Lamb’s feet were in on the touchdown

[Runwildboys]

Then how do you explain this? That heel would not come down out of bounds unless that toe drags.

If the toe were to drag all the way OB before the heel came down, then you'd have an argument.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

Is that fact? So if the catch was on the sideline where he and attempted to get both feet, but just front toes would be good enough but not parts of both feet here?

 

[GMO415]

We won and I don't have him in fantasy football. I've moved on.

 

[Runwildboys]

Is that fact? So if the catch was on the sideline where he and attempted to get both feet, but just front toes would be good enough but not parts of both feet here?

Nope.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Is that fact? So if the catch was on the sideline where he and attempted to get both feet, but just front toes would be good enough but not parts of both feet here?

It’s about what you do to complete a step. If you only touch toes inbounds then lift the foot, that’s the whole step ending inbounds. But if you touch toes inbounds, slide the toes, then plant the heel out of bounds, that whole motion is one completed step and it ended out of bounds.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

It’s about what you do to complete a step. If you only touch toes inbounds then lift the foot, that’s the whole step ending inbounds. But if you touch toes inbounds, slide the toes, then plant the heel out of bounds, that whole motion is one completed step and it ended out of bounds.

okay, TY for info......is that like a loose understanding/interpretation or is that a documented rule? not trying to be argumentative but it doesn't seem to be a consistent application.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

okay, TY for info......is that like a loose understanding/interpretation or is that a documented rule? not trying to be argumentative but it doesn't seem to be a consistent application.

That is the rule, yes.

Let’s say you touched toes in bounds, slide the toes out of bounds, then lift the foot. That’s a touchdown, because the entirety of the step first happened in bounds.

Then let’s say you touch toes in bounds, slide the foot out bounds, heel down out of bounds. That’s not a catch as part of the completed step happened out of bounds.

now let’s say toes down inbounds, heel down in bounds, whole foot slides out of bounds. Good catch because completed step was all in bounds before you went out.

Heel in bounds, no toes touch, lift it as you go out. Good catch, completed step was all in bounds.

Heel in bounds, then toes out of bounds noticeably later. No catch, completed step wasnt all in bounds, even if it was a delayed step

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

That is the rule, yes.

Let’s say you touched toes in bounds, slide the toes out of bounds, then lift the foot. That’s a touchdown, because the entirety of the step happened in bounds.

Then let’s say you touch toes in bounds, slide the foot out bounds, heel down out of bounds. That’s not a catch as part of the completed step happened out of bounds.

now let’s say toes down inbounds, heel down in bounds, whole foot slides out of bounds. Good catch because completed step was all in bounds before you went out.

Heel in bounds, no toes touch, lift it as you go out. Good catch, completed step was all in bounds.

Heel in bounds, then toes out of bounds noticeably later. No catch, completed step wasnt all in bounds, even if it was a delayed step

got it, appreciate your explanation.

"In the NFL, a player needs to fully possess the ball and ground two feet in bounds for the touchdown to count.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Heal was out

Yeah, but toes were in and first.

Is there a "foot going to the ground rule"? You can never have too many stupid rules in the No Fun League.

Robbed the League and the Fans of a *spectacular* catch.

 

[Wezsh0T]

Heal was out

But toe was in and the toe touched first. Does the toe not count?

 

[Ken]

Is that fact? So if the catch was on the sideline where he and attempted to get both feet, but just front toes would be good enough but not parts of both feet here?

Yup...dumbest rule i have ever heard. How they revamped what is and isn't a catch a couple of years ago and they didnt fix this...i have no idea.

Who's bright idea is it to have to different rules for having your feet down????

 

[Wezsh0T]

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 seems silly. Thx for the info.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

got it, appreciate your explanation.

"In the NFL, a player needs to fully possess the ball and ground two feet in bounds for the touchdown to count.

It is not clearly defined in the rulebook, no, but it is known as the league’s interpretation of what a foot in bounds means, ergo it is the rule

This is from 2011

“The NFL has confirmed via email that the official rule book merely says that a player must get two feet in bounds, with no elaboration or explanation regarding the ability of a player to make a catch while only ever getting a toe or the top of the foot down. But the league interprets the rule to mean that a toe is a foot, as long as the toe is dragged. If in the act of dragging the toe the foot comes down and any portion of it is out of bounds, a catch was not made.”

 

[Runwildboys]

It’s about what you do to complete a step. If you only touch toes inbounds then lift the foot, that’s the whole step ending inbounds. But if you touch toes inbounds, slide the toes, then plant the heel out of bounds, that whole motion is one completed step and it ended out of bounds.

But I think the heel needs to touch OB while the toes are still in. If the toes were to slide OB and then the heel came down, I think it would have been fine.

 

[mahoneybill]

The guy in the booth explained even though toes may have gotten down the heel didn’t land in bounds.

do on a sideline catch if you toe drag both feet , fall out of bounds with no other part of both feet hitting in bounds that’s not a catch

Have never seen one of those called a non catch

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

But I think the heel needs to touch OB while the toes are still in. If the toes were to slide OB and then the heel came down, I think it would have been fine.

hmm, yeah maybe

 

[Kevinicus]

Wow. A lot of people here clearly don't remember the 2001 NFC Championship between the Vikings and Giants.

Toe then heel is all considered a part of ONE step. They are not TWO separate steps.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

True.

Shame folks on the board can't do basic research

 

[KJJ]

Some continue not to understand the rules. Not going any further with this one. Lol

 

[Mattitude]

When you toe tap on the sideline it’s a catch. Your heels eventually hit out of bounds without touching in bounds. Why would it be different in this situation

unless every toe touch catch that’s been ruled a catch should have been ruled out of bounds. It should be the same either way. Either two sets of twos equal two feet or both toes and heels need to be in bounds for a catch. Can’t have it both ways