Started By
Message
re: A&M interception overturned vs Alabama
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:16 pm to Tridentds
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:16 pm to Tridentds
quote:
I DVRd the game. The guys toe was definitely in. Toe came down, foot continues coming down until heel hits over the line. Looked to me like he was clearly in bounds on the replay. Same thing we saw in the close up on the replay board in the stadium, toe was in.
The toe did come down. If the toe comes down and then your foot leaves the ground, it's a catch. If the toe comes down in the same motion that your whole foot comes down, if any part of your foot is out of bounds, it's incomplete.
Ref made the right call.
0
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:17 pm to arrakis
quote:
Nice explanation and correct.
Do you have any idea if the same is true in the NFL? Obviously including the 2 feet rule.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:18 pm to Tridentds
quote:
I DVRd the game. The guys toe was definitely in. Toe came down, foot continues coming down until heel hits over the line. Looked to me like he was clearly in bounds on the replay. Same thing we saw in the close up on the replay board in the stadium, toe was in.
I just happened to back it up and noticed that when our guy was coming down with the ball, the receiver tried to make a play on our guy. It actually looks like the ball might have moved slightly as our guy was coming down.
Never heard the "official" version of why it wasn't an interception. I now think it is possible the toe being in or out wasn't the issue... may not have caught the ball cleanly. Ball looks like it started to move.
They may have started the review based on looking at his feet but the ball movement was probably the deciding factor in not overturning it.
It's not an INT because the rules state that if your foot comes down in and out of bounds....you are out of bounds. This doesn't apply to toeing in when you are diving forward. But the AM guy wasn't doing that.
The actual rule is this:
Completed Pass - Article 6
Approved Ruling 7-3-5
XV. Eligible A80 is airborne near the sideline when he receives a legal
forward pass. As he comes to the ground facing the field of play, his
36 Rule 7 / Snaping and Pasing the Bal
toe (a) clearly drags the ground inbounds before he falls out of bounds;
(b) touches the ground inbounds and then his heel comes down on
the sideline in a continuous motion. He maintains firm control of the
ball in both cases. RULING: (a) Complete pass. (b) Incomplete pass.
The continuous toe-heel touching is part of a single process and by
interpretation he has landed out of bounds, thus not executing a catch.
The refs got this one exactly right.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:21 pm to beebefootballfan
It's at 6:44 left in the full vid. Not sure of the rule is for what it takes, if it is toe and heel or just toe.
edit: toe and heel, there you go
edit: toe and heel, there you go
This post was edited on 11/13/12 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:24 pm to bmy
quote:
And trust me.. if it was a busted call that went in the Tides favor (PP7 int..) I'd be all over that shite. Murray divot was my avatar for like a fricking year straight.
You sport avi pics of divots from a golf stroke that goes in the water too?
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:24 pm to bmy
quote:
Do you have any idea if the same is true in the NFL? Obviously including the 2 feet rule.
It's tempting to mix HS and Pro rules, since both are different from NCAA, so I purposely don't read either. I'd say logic would be a yes in the NFL, but can't say for sure.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:25 pm to crimsonsaint
quote:
You sport avi pics of divots from a golf stroke that goes in the water too?
errday
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:25 pm to arrakis
That wasn't a pick. Right call.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News