- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 43,674
- Reaction score
- 24,271
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.This will be one that the Pats send in, for sure..
This will be one that the Pats send in, for sure..
This will be one that the Pats send in, for sure..
That pic isn't sufficient to establish it: if he lands toe-then-hell, then it is incomplete. If it is just toe, and he slides out of bounds *on his toes* then it is complete. This is not actually in the rule book, but part of their case studies the refs go through. It comes up every few years.
In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn’t
As Michaels and Collinsworth said, if he landed toe-then-heel, it is incomplete. So we'd need to see if his heel touched out of bounds after that toe.
I agree though it is a very strange interpretation of the rules, but they have been consistent on this for a while.
To be fair I thought it could go either way. My issue with it -- unless the review crew had a better image/angle -- is those replays did not show his heel down. It showed what might have been or even likely been a heel just barely down (or barely not down). Is that indisputable to validate a reversal of the on field crew??
Yeah, that seems the right question. If they didn't have clear toe-->heel evidence, it should not have been overturned...Would love to get that nice close-up bruinz posted, but the full movie with the best angle so we can tell if his heel went down after his toe.
Michaels and Collinsworth were pretty clear they thought it would be overturned, but didn't really show the angles very well. At another point they seemed unsure. It was weird.
Incidentally, this was a reddit last year:
Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out? • /r/nfl
Take it easy guys. Blandino himself has said you can't replace experience... wait what?