NFL Rules: Sidelines and Spotting the Ball

[brdmaverick]

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

 

[upstater1]

It's random and arbitrary.

 

[Gumby]

It's random and arbitrary.

Very much so particularly in last 5-10 years especially on running plays where they liberally give an extra yard to give a first down and keep an offense on the field. All part of the gotohell ‚chicks dig the longball‘ strategy of nyjfl marketing.

but in this case, I think was legit. The spot should go by where ball is at point in time when player makes contact w the side boundary or a point outside the boundary.
Until he touched the white side marker stripe he wasn’t yet down.

Note: I do not believe the side boundary is treated like the goaline (an imaginary verticle wall) except during kicks.

 

[Ian]

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

I think it's marked at the longest point where the ball is in bounds. The replay makes it look that he extended but the ball was out of bounds behind the marker, even though his feet were still in.

The only exception to that rule - I believe - is if the ball touches the pylon in the end zone. But I believe the ball was short at the point he went out, (at least after viewing it) and that's what seems to have happened here.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I think they made the right call on review.

 

[Ian]

LOL, I didn't have the sound on and just realized they gave it to him. Looked just short to me (they even said during the commentary it's based on where the ball is before it reaches the boundary) but obviously, they moved the chains...so it shows how much I know.

 

[brdmaverick]

LOL, I didn't have the sound on and just realized they gave it to him. Looked just short to me (they even said during the commentary it's based on where the ball is before it reaches the boundary) but obviously, they moved the chains...so it shows how much I know.

Right that was the part that threw me off.

Call on the field was short.
Announcers say ‘good call bc rule is where the ball crosses’
Their rules analyst says ‘that’s absolutely right, and it’s short’
Then the replay official says “call overturned. First down” without explanation

Clearly not everyone is on the same page

 

[brdmaverick]

I’m sure this isn’t coincidence but my Facebook feed showed this clip this morning of another close call. This one has the end zone involved. What I find interesting about the refs explanation is that he doesn’t say the ball crossed the line. He references that the player has the ball and that both feet are in the end zone.

 

[Ring 6]

The play is alive until the player is out of bounds, by touching out of bounds. If he had fumbled back into the field before touching out of bounds it would be a live ball. I assume the forward progress rule makes the spot the furthest you reached before the play ends.