- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 6,038
- Reaction score
- 4,157
HI everyone and Happy Holiday season,
It's been awhile since I've posted, but there is a rules question that I'm hoping people on this board could answer.
In the Green Bay/NY game, the Packers converted a fourth and one where the Green Bay player (offense) was headed for the sideline. When his body was 'over the field of play' the ball was short of the first down marker, BUT while he was in the air (but before touching the ground) he was able to stretch the ball to the first down marker.
The play was initially ruled short, and the analysts and rules expert were both of the opinion that it was a good call because the ball should be marked where it crosses the boundary.
THe replay officials, however, saw enough to overturn this.......which leaves me trying to understand why.
1.) Was it just a bad call by the official during the replay?
2.) Or were the analysts and TV rules experts wrong?
In my opinion, I would that forward progress would be continued until one of two things happens...
A.) The player touches out of bounds
B.) Or he has no body part over the field of play (ie, no body part that would be considered in bounds)
After all, we've seen receivers make amazing catches where the ball itself is out of bounds but the players feet are still in bounds. Where should the ball get marked then? At the players feet, or where the ball was when it was caught?
The play in question can be found at the 2:18 mark of this youtube clip
It's been awhile since I've posted, but there is a rules question that I'm hoping people on this board could answer.
In the Green Bay/NY game, the Packers converted a fourth and one where the Green Bay player (offense) was headed for the sideline. When his body was 'over the field of play' the ball was short of the first down marker, BUT while he was in the air (but before touching the ground) he was able to stretch the ball to the first down marker.
The play was initially ruled short, and the analysts and rules expert were both of the opinion that it was a good call because the ball should be marked where it crosses the boundary.
THe replay officials, however, saw enough to overturn this.......which leaves me trying to understand why.
1.) Was it just a bad call by the official during the replay?
2.) Or were the analysts and TV rules experts wrong?
In my opinion, I would that forward progress would be continued until one of two things happens...
A.) The player touches out of bounds
B.) Or he has no body part over the field of play (ie, no body part that would be considered in bounds)
After all, we've seen receivers make amazing catches where the ball itself is out of bounds but the players feet are still in bounds. Where should the ball get marked then? At the players feet, or where the ball was when it was caught?
The play in question can be found at the 2:18 mark of this youtube clip