Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

[tyke1doe]

Are we doing this AGAIN to ourselves?

 

[pansophy]

It was a TD

Apparently the toe tap only applies when moving forward. If you are falling backwards then your whole foot has to be in and since he comes down on his heal which is out, he’s out.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

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.

Once again, look at the still photo. No way that heel comes down OB unless the toe drags to the OB line.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

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?

Don't need an explanation and not saying the call was wrong. It was right under current rules, I guess, even though no one has been about to produce the rule in the rule book, it's just my opinion that it is a bad rule and I explain why I think it's bad.

 

[Runwildboys]

Once again, look at the still photo. No way that heel comes down OB unless the toe drags to the OB line.

There's a video posted that proves you're wrong about that. It's absolutely clear.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Apparently the toe tap only applies when moving forward. If you are falling backwards then your whole foot has to be in and since he comes down on his heal which is out, he’s out.

And my point is that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

There's a video posted that proves you're wrong about that. It's absolutely clear.

So the still photo is lying? His toes are clearly down in that still and the heel is still inside the OB line. The only way the heel comes down OB is if the toes drug to the OB line.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Are we doing this AGAIN to ourselves?

Doing what? What's wrong with thinking a rule is a bad one?

 

[Runwildboys]

So the still photo is lying? His toes are clearly down in that still and the heel is still inside the OB line. The only way the heel comes down OB is if the toes drug to the OB line.

No. The toe drags, but not all the way to the OB line.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

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

It's similar because both did toe drags to the OB line. The difference is CeeDee's heel came down OB after the toe drag to the line. That should still count as foot IB. If his heel had came down OB at the same time the toes were IB, yes, it's not a catch, but that's not what happened.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

No. The toe drags, but not all the way to the OB line.

So the heel either came down in bounds or the toes drug to the OB line, you can't have it both ways. How did his heel get to where it was in that still photo to the OB line if the toes did not drag to the OB line?

 

[tyke1doe]

Doing what? What's wrong with thinking a rule is a bad one?

The question centers around were Lamb's feet in on the touchdown that wasn't. They WEREN'T according to the rules.
Now if you think it's a bad rule, fine. But if you want to argue his feet were in, then it's a pointless argument because no one in here has the authority to make that call but the refs and no one is going to be able to change the call.
Besides, we scored on the next play.
Hence, my comment.

 

[kramskoi]

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.

Funny how you only need two toes on a sideline catch. I remember the Terrence Williams catch against Seattle in 2014. The league is rather silly with this nonsense. Too much inconsistency.

 

[Runwildboys]

So the heel either came down in bounds or the toes drug to the OB line, you can't have it both ways. How did his heel get to where it was in that still photo to the OB line if the toes did not drag to the OB line?

When you say "to" the OB line, do you mean "toward" the OB line? When you say "to" the OB line, that means the toe touched the OB line before the heel touched, which isn't true. the toes did drag "toward" the line a few inches, just enough for the heel to come down out of bounds.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

When you say "to" the OB line, that means the toe touched the OB line before the heel touched, which isn't true.

So how in the heck did the heel touch down OB with the toes still in bounds? You see the distance between his heel and the OB line in that still. The toes had to drag to the OB line in order for the heel to come down OB. You seems to be saying the heel and toes came down at the same time, which is demonstrably not the case. The toes touched, drug to the OB then the heel came down OB.

I still want someone to cite the actual rule, because this is all I can find but surely there is more specific language on this somewhere in the rules.

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2022-nfl-rulebook/#rule8

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Now if you think it's a bad rule, fine.

Yes, that's the case and it's been explained multiple times it's not about the ruling but the rule itself.

 

[Loso86]

As long as no other part of the foot touched OB, it's a catch inbounds.

Toe hit inbounds first, I've never seen that called on other catches like that but whatever. Is what it is

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

There is a rule and it comes in the Approved Ruling section of the Rulebook.

PASSING PLAYS
A.R. 15.104 Heel/toe
Third-and-10 on A30. A2 controls a pass and gets his left foot down in bounds at the 50. As his right foot comes down, the heel
hits in bounds and in the normal motion of taking a step, his toes hit out of bounds. Officials rule complete.
Ruling: Reviewable. A’s ball fourth-and-10 on A30. Incomplete. Adjust clock if wound before review. If any part of the foot hits out
of bounds during the normal process of taking a step (no drag or delay), then the foot is out of bounds.​

There was no drag and "during the normal process of taking a step" the heel lands out of bounds. Therefore the pass is incomplete.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

There was no drag

Then explain how his heel got from where it is in this still to the OB line if there was no drag.

 

[MarcusRock]

Then explain how his heel got from where it is in this still to the OB line if there was no drag.

Watch. The. Video.