Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 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. I guess I see that's the rule, but I wonder how evenly it's enforced. If the positions had been reversed, would the refs really have ruled that wasn't a TD? What about if a receiver's 2nd foot lands on the ref's shoe as he goes out of bounds? It may be the right call under the rules, it just seems like a violation of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I guess I see that's the rule, but I wonder how evenly it's enforced. If the positions had been reversed, would the refs really have ruled that wasn't a TD? What about if a receiver's 2nd foot lands on the ref's shoe as he goes out of bounds? It may be the right call under the rules, it just seems like a violation of common sense. The world isnt governed by common sense, its governed by rules, just like sports. Theres no consensus for what is common sense on many issues which is why there are complex rules. The rule applicable in this instance is to take a judgment call away from the refs. ie would his foot have come down in bounds. Instead it has to come down in bounds no matter what. It might not be common sense but it sure is smarter sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 It comes down to this: he never had possession in bounds as defined by rules that all have agreed upon. You have to have 2 of something touching the ground in bounds to make a catch. It's no more complicated than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 It comes down to this: he never had possession in bounds as defined by rules that all have agreed upon. You have to have 2 of something touching the ground in bounds to make a catch. It's no more complicated than that. Wrong. A player needs to have and maintain possession of the ball and either 2 feet, an elbow, a knee, a hip, or his head hit in-bounds. Corner's right elbow hits in-bounds. It was an INT. http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4093/intproof.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Picking up a player and carrying them is not, nor has it ever been, a legal means of contact. Then why did Baltimore do it in OT to get a fumble....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts