Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

[Proof]

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.

yeah because that's boring and nerdy. your job. we're here to argue.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

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

Not sure what you are asking. My argument is it's a bad rule because his toe came down and drug before the heel came down out of bounds. Same thing happens all the time when a receiver is falling forward and it's considered a catch. No one can explain why its different just because he is falling backwards.

 

[TwentyOne]

He got both feet in. Was he robbed?

Out but robbed.

 

[john van brocklin]

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?

I nominate you for the zone Grammer police.

 

[VACowboy]

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.

I can't say it's a good rule but I can't say it's a bad rule either. I think the rationale is that when your toe hits going forward out of bounds it's the only part of your foot that touches. When your toe touches with your back to the sideline, the process of your foot landing is a continuous motion of your foot rocking from toe to heel, and if your heel ends up out of bounds your foot is out of bofunds. So I can definitely see the reasoning behind the rule. But then, if any other part of your body hits in-bounds you're in, regardless of whether the whole body part lands in-bounds. So I dunno. Good or bad, though, the rule's been this way forever and works the same for everybody, so whatever.

 

[Whirlwin]

No, the same rule applies on the sidelines. As long as no part of the foot goes OB while the toes are in bounds or before they drag out of bounds, it's in.

No, I get it, this makes sense. You don’t have to touch but you still have to be in

 

[Runwildboys]

yeah because that's boring and nerdy. your job. we're here to argue.

LMAO

 

[Runwildboys]

Not sure what you are asking. My argument is it's a bad rule because his toe came down and drug before the heel came down out of bounds. Same thing happens all the time when a receiver is falling forward and it's considered a catch. No one can explain why its different just because he is falling backwards.

Actually we have. You just don't agree.

 

[Runwildboys]

I know it’s the drag part that gets me confused. So you drag your foot your in but if you step down in your whole foot is not in your out

Because the whole foot is considered. If only part of the foot touches, that's all they can judge it by. If the whole foot touches, they look at every part of the foot.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Actually we have.

No you haven't, you just keep citing the rule. The rule is understood, but it's a bad rule. Toe drug to the OB line then heel came down OB, same as what happens most times when falling forward, toes touch and drag then heel comes down OB.

 

[BoysForLife]

When the entire foot touches it has to all be in bounds. Doesn't matter if the toe touched first.

It's one of those quirky catch rules, like one knee equals two feet.

And it's been this way for a while. Kind of surprising people are unaware of this rule.

 

[RobZ]

He got both feet in. Was he robbed?

Agreed

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

I can't say it's a good rule but I can't say it's a bad rule either. I think the rationale is that when your toe hits going forward out of bounds it's the only part of your foot that touches. When your toe touches with your back to the sideline, the process of your foot landing is a continuous motion of your foot rocking from toe to heel, and if your heel ends up out of bounds your foot is out of bofunds. So I can definitely see the reasoning behind the rule. But then, if any other part of your body hits in-bounds you're in, regardless of whether the whole body part lands in-bounds. So I dunno. Good or bad, though, the rule's been this way forever and works the same for everybody, so whatever.

Well, here we see DaVonta Smith with a similar play. His toes drug to the OB line, same as CeeDee's did, but since CeeDee's heel then came down out of bounds it's not a catch. I say that makes it a bad rule since his toes touched and drug to the OB line the same as Devonta's did.

 

[Runwildboys]

No you haven't, you just keep citing the rule. The rule is understood, but it's a bad rule. Toe drug to the OB line then heel came down OB, same as what happens most times when falling forward, toes touch and drag then heel comes down OB.

That's not true. Look at the video in post #260, and you see that his heel is clearly down before the toe even comes close to the line.

As for why the rule makes sense, if you do it like a photo finish, you're inviting the officials to have an even bigger influence on the outcome, because then they get to decide if the toes touched before the heel or after, or at the same time. The way the rule is makes it very clear whether it was in or not, because if any part of the foot touches the line, it's out. The OB line basically neutralizes the rest of the foot (or whatever body part is down). That's why you can drag your toes out and it's called in bounds, because no other part of the foot is touching the ground, and once the toes go out, the play is over.

 

[Runwildboys]

Well, here we see DaVonta Smith with a similar play. His toes drug to the OB line, same as CeeDee's did, but since CeeDee's heel then came down out of bounds it's not a catch. I say that makes it a bad rule since his toes touched and drug to the OB line the same as Devonta's did.

That's not similar. His heel never touched the ground.

 

[cowboyec]

i thought so as well.
but anymore i dont know what the hell.

 

[VACowboy]

Well, here we see DaVonta Smith with a similar play. His toes drug to the OB line, same as CeeDee's did, but since CeeDee's heel then came down out of bounds it's not a catch. I say that makes it a bad rule since his toes touched and drug to the OB line the same as Devonta's did.

If the plays were the same and the calls were different that's a bad call, not a bad rule.

 

[VACowboy]

Well, here we see DaVonta Smith with a similar play. His toes drug to the OB line, same as CeeDee's did, but since CeeDee's heel then came down out of bounds it's not a catch. I say that makes it a bad rule since his toes touched and drug to the OB line the same as Devonta's did.

Besides that, Smith's heel never touched to ground.

 

[Starstruck22]

He got both feet in. Was he robbed?

He was not robbed. It has to be the full foot heel to toe. Just because his heel was in for the second foot, his toe was out. Not that complicated.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Not sure what you are asking. My argument is it's a bad rule because his toe came down and drug before the heel came down out of bounds. Same thing happens all the time when a receiver is falling forward and it's considered a catch. No one can explain why its different just because he is falling backwards.

Agree 100%, and it's something that should be changed because it makes no rational sense. But are you asking because you think it was called wrong on the field or just want an explanation?