the same post you took these excerpts from.

OK then...

If you were to change the rule so that whatever part touched first is all that counts, how do you determine the exact moment one part touches if say, the foot is landing flat? That's just making it yet another judgement call for the officials.

If the foot lands flat the toes and heel would be OB at the same time. That's not what happened here. Toe touched down and drug, should be a catch, bad rule.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

I'm glad they got the call wrong, otherwise we wouldn't have witnessed TE whack-a-mole

LOL, yes, at least some good came of this.

 

[Runwildboys]

And the toe had slide OB before the heel came down OB.

I think you need to watch that again.

 

[CWR]

This. The whole thing is like trying to argue a player that had his pinky toe on the sideline while returning a kick was actually not out of bounds.

nobody has a problem with that being a thing. Never heard 1 person say, well 90% of his foot was in bounds.

I think its because we are used to the toe tap counting. This scenario rarely comes up, because almost all toe taps are with a player falling forward. CD happened to tap while going backwards.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

I think you need to watch that again.

You need to watch it again because you don't understand what actually happened. You made that clear with what you said here...

Had the heel come down after the toes had dragged out of bounds, it would be a different story,

That's exactly what happened, toes came down and drug OB, then heel comes down.

Again, no way the heel comes down OB here unless the toes drag.

 

[Runwildboys]

You need to watch it again because you don't understand what actually happened. You made that clear with what you said here...



That's exactly what happened, toes came down and drug OB, then heel comes down.

Again, no way the heel comes down OB here unless the toes drag.

Watch video. A still photo doesn't work. When you see it in motion, you'll see that the heel comes down definitively before the toe goes OB.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

When you see it in motion, you'll see that the heel comes down definitively before the toe goes OB.

Only because the toe had drug that far. It's a bad rule no matter how you try to defend it.

 

[john van brocklin]

He got both feet in. Was he robbed?

His heel landed out of bounds, that got the call right.
Nice one handed catch by the way !

 

[Runwildboys]

Only because the toe had drug that far. It's a bad rule no matter how you try to defend it.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[MarcusRock]

Apart from the reality denying, the more disturbing thing is that people don't know how to spell heel. Compliment/Complement I get since there's more than 6 letters, but heel?

 

[Runwildboys]

Apart from the reality denying, the more disturbing thing is that people don't know how to spell heel. Compliment/Complement I get since there's more than 6 letters, but heel?

And using "drug" as the past tense of "drag".

 

[Sydla]

You and others keep trying to explain the rule even though I have said time and time again I understand the rule I just think it's a bad one. None of you can give a reason why it is a good rule. A toe down is a toe down and should count whether they are falling forward or backwards. The only reason the heel came down OB is from his momentum, same as if he had been falling forward. It's a bad rule. The ones defending it seem to think both his toe and heel came down at the same time, but you can clearly see from the still photo he drug his toe.

It's not hard. When a guy dives out of bounds, it's physically impossible to get a heel down. Hence why they don't want to penalize a WR in that situation.

In Lamb's situation, the heel clearly has the ability to hit the ground. It hits out of bounds. He's out.

 

[Sydla]

OK then...




If the foot lands flat the toes and heel would be OB at the same time. That's not what happened here. Toe touched down and drug, should be a catch, bad rule.

The rule is OK. No one here would give two craps about if it didn't happen OR that it had happened to a Giant instead of a Cowboy.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

The rule is OK.

So far no one has been able to explain why it is a good rule. See if you can do so instead of being childish. Toe down should be good enough falling forward or backwards.

 

[Runwildboys]

One last thing. As someone who doesn't watch other sports very often, is there any other sport with sidelines and such in which the rule is different? If so, what's their rule?

 

[Sydla]

So far no one has been able to explain why it is a good rule. See if you can do so instead of being childish. Toe down should be good enough falling forward or backwards.

People have. The rule basically is two feet have to come in bounds. It didn't happen there. They give leeway to those who are diving because it would be physically impossible for a WR to get full two feet in when diving out of bounds.

Would you rather they just rule those incomplete? I can't believe this thread is 13 pages long.

 

[MarcusRock]

People have. The rule basically is two feet have to come in bounds. It didn't happen there. They give leeway to those who are diving because it would be physically impossible for a WR to get full two feet in when diving out of bounds.

Would you rather they just rule those incomplete? I can't believe this thread is 13 pages long.

13 pages and not one video posted or direct quote from the rulebook. It's basically 13 pages of "feelings" and what people heard/saw.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

The rule basically is two feet have to come in bounds. It didn't happen there

Yes, they did, don't know how you can say they didn't. Toes down/drag count falling forward, explain why they don't count falling backwards.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

13 pages and not one video posted or direct quote from the rulebook. It's basically 13 pages of "feelings" and what people heard/saw.

There is no video as far as I can tell and no one seems to be able to find the rule in the rule book. But it's not about not understanding the rule as has been explained numerous times already if you read through the thread, it's about the rule itself is a bad one.


I do know I see a toe down in this photo and the only way the heel came down OB is because the toe drug. That counts falling forward, someone explain why that does count falling backwards. You can't, just admit it's a bad rule.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Yes, they did, don't know how you can say they didn't. Toes down/drag count falling forward, explain why they don't count falling backwards.

What are you seeing? Arguing that it's the rule is not the same as arguing it's a good rule.