The INT that Wasn't

[Hapless Bills Fan]

OK, can the knowledgeable folks here carefully explain the rule whereby the Reggie Corner INT wasn't, 'cuz his foot touched the other player's foot and not the turf? Please use small words and type slowly.

 

If a receiver makes a sideline catch and his 2nd foot comes down on the ref's big flat hoofie is it an incompletion?

 

(Whoa, Green Bay Vikes call on that TD catch - is that tenuous or what?)

[zow2]

Even Tony Dungy said it shoulda been an INT. Several horrible calls in the NFL today...including the TD catch just ruled incomplete by Shiancoe.

[Kelly the Dog]

IMO, it was the right call under the rules but the rules need to be amended to apply to plays such as that. There is NO question that he caught the ball in bounds and that it should have been an INT. There is little question, IMO, that he didn't get both feet down or his back down because he landed on the player instead of the field. But the rules are designed to make the best decision as to whether it was in bounds or out of bounds, a good catch or bad catch, etc. And in this particular case, there is zero question that he caught the ball in bounds. It's understandable that, for instance, if a RB is not ever on the ground because he falls on another player (which is what happened with Corner), that since his knee or back or elbow did not touch that he is not down. He hasnt been tackled and brought down because on every play there are other players laying all over the field. But on the Corner play, he was a 2-3 yards in bounds. There really wasnt a question of whether he fell in bounds or out of bounds. I don't think he should be penalized for falling on another player.

[K-No]

Wrong Call! It took me a few replays to see it but our defender had 1 foot down AND his elbow hit just inside the end line. Shoulda been int and touchback.

Edited October 25, 2010 by K-No

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Wrong Call! It took me a few replays to see it but our defender had 1 foot down AND his elbow hit just inside the end line. Shoulda been int and touchback.

 

OK, so is the rule 2 limbs must touch in-bounds (two feet, foot and hand, foot and elbow)?

If somehow a hand and the elbow of the arm cradling the ball touched inbounds but momentum put the feet out, would it be a TD or INT?

 

It just seems logical that if a player or official's body part is inbounds on the field of play and a player steps on it instead of on the turf, it really shouldn't count as out-of-bounds.

[Alphadawg7]

I am going to clear this up because just about everyone is completely missing the point of what actually happened.

 

1. He was ruled OUT of bounds...therefore, to be overturned under the rules regarding instant replay there has to be indisputable evidence to do so.

2. His elbow came down right at the exact out of bounds line with no view of the other side of his arm to be able to tell if his whole arm was in bounds. Just like when a WR tries to get both feet down and one foot barely has his toe across the line, its incomplete. He clearly came down right at the line with no evidence to whether his whole arm was in the field of play or slightly breaking the line.

3. 2010 rules were amended that there is no force out now and players can legally be forced out of bounds to force an incompletion.

4. A player is not down because he is touching another player who is down. He still needed to establish being in bounds before going out of bounds.

 

So, whether or not his elbow was in or not is actually irrelevant and not definitive. The rule impacting the officials ruling is the one requiring there to be indisputable evidence to over turn the call which was an incompletion on the field. There was no definitive evidence of the player getting 2 limbs down. And what the announcers, former coaches, etc said is pretty irrelevant as they did not go back and break every aspect of that play down. They saw it just like they saw every other play and made a judgement call on it.

 

This was the right call under the replay rules by the ref. If they had ruled it an INT then overturned it to incomplete then there would be something to be upset with. I am not saying the officiating was good in this game, but they ruled the replay correctly.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Alphadawg7

[Kelly the Dog]

I am going to clear this up because just about everyone is completely missing the point of what actually happened.

 

1. He was ruled OUT of bounds...therefore, to be overturned under the rules regarding instant replay there has to be indisputable evidence to do so.

2. His elbow came down right at the exact out of bounds line with no view of the other side of his arm to be able to tell if his whole arm was in bounds. Just like when a WR tries to get both feet down and one foot barely has his toe across the line, its incomplete. He clearly came down right at the line with no evidence to whether his whole arm was in the field of play or slightly breaking the line.

3. 2010 rules were amended that there is no force out now and players can legally be forced out of bounds to force an incompletion.

4. A player is not down because he is touching another player who is down. He still needed to establish being in bounds before going out of bounds.

 

So, whether or not his elbow was in or not is actually irrelevant and not definitive. The rule impacting the officials ruling is the one requiring there to be indisputable evidence to over turn the call which was an incompletion on the field. There was no definitive evidence of the player getting 2 limbs down. And what the announcers, former coaches, etc said is pretty irrelevant as they did not go back and break every aspect of that play down. They saw it just like they saw every other play and made a judgement call on it.

 

This was the right call under the replay rules by the ref. If they had ruled it an INT then overturned it to incomplete then there would be something to be upset with. I am not saying the officiating was good in this game, but they ruled the replay correctly.

I totally agree that it was the right call under the rules, and that it had to be made that way. That play didnt win or lose the game because it was called correctly, according to the rules.

 

IMO though, that particular rule needs to be changed. There is ZERO question that the DB made the INT in the field of play. It's inarguable. Yes, he landed on top of another player and his knee or back did not hit the ground to make him in bounds according to the rules. But he made the play in bounds. It's different when a RB, for example, lands on top of another player, and his knee or back doesn't touch the ground. He is not down until his knee hits. Everyone knows that is the rule and play continues until he is knocked down. But in this case, it's not whether he was down, it's whether he was in bounds, and he was clearly in bounds. IMO, there needs to be a rule change for this kind of stuff. Because it's not a deficiency of play, nor a stellar defensive play, that caused it not to be an INT. It was a bad rule.

[vincec]

What I want to know is when are they officially going to take the offensive pass interference rule off the books because for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist.

[Alphadawg7]

I totally agree that it was the right call under the rules, and that it had to be made that way. That play didnt win or lose the game because it was called correctly, according to the rules.

 

IMO though, that particular rule needs to be changed. There is ZERO question that the DB made the INT in the field of play. It's inarguable. Yes, he landed on top of another player and his knee or back did not hit the ground to make him in bounds according to the rules. But he made the play in bounds. It's different when a RB, for example, lands on top of another player, and his knee or back doesn't touch the ground. He is not down until his knee hits. Everyone knows that is the rule and play continues until he is knocked down. But in this case, it's not whether he was down, it's whether he was in bounds, and he was clearly in bounds. IMO, there needs to be a rule change for this kind of stuff. Because it's not a deficiency of play, nor a stellar defensive play, that caused it not to be an INT. It was a bad rule.

 

I here what you are saying, but essentially what you are asking for already existed until last year and they took it out going into this year. Prior to this year if a player was in the field of play but forced out of bounds by any means before establishing himself inbounds with control of the ball then it could be ruled a completed play still. They changed that rule for 2011 saying that a player can be forced out by the defender to force an incompletion.

 

That is what happened here...Corner was pulled out of bounds by Boldin before he could establish himself in the field of play officially. Under the old rules that would have been ruled an INT with a force out. But under the new rules he is out of bounds.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Alphadawg7

[Offside Number 76]

What I want to know is why there was no flag on the play. The Cheats get an offensive pass interference call on that play every time.

[Kelly the Dog]

I here what you are saying, but essentially what you are asking for already existed until last year and they took it out going into this year. Prior to this year if a player was in the field of play but forced out of bounds by any means before establishing himself inbounds with control of the ball then it could be ruled a completed play still. They changed that rule for 2011 saying that a player can be forced out by the defender to force an incompletion.

 

That is what happened here...Corner was pulled out of bounds by Boldin before he could establish himself in the field of play officially. Under the old rules that would have been ruled an INT with a force out. But under the new rules he is out of bounds.

That's not really what I meant. Nor is it, as I understand it, the rule that was applied. I don't really think (although I could be wrong) that Boldin pulled Florence out of bounds. The whole play was just luck and circumstance. It wasn't a matter of a force out the way pass plays used to be called with a defender shoving a guy out of bounds to prevent him from making the catch. This was a play where the defender, with the ball in his possession, was two-three yards in bounds. The only reason he wasn't called in bounds was luck that he happened to land on top of another player. In your example, the defender is making a play and tackling or shoving a player so he cannot make the play in bounds. That is not what happened here. Florence's entire body was in bounds.

[Alphadawg7]

That's not really what I meant. Nor is it, as I understand it, the rule that was applied. I don't really think (although I could be wrong) that Boldin pulled Florence out of bounds. The whole play was just luck and circumstance. It wasn't a matter of a force out the way pass plays used to be called with a defender shoving a guy out of bounds to prevent him from making the catch. This was a play where the defender, with the ball in his possession, was two-three yards in bounds. The only reason he wasn't called in bounds was luck that he happened to land on top of another player. In your example, the defender is making a play and tackling or shoving a player so he cannot make the play in bounds. That is not what happened here. Florence's entire body was in bounds.

 

But it is what happened here. Just like in any "force out ruling" prior to this year, if the player jumps and makes the catch in the air and doesnt come down in bounds as a result of contact by another player then he could be ruled in bounds. This year that rule is not in place, but the same principle applies. Corner caught the ball in the air, Boldin wrapped both arms around him and fell back out of bounds holding on to Corner who in turn was also pulled out of bounds before he could establish himself in bounds.

 

As long as the defending player (Boldin in this case) does not pick up and carry the offensive player (Corner as he had the ball) out of bounds, he is free to force him out to envoke an incompletion. Doesnt matter how exactly it happened, but Corner caught the ball, Boldins backward momentum and his arms wrapped around Corner pulled him out of bounds before he could establish himself in bounds to complete the INT.

 

Just because he landed on a defender doesnt make him down. If this was 2009 that would have been an INT as he reasonably would have come down in bounds if not for Boldin holding him and pulling him backwards as Boldin fell out of bounds trying to defend the INT. But its not, there fore he must establish himself in bounds in which there wasnt indisputable evidence to overturn the call.

[amgouldi]

I am going to clear this up because just about everyone is completely missing the point of what actually happened.

 

1. He was ruled OUT of bounds...therefore, to be overturned under the rules regarding instant replay there has to be indisputable evidence to do so.

2. His elbow came down right at the exact out of bounds line with no view of the other side of his arm to be able to tell if his whole arm was in bounds. Just like when a WR tries to get both feet down and one foot barely has his toe across the line, its incomplete. He clearly came down right at the line with no evidence to whether his whole arm was in the field of play or slightly breaking the line.

3. 2010 rules were amended that there is no force out now and players can legally be forced out of bounds to force an incompletion.

4. A player is not down because he is touching another player who is down. He still needed to establish being in bounds before going out of bounds.

 

So, whether or not his elbow was in or not is actually irrelevant and not definitive. The rule impacting the officials ruling is the one requiring there to be indisputable evidence to over turn the call which was an incompletion on the field. There was no definitive evidence of the player getting 2 limbs down. And what the announcers, former coaches, etc said is pretty irrelevant as they did not go back and break every aspect of that play down. They saw it just like they saw every other play and made a judgement call on it.

 

This was the right call under the replay rules by the ref. If they had ruled it an INT then overturned it to incomplete then there would be something to be upset with. I am not saying the officiating was good in this game, but they ruled the replay correctly.

 

not true.. elbow equals knee equals down. Although I agree it was inconclusive, if the elbow was indeed down in bounds, he would have been considered down

[Kelly the Dog]

But it is what happened here. Just like in any "force out ruling" prior to this year, if the player jumps and makes the catch in the air and doesnt come down in bounds as a result of contact by another player then he could be ruled in bounds. This year that rule is not in place, but the same principle applies. Corner caught the ball in the air, Boldin wrapped both arms around him and fell back out of bounds holding on to Corner who in turn was also pulled out of bounds before he could establish himself in bounds.

 

As long as the defending player (Boldin in this case) does not pick up and carry the offensive player (Corner as he had the ball) out of bounds, he is free to force him out to envoke an incompletion. Doesnt matter how exactly it happened, but Corner caught the ball, Boldins backward momentum and his arms wrapped around Corner pulled him out of bounds before he could establish himself in bounds to complete the INT.

 

Just because he landed on a defender doesnt make him down. If this was 2009 that would have been an INT as he reasonably would have come down in bounds if not for Boldin holding him and pulling him backwards as Boldin fell out of bounds trying to defend the INT. But its not, there fore he must establish himself in bounds in which there wasnt indisputable evidence to overturn the call.

I guess we're talking apples and oranges. Again, I think the offficials made the right call according to the rules as they stand. My point is that the rules should be altered or amended to apply to plays such as this one, where the player is clearly in bounds. It really isn't a force out. He landed in bounds and had at least one foot down. His entire body, when he made the catch, AND when he hit the ground, was in bounds. If this were an offensive catch, and on the sidelines instead of the endzone, IMO (and only my opinion) the rules should be that the player did catch the ball in bounds, well in bounds, and with possession, so it should be a catch. It's kind of a letter of the law versus spirit of the law thing. I'm more a believer in the spirit of the law. And in this case, and cases like it, the catch was made in bounds.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[Alphadawg7]

not true.. elbow equals knee equals down. Although I agree it was inconclusive, if the elbow was indeed down in bounds, he would have been considered down

 

You misunderstood what I meant by irrelevant, I know elbow equals knee down. I meant its irrelevant becuase the play was ruled out of bounds, meaning the only thing that is relevant is if there was indisputable evidence, which there wasnt and we both agree on. Thats the point I was making. To quote Denzel in Traing Day..."Its not what you know, its what you can prove". The evidence was inconclusive, and in terms of the refs ruling that was all that was relevant.

[billsFORlife50]

not true.. elbow equals knee equals down. Although I agree it was inconclusive, if the elbow was indeed down in bounds, he would have been considered down

 

Yes this is exactly right and I for one do not think that the ref looked at the elbow being down in bounds or not

[Alphadawg7]

I guess we're talking apples and oranges. Again, I think the offficials made the right call according to the rules as they stand. My point is that the rules should be altered or amended to apply to plays such as this one, where the player is clearly in bounds. It really isn't a force out. He landed in bounds and had at least one foot down. His entire body, when he made the catch, AND when he hit the ground, was in bounds. If this were an offensive catch, and on the sidelines instead of the endzone, IMO (and only my opinion) the rules should be that the player did catch the ball in bounds, well in bounds, and with possession, so it should be a catch. It's kind of a letter of the law versus spirit of the law thing. I'm more a believer in the spirit of the law. And in this case, and cases like it, the catch was made in bounds.

 

Honestly not trying to be argumentive here, simply discussing with you. Honestly though, I am just not really following your logic in this above post. He was not inbounds because he was ruled to not have finished the play in bounds. It doesnt matter if you make the catch in bounds, it only matters where you finish the play, so why do you keep referring to him in bounds even if the elbow was out and how can you amend the rule to make that a legal INT?

 

You cant have rules effective in parts of the field and not in others. If a RB can land on a fallen defender and be able to continue the advance the ball, then you can not in any way apply a rule that would make this a legal INT without establishing himself inbounds. You are essentially saying it should be an INT even if the elbow was out of bounds. There is no rule you can make outside of a force out rule that could have made this a legal INT if his elbow is out of bounds without affecting so many other aspects of this game.

 

As far as the force out goes, I simply dont understand how you say its not a force out. Boldin had 2 arms wrapped around him and literally pulled him backward with his momentum out of bounds. A force out is not defined by a hit, it literally means that a player is not able to establish himself in bounds because of contact with another player. The nature of the contact is irrelevant, even if accidental. Just because he fell on Boldin on the way out does not make it any less of a force out. He was not able to establish himself in bounds as a direct result of that contact.

[billsfan89]

Good call but a crappy rule. A player in bounds doesn't count as being in bounds. It means that if you land on a player even if the player is in bounds you don't count as getting that part in bounds. So Corner got one foot in bounds then his other foot landed on a player not the ground which by the rule counts as not getting the 2nd foot in bounds.

 

Its a complicated explanation but basically landing on a players foot is not landing in bounds.

[NaPolian8693]

Very simple play.

 

He only touched one foot down in bounds. His elbow may have touched in bounds, which would have been enough, but it was inconclusive whether or not his elbow came down in bounds.

 

There is no force out rule anymore in the NFL, so the fact that he landed on another player and that player threw him out of bounds is irrelevant.

[Alphadawg7]

Good call but a crappy rule. A player in bounds doesn't count as being in bounds. It means that if you land on a player even if the player is in bounds you don't count as getting that part in bounds. So Corner got one foot in bounds then his other foot landed on a player not the ground which by the rule counts as not getting the 2nd foot in bounds.

 

Its a complicated explanation but basically landing on a players foot is not landing in bounds.

 

But thats just it, it is not a crappy rule. The rule is simple...if you land on another player without touching yourself down you are still live and can advance the ball.

 

So, that also means you are not down ever by landing on a player and therefore it can not be used to establish yourself in bounds. To change it would mean that any player on any part of the field who lands on another player down would also be considered down. Do you know how many goaline and short yardage plays that would affect? Not to mention how many great plays RB's and WR's make after contact like that in other parts of the field that would no longer be legal.