Bella*chick
Addicted to the light
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 10,464
- Reaction score
- 4,811
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.Yeah I didn't get why that was overturned either. I've seen many times a receiver catch a ball with both toes in bounds then when he falls over the heels are out of bounds and its considered a catch. How was this any different?
How could you think it wasn't roughing the passer when the ball had been gone for nearly a complete second before Watt hit Brady from the backside? That was one of the correct calls made last night. In fact, the ball is gone before Watt launches himself at Brady..
The freeze frames CLEARLY showed his foot/toe was INBOUNDS!!! Over and over again, that clown Collinsworth is showing us the zoomed in frame and stating that his toe is on the boundary line. But it wasn't! Am I the only one who was wondering if Collinsworth and the refs took the same LSD before the game?
I definitely didn't think anything touched anywhere and we got hosed on that call. But overall, I'm just glad the officiating wasn't worse.
If your toe touches inbounds, and then your heel comes down out of bounds, it is not a completion. This is a well-known corner case that is weird, but that's how the NFL rules. That's why a single freeze frame of an inbounds toe touching the ground is not enough to establish it: they obviously thought they saw his heel come down after the toe. (This is exactly what Al and Chris said, as they are familiar with this corner case).
This has been discussed a lot over the years, it is part of the NFL casebook which is not publicly available:
In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn’t
Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out? • /r/nfl
Some Bucanneers fans complaining about a similar call, and eventually coming to realize it was the right call:
Schiano got an explanation of the "heel" rule
A nice, pithy summary of the rule from one of their posts: "You never need to get your heels down, but if the heels come down, they have to come down in bounds."
I suppose though we should keep in mind we did get lucky on the Gronk TD though.
Also, I do not know how many more games I can listen to Chris Collinsworth. He is usually wrong and his contempt for the Patriots is insufferable.
A ref on the radio was explaining that you can't just put your toe down. You need to "deliberately" put it down not just a natural movement (think dragging toe in endzone). The rules are insane. Switch to college 1 foot rule or timed threshold.
I don't recall if it was in the 3rd or 4th quarter, I'll have to check tonight on the game pass since the gamecasts I'm checking right now won't have this information because it wasn't reversed, it was ruled as an incomplete pass right after the Pats player recovered the ball.
That was the time it happened in the game thread
OFFICIAL: Patriots at Texans Game Thread | Page 71 | New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
maybe you were thinking of a different play?
I believe it's a different play. It was a 20-30 yard pass I think and the ball ended up around the 10 yard line when the Patriots player jumped on it.
If your toe touches inbounds, and then your heel comes down out of bounds, it is not a completion. This is a well-known corner case that is weird, but that's how the NFL rules. That's why a single freeze frame of an inbounds toe touching the ground doesn't determine whether it was a completion. The refs obviously thought they saw his heel come down after the toe. (This is exactly what Al and Chris said, as they are familiar with this corner case).
This has been discussed a lot over the years. Unfortunately, it is part of the NFL casebook which is not publicly available:
The latter is a post in which some Bucanneers fans discuss the same call. A nice, pithy summary of the rule from one of their posters there: "You never need to get your heels down, but if the heels come down, they have to come down in bounds."
That was my question exactly. If he dragged the toe going out of bounds why would it not be a catch if the toe touched cleanly. I don't care what the explanation is, it makes no sense to me.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
maybe you were thinking of a different play?
A.R. 15.100 Heel/toe
Third-and-10 on A30. A2 controls a pass and gets his left foot down in bounds at the 50. As his right foot comes down, the heel hits in bounds and in the normal motion of taking a step, his toes hit out of bounds. Officials rule complete.
Ruling: Reviewable. A’s ball fourth-and-10 on A30. Incomplete. Adjust clock if wound prior to review. If any part of the foot hits out of bounds during the normal process of taking a step (no drag or delay), then the foot is out of bounds.