Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

[conner01]

So basically a one legged player is never allowed to score a touchdown ? Seems wrong

If a one legged player gets in the nfl they might look at several rules since lots of them require a step lol

 

[visionary]

He got both feet in. Was he robbed?

nope
Had he lifted the second foot after the toe was down and never put the heel down that’s a TD but when the heel came down out then the TD went away

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

If a one legged player gets in the nfl they might look at several rules since lots of them require a step lol

Seems unfair

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

A toe touch isn’t what he did

Yes, he did. Maybe you need to watch it again. The toe touched well before the heel touched. Stupid to take a TD away because a player is falling backwards instead of forward.

 

[conner01]

I really thought they overturned it when the ref started talking, what a tease. It was so close to being a TD.

He was explaining the rule and did so pretty well
It was very close
Had his heal not came down out of bounds it would have been a TD
The heal touching out was what made it out
Had it never touched then it’s a TD

 

[Scotman]

If it was in bounds, and I don't think it was, there definitely wasn't enough on film to overturn the call on the field.

 

[aikemirv]

If it's not a catch because his toe was in but the heel didn't come down in bounds then none of these are catches either, because only the toe came down in bounds. Just admit it was the wrong call, and a lousy rule.

Those are not remotely the same- it’s not a stupid rule or the wrong call. If your whole foot touches then the whole foot needs to be in bounds . If only the toe touches and not the rest of the foot, it is in.

it ain’t that hard!!

 

[conner01]

Yes, he did. Maybe you need to watch it again. The toe touched well before the hell touched. Stupid to take a TD away because a player is falling backwards instead of forward.

What he did was came down with his entire foot
Had he just touched with his toe and heal never touched then it would have been a TD
The rule makes sense if you think of it. If your entire foot comes down the entire foot has to be in.

 

[conner01]

Those are not remotely the same- it’s not a stupid rule or the wrong call. If your whole foot touches then the whole foot needs to be in bounds . If only the toe touches and not the rest of the foot, it is in.

it ain’t that hard!!

It’s really that simple
It’s not done new rule either
It’s been that way for years

 

[SlingBoy]

This IMO should of been a TD. That left toe dragged before the heel went out. It had to. Look at that photo. The foot had to move backwards for the heel to land out of bounds. Just glad it didn't cost us the game but it did rob CeeDee of an epic catch.

 

[JustChip]

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.

That was news to me. Been watching the NFL nigh on 60 year and always thought any part of the foot down was good. I assume then the opposite is true; it’s no bueno if the heel comes down inbounds first and then the toes come down out of bounds?

 

[pentatwirl]

Need some new kicks for CD

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Those are not remotely the same- it’s not a stupid rule or the wrong call. If your whole foot touches then the whole foot needs to be in bounds . If only the toe touches and not the rest of the foot, it is in.

it ain’t that hard!!

The toe touched well before the heel did and the heel only touched because he had to come down. It's a stupid rule to take a TD away for falling backwards instead of forward. If the heel and toe touched at the same time I would agree, but touching the toe down should be good enough as long as none of the rest of the foot is touching out at the same time.

 

[Proof]

Just FYI if someone lines up on the wrong side of the ball it’s offsides

you see this thread is 5 pages of people who were unaware of this strange and highly specific rule, yeah? i’ve honestly got my suspicions you knew either. but alas this turkey is sapping my energy.

 

[adbutcher]

He was in.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

What he did was came down with his entire foot
Had he just touched with his toe and heal never touched then it would have been a TD
The rule makes sense if you think of it. If your entire foot comes down the entire foot has to be in.

Nah, a stupid rule. The toe touched well before the heel touched. If the entire foot came down toe in and rest out, yeah, not a catch but that isn't what happened. A toe is good enough should be the rule falling forward or backwards.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

you see this thread is 5 pages of people who were unaware of this strange and highly specific rule, yeah? i’ve honestly got my suspicions you knew either. but alas this turkey is sapping my energy.

Anyone who doesn't see this as an obviously bad rule isn't being honest.

 

[JonesBoys]

If you have to get a heel down then how do those sideline toe drags count all the time?

 

[aikemirv]

The toe touched well before the heel did and the heel only touched because he had to come down. It's a stupid rule to take a TD away for falling backwards instead of forward. If the heel and toe touched at the same time I would agree, but touching the toe down should be good enough as long as none of the rest of the foot is touching out at the same time.

The heel did not HAVE to come down-but it did out of bounds -he is out!! If he had tapped it and pulled the toe back up he would be in!

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

If you have to get a heel down then how do those sideline toe drags count all the time?

It seems a toe touch isn't counted if the guy is falling backwards, only if he is falling forward. A stupid rule that should be changed.