Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Watch. The. Video.

I've watched the video. Combined with the still, since it happens in a split second, it's clear his toes come down in bounds then drag to the OB line.

 

[MarcusRock]

I've watched the video. Combined with the still, since it happens in a split second, it's clear his toes come down in bounds then drag to the OB line.

You don't combine it with the still. A still is inconclusive, which is why stills aren't used to make overturns. Obviously, his foot isn't all the way down in the still and the backward momentum causes the heel to land out of bounds to complete his step.

 

[Runwildboys]

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.



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

Did you even read the part before the sentence you quoted? I asked if, when you say "to the OB line", do you mean "toward the OB line"? I'm not at all saying the toes and heel came down at the same time.

Let's try it this way: The way I see it, the toes came down, dragged toward but not to the OB line, and the heel came down OB, before the toes reached the OB line. Is that what you mean, or are you saying the toes went out of bounds before the heel touched?

 

[tyke1doe]

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

There were also several posters who said it was a TD and Lamb was robbed. Hence, my comment.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Obviously, his foot isn't all the way down in the still

"Isn't all the way down", so you agree his toes are down. That's all that should matter, as that's all the matters on those sideline catches we see every game. Toe equals an entire foot falling forward it should equal an entire foot falling backwards. It's a bad rule.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Did you even read the part before the sentence you quoted? I asked if, when you say "to the OB line", do you mean "toward the OB line"? I'm not at all saying the toes and heel came down at the same time.

Let's try it this way: The way I see it, the toes came down, dragged toward but not to the OB line, and the heel came down OB, before the toes reached the OB line. Is that what you mean, or are you saying the toes went out of bounds before the heel touched?

It's really more than toes and heels, it's half a foot drags to the OB the the back half of the foot comes down OB. The toes/front half of the foot came down in bounds and drug to the OB line which is when and where the heel touched down OB. The only way his heel comes down OB is if the toes/front half drags to the OB as we can tell from the still.

 

[MarcusRock]

"Isn't all the way down", so you agree his toes are down. That's all that should matter, as that's all the matters on those sideline catches we see every game. Toe equals an entire foot falling forward it should equal an entire foot falling backwards. It's a bad rule.

His toe clearly came down before the heel but per the rule if the other part of the foot comes down out of bounds, it's out of bounds. The rule is the rule, feelings notwithstanding. "Should" doesn't matter here nor are they going to change this rule because it's not problematic.

 

[MarcusRock]

It's really more than toes and heels, it's half a foot drags to the OB the the back half of the foot comes down OB. The toes/front half of the foot came down in bounds and drug to the OB line which is when and where the heel touched down OB. The only way his heel comes down OB is if the toes/front half drags to the OB as we can tell from the still.

And you are not accounting for the power of his backwards momentum as the video shows to harp on the still.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

His toe clearly came down before the heel but per the rule if the other part of the foot comes down out of bounds, it's out of bounds. The rule is the rule, feelings notwithstanding. "Should" doesn't matter here nor are they going to change this rule because it's not problematic.

Again, you need to keep up with the discussion. It's not about the ruling, it's about the rule itself. And besides, that rule you cited does not apply since CeeDee drug his foot. That rule says with no foot drag.

 

[Runwildboys]

It's really more than toes and heels, it's half a foot drags to the OB the the back half of the foot comes down OB. The toes/front half of the foot came down in bounds and drug to the OB line which is when and where the heel touched down OB. The only way his heel comes down OB is if the toes/front half drags to the OB as we can tell from the still.

You kept saying the toes dragged to the line, which is what was confusing me. At first, I thought they dragged toward the line an inch or two, before the heel touched down, but the more I watch the video, the more it appears they rolled toward the line.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

And you are not accounting for the power of his backwards momentum as the video shows to harp on the still.

No, it's because of his momentum the heel came down OB, I said that so again you need to catch up with the conversation. It's the same as a facing forward foot drag, momentum takes them out, so a toe is good enough, should have been in this situation as well.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

the more it appears they rolled toward the line.

"Rolled"? Now you're confusing me.

 

[Runwildboys]

"Rolled"? Now you're confusing me.

If you watch the slo-mo video, the toe touches and the foot comes down along the inside edge, and because it's rounded it's essentially"rolling" along the ground before the heel hits.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

If you watch the slo-mo video, the toe touches and the foot comes down along the inside edge, and because it's rounded it's essentially"rolling" along the ground before the heel hits.

Seems to be the same as dragging to me so I'm not sure what you mean still. But regardless, the front part of the foot came down in bounds before the heel even got to the OB line, so if toe touching is good enough falling forward, it should be good enough falling backwards. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. It's a bad rule and I still haven't seen an actual rule that makes it a non catch. The rule citing by MarcusRock says with no foot drag but CeeDee clearly drags, or rolls, his foot in bounds before the heel comes down.

 

[MarcusRock]

No, it's because of his momentum the heel came down OB, I said that so again you need to catch up with the conversation. It's the same as a facing forward foot drag, momentum takes them out, so a toe is good enough, should have been in this situation as well.

It is not the same because there was no drag here. Your still does not account for the fact that as the trail foot came down, it was moving backwards so the actual ball of his foot came down further back which meant the heel landed out of bounds with a single step down. You keep using the still and trying to assume a step straight down when his foot was not landing straight down, but moving backwards as it landed.

 

[Flamma]

The rule baffles me. So had Lamb just dragged his toe out of bounds it's a TD?

That was still one hell of a play by Lamb.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

It is not the same because there was no drag here. Your still does not account for the fact that as the trail foot came down, it was moving backwards so the actual ball of his foot came down further back which meant the heel landed out of bounds with a single step down. You keep using the still and trying to assume a step straight down when his foot was not landing straight down, but moving backwards as it landed.

Again, read the tread and get familiar with the discussion. I have made it clear the foot was dragging and never even implied it came straight down.

I use the still because it shows that it is obvious his toes were down in the endzone well before the heel even got to the OB line. The toes had to drag for the heel to even get to the OB line.

I think you are the only person who believes CeeDee's toes did not come down in bounds at all. Or maybe you think the toes and heel came down at the same time, but they didn't.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

The rule baffles me. So had Lamb just dragged his toe out of bounds it's a TD?

Apparently so, though I still have not seen a rule saying that.

 

[Flamma]

Apparently so, though I still have not seen a rule saying that.

I saw two body parts touch before anything else went out of bounds. But I'm guessing it's similar to if you catch a pass and your heal hits in bounds first, but your toes are out, it's incomplete.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

Actually he did
The video clearly shows his toe touched in bounds and his heal came down out of bounds
It’s pretty clear