Is this what the rule says, or Claytons version

[sarge]

This was posted earlier here
http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1354105.html

The key part of it being this

A player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. For example, a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds.

Now is the second sentance in the rules, or is that just Clayton's interpretation?

If it is just Clayton's interpretation, I have a hard time believing this!

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I've read that elsewhere, I'm under the impression that's the rule.

 

[AdamJT13]

Clayton misinterpreted the rule change (in 2002, which is when that article was written). Before then, you were out of bounds if you touched the pylon, since the pylon is out of bounds. But they changed it to say touching the pylon doesn't automatically make you out of bounds (if you touch anything that's out of bounds except a pylon or a player, you're out of bounds). There is absolutely nothing in the rule book that says you need to get only one foot inbounds if you kick the pylon. You need both feet down inbounds unless you're forced out or are going to the ground while making the catch.

 

[sarge]

Clayton misinterpreted the rule change (in 2002, which is when that article was written). Before then, you were out of bounds if you touched the pylon, since the pylon is out of bounds. But they changed it to say touching the pylon doesn't automatically make you out of bounds (if you touch anything that's out of bounds except a pylon or a player, you're out of bounds). There is absolutely nothing in the rule book that says you need to get only one foot inbounds if you kick the pylon. You need both feet down inbounds unless you're forced out or are going to the ground while making the catch.

Ahhhhh,

Well that makes sense!

 

[Murphys95]

Interesting, the way I read it is a receiver must have two feet down in the end zone to be considered a reception - but under the revision the goal line pylon (which is inbounds) can be substituted for the second foot.

The key according to this, is that one foot must land in the end zone, the second has to only touch the pylon along the goal line.

 

[sarge]

Interesting, the way I read it is a receiver must have two feet down in the end zone to be considered a reception - but under the revision the goal line pylon (which is inbounds) can be substituted for the second foot.

The key according to this, is that one foot must land in the end zone, the second has to only touch the pylon along the goal line.

The problem is that this sentance
" For example, a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds."
isn't in the rulebook. Or atleast I think it's not.

I think that is just Clayton's interpretation!

 

[AdamJT13]

I think that is just Clayton's interpretation!

Exactly. When the NFL changed the rule, it stated, "A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line." Clayton misinterpreted that to mean that a player would be ruled inbounds when he touches a pylon. But that's not correct. The pylon doesn't determine whether a player is inbounds. The pylon is used only to determine whether a touchdown was scored.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Exactly. When the NFL changed the rule, it stated, "A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line." Clayton misinterpreted that to mean that a player would be ruled inbounds when he touches a pylon. But that's not correct. The pylon doesn't determine whether a player is inbounds. The pylon is used only to determine whether a touchdown was scored.

But if a receiver catches the ball, then gets the first foot down inside the field of play, but the second foot hits the pylon on it's way to landing out of bounds, it is a touchdown, right?

 

[Johnny Mac]

Does anyone actually have the rule?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I came across this in a very good rountable discussion of SBXL over on Football Outsiders. They all seemed to be scratching their heads on this one and at least thought it certainly could have been a TD by logical interpretation of the rule and absolutely should have been looked at by the guys in the booth.

It was one of two passes ruled out to Jackson in that series that were bookends of the 2 minute clock mismanagement by Holmgren, and I can't remember it if was the first or last (just before the missed FG). But the Ben TD still had everyone in the stadium either rattled (Holmgren) or euphoric (90% Steeler fans) to the point the booth may not have wanted to call for another review less than 90 seconds later.

"Michael David Smith: The NFL rulebook, of course, isn’t available to the unwashed masses, so we’re just going to have to speculate about whether the Jackson pass that he caught but was ruled out of bounds was a touchdown. But I think this is the relevant rule:

A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line.

I just watched the play again. Jackson’s left foot was in bounds and his right foot touched the pylon. I honestly don’t know if that’s a touchdown or not, but I do know that’s exactly the type of play the league was thinking about when it made the rule that the booth is supposed to stop the game and review the previous play when there’s a close call within the last two minutes."



http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/02/06/ramblings/audibles/3631/

 

[AdamJT13]

But if a receiver catches the ball, then gets the first foot down inside the field of play, but the second foot hits the pylon on it's way to landing out of bounds, it is a touchdown, right?

No, because his foot landed out of bounds. You MUST get two feet down for it to be a catch, unless 1) you were forced out, or 2) you go to the ground and get a knee or other body part down.

 

[AdamJT13]

"Michael David Smith: The NFL rulebook, of course, isn’t available to the unwashed masses, so we’re just going to have to speculate about whether the Jackson pass that he caught but was ruled out of bounds was a touchdown. But I think this is the relevant rule:

A player no longer can be ruled out of bounds when he touches a pylon unless he already touched the boundary line.

I just watched the play again. Jackson’s left foot was in bounds and his right foot touched the pylon. I honestly don’t know if that’s a touchdown or not, but I do know that’s exactly the type of play the league was thinking about when it made the rule that the booth is supposed to stop the game and review the previous play when there’s a close call within the last two minutes."

The booth doesn't need to review the play to see that Jackson's second foot (the right foot) was out of bounds.

 

[Brownfan80]

No, because his foot landed out of bounds. You MUST get two feet down for it to be a catch, unless 1) you were forced out, or 2) you go to the ground and get a knee or other body part down.

The rule reads that he's not out of bounds unless his foot touched the boundary line BEFORE hitting the pylon. It says nothing about what the foot has to do after. Where are you coming up with that he still must land his foot inbounds? It says nothing about that.

It reads that as long as you haven't already gone out of bounds that you're in if you hit the pylon.

 

[ClosingTime]

You always need 2 feet in.
The rule about touching the pylon was instututed for for situation like this:
A WR is running down the sideline kicks the pylon but doesn't step out of bounds and then makes a reception in the endzone (with 2 feet inbounds). Before the rule was changed that receiver would have been considered ineligible because he touched out of bounds.
2 feet is always needed for a reception.

 

[Brownfan80]

You always need 2 feet in.
The rule about touching the pylon was instututed for for situation like this:
A WR is running down the sideline kicks the pylon but doesn't step out of bounds and then makes a reception in the endzone (with 2 feet inbounds). Before the rule was changed that receiver would have been considered ineligible because he touched out of bounds.
2 feet is always needed for a reception.

OH, well if that's the case both Clayton and the way the rule reads are both a little off. Caused a ton of confusion.

 

[sarge]

From what I am hearing, and ignoring Clayton's explenation, which most likely isn't in the rulebook, I come away with this.

If a runner has the ball and is running down field, his foot may pass over the sideline, but as long as he doesn't touch the sideline he is in. This is the case and always was the case. But prior to the rule change, had a runner merely touched the pylon, whether his foot touched the sideline or not, he was automatically out of bounds. Now, the rule basically makes the pylon the same as the if it weren't there.

 

[Brownfan80]

From what I am hearing, and ignoring Clayton's explenation, which most likely isn't in the rulebook, I come away with this.

If a runner has the ball and is running down field, his foot may pass over the sideline, but as long as he doesn't touch the sideline he is in. This is the case and always was the case. But prior to the rule change, had a runner merely touched the pylon, whether his foot touched the sideline or not, he was automatically out of bounds. Now, the rule basically makes the pylon the same as the if it weren't there.

Well, I guess that clears up some of the confusion. So the refs robbed the Seahawks only 9 times instead of 10. Cool deal.

 

[AdamJT13]

The rule reads that he's not out of bounds unless his foot touched the boundary line BEFORE hitting the pylon. It says nothing about what the foot has to do after. Where are you coming up with that he still must land his foot inbounds? It says nothing about that.

It reads that as long as you haven't already gone out of bounds that you're in if you hit the pylon.

As I said before, the rule doesn't say anything about the player being inbounds if he hits the pylon -- it says a player isn't declared out of bounds just because he hit the pylon. In this case, the pylon doesn't decide it either way. It's up to where his second foot comes down, inbounds or out of bounds.

As I also said before, you MUST get two feet inbounds for it to be a catch, unless 1) you were forced out, or 2) you go to the ground and get another part of your body (other than the hands) down inbounds. There are no exceptions, and there's certainly not a "one foot and kick the pylon" exception.

And finally, as NFL spokesperson Greg Aiello said today, "The key is that he had to get his second foot down in bounds. He did not get his second foot down in bounds, and therefore it is not a completion. John Clayton is wrong."

 

[Brownfan80]

As I said before, the rule doesn't say anything about the player being inbounds if he hits the pylon -- it says a player isn't declared out of bounds just because he hit the pylon. In this case, the pylon doesn't decide it either way. It's up to where his second foot comes down, inbounds or out of bounds.

As I also said before, you MUST get two feet inbounds for it to be a catch, unless 1) you were forced out, or 2) you go to the ground and get another part of your body (other than the hands) down inbounds. There are no exceptions, and there's certainly not a "one foot and kick the pylon" exception.

And finally, as NFL spokesperson Greg Aiello said today, "The key is that he had to get his second foot down in bounds. He did not get his second foot down in bounds, and therefore it is not a completion. John Clayton is wrong."

And I thought the only annoying thing about John Clayton was that disgusting spit he always gets on his lower lip when he talks. Now he's WRONG all the time too. Geez, that guy sucks all around!