Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

Fritsch_the_cat

Fritsch_the_cat

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
4,138
TequilaCowboy said:
i feel that once Lamb brought his left foot down with his heel on the line, he was technically out of bounds.
Click to expand...

He didn't, his toes came down, drug, then his heel went OB because of his momentum. possession and two feet down should always be a catch.

Watch the slo mo on full screen (click the two arrows bottom right of video) you'll see possesion, one foot down, toes down and dragging. According to the rule, that's a catch.


 
john van brocklin

john van brocklin

Captain Comeback
Messages
38,542
Reaction score
43,536
Silver Surfer said:
I have indisputable photographic evidence:



iV4oLXJ.jpg
Click to expand...
That is too funny !!!!!!!!!!! LOL
 
CalPolyTechnique

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,396
Reaction score
44,184
20 pages long and Fritsch is still asking if it's a good rule (whut), not whether it was the right call?
 
Fritsch_the_cat

Fritsch_the_cat

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
4,138
My opinion is that possession, toe down and drag should be good enough whether falling forward or backwards, and some people seem to be bothered by that. This subject is making people mad so I will bow out.
 
AsthmaField

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,338
Reaction score
44,012
These will be my last thoughts on this:

  • The only time a “toe drag” matters is if they drag out of bounds without any other part of the foot touching. ie dragging them going forward.
  • A WR running towards the sideline and catching the ball before going out and dragging his toes can not physically get his heels down. That’s a catch.
  • A WR running towards the sideline who plants his heel first must then get the rest of his foot inbounds or it isn’t a catch.
  • Moving backwards towards the line, it is almost impossible to tap the toes down without the rest of the foot also coming down, completing the step.
  • The fact that the toes drag for a few inches before the heel comes down matters not at all because in completing the step, the heel comes down out of bounds. It isn’t the act of dragging that matters here… it is the fact that the drag did not happen enough for the entire foot to be out of bounds before the heel came down.
  • When they talk about dragging the toes, they’re assuming forward motion and that the heel never does come down. In other words, never a real step, just a tap and drag.
  • If there is a real step (either forwards or backwards) then the entire foot must come down inbounds. Any part of the foot that is out causes the WR to be out of bounds.

I heard one of the studio refs that have retired talking on FOX or CBS (can’t remember which) about this just a couple of weeks ago during a game (not a Dallas game). He said that any part of the foot coming down out of bounds (during a step) makes the catch incomplete.

Do I think it is a bad rule? No I don’t. As long as we’ve all been alive, any part of the foot coming down out of bounds means the runner or receiver is out. It has always been that way. Any part of the foot out, is out.

I think because during games they always talk about tapping the toes, or toe drag that it has confused some fans into thinking touching the toe first here before the heel touches meant something. It did not. The fact that the toes dragged for a few inches means nothing here because in completing the step, the heel came down out of bounds.

Toe drag only matters if the heel doesn’t come down at all. In other words, if it really isn’t a step at all. It is just touching the toes, freezing your legs, and letting only the toes touch.

The simplest way of saying it is if any part of the foot comes down out of bounds, the step is out of bounds. Cee Dee’s heel clearly came down out of bounds, so it wasn’t a catch.
 
john van brocklin

john van brocklin

Captain Comeback
Messages
38,542
Reaction score
43,536
AsthmaField said:
These will be my last thoughts on this:

  • The only time a “toe drag” matters is if they drag out of bounds without any other part of the foot touching. ie dragging them going forward.
  • A WR running towards the sideline and catching the ball before going out and dragging his toes can not physically get his heels down. That’s a catch.
  • A WR running towards the sideline who plants his heel first must then get the rest of his foot inbounds or it isn’t a catch.
  • Moving backwards towards the line, it is almost impossible to tap the toes down without the rest of the foot also coming down, completing the step.
  • The fact that the toes drag for a few inches before the heel comes down matters not at all because in completing the step, the heel comes down out of bounds. It isn’t the act of dragging that matters here… it is the fact that the drag did not happen enough for the entire foot to be out of bounds before the heel came down.
  • When they talk about dragging the toes, they’re assuming forward motion and that the heel never does come down. In other words, never a real step, just a tap and drag.
  • If there is a real step (either forwards or backwards) then the entire foot must come down inbounds. Any part of the foot that is out causes the WR to be out of bounds.

I heard one of the studio refs that have retired talking on FOX or CBS (can’t remember which) about this just a couple of weeks ago during a game (not a Dallas game). He said that any part of the foot coming down out of bounds (during a step) makes the catch incomplete.

Do I think it is a bad rule? No I don’t. As long as we’ve all been alive, any part of the foot coming down out of bounds means the runner or receiver is out. It has always been that way. Any part of the foot out, is out.

I think because during games they always talk about tapping the toes, or toe drag that it has confused some fans into thinking touching the toe first here before the heel touches meant something. It did not. The fact that the toes dragged for a few inches means nothing here because in completing the step, the heel came down out of bounds.

Toe drag only matters if the heel doesn’t come down at all. In other words, if it really isn’t a step at all. It is just touching the toes, freezing your legs, and letting only the toes touch.

The simplest way of saying it is if any part of the foot comes down out of bounds, the step is out of bounds. Cee Dee’s heel clearly came down out of bounds, so it wasn’t a catch.
Click to expand...
Thread killer!!!
 
G2

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,484
Reaction score
26,230
AsthmaField said:
These will be my last thoughts on this:

  • The only time a “toe drag” matters is if they drag out of bounds without any other part of the foot touching. ie dragging them going forward.
  • A WR running towards the sideline and catching the ball before going out and dragging his toes can not physically get his heels down. That’s a catch.
  • A WR running towards the sideline who plants his heel first must then get the rest of his foot inbounds or it isn’t a catch.
  • Moving backwards towards the line, it is almost impossible to tap the toes down without the rest of the foot also coming down, completing the step.
  • The fact that the toes drag for a few inches before the heel comes down matters not at all because in completing the step, the heel comes down out of bounds. It isn’t the act of dragging that matters here… it is the fact that the drag did not happen enough for the entire foot to be out of bounds before the heel came down.
  • When they talk about dragging the toes, they’re assuming forward motion and that the heel never does come down. In other words, never a real step, just a tap and drag.
  • If there is a real step (either forwards or backwards) then the entire foot must come down inbounds. Any part of the foot that is out causes the WR to be out of bounds.

I heard one of the studio refs that have retired talking on FOX or CBS (can’t remember which) about this just a couple of weeks ago during a game (not a Dallas game). He said that any part of the foot coming down out of bounds (during a step) makes the catch incomplete.

Do I think it is a bad rule? No I don’t. As long as we’ve all been alive, any part of the foot coming down out of bounds means the runner or receiver is out. It has always been that way. Any part of the foot out, is out.

I think because during games they always talk about tapping the toes, or toe drag that it has confused some fans into thinking touching the toe first here before the heel touches meant something. It did not. The fact that the toes dragged for a few inches means nothing here because in completing the step, the heel came down out of bounds.

Toe drag only matters if the heel doesn’t come down at all. In other words, if it really isn’t a step at all. It is just touching the toes, freezing your legs, and letting only the toes touch.

The simplest way of saying it is if any part of the foot comes down out of bounds, the step is out of bounds. Cee Dee’s heel clearly came down out of bounds, so it wasn’t a catch.
Click to expand...
What about butt cheeks? Both or just one?
 
coult44

coult44

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,386
Reaction score
7,201
Jenky said:
He got both feet in. Was he robbed?
Click to expand...
According to the way the rules are written he was not in. Jerry said yesterday that it would definitely be talked about in the rules committee by Steven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top