Big Turk Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 OK, I am rewatching the game and noticed something on the Parrish TD. Parrish did not get both feet in bounds with control of the football. He caught the pass, got a foot down, bobbled it, regained control and then his next step was out of bounds. However, during this time, he also crossed the goal line with the ball in his possession before his other foot landed out of bounds. My question is this: 1) Are the Bills lucky to have gotten away with this and the fact the Raiders did not challenge the call, OR 2) Does the fact that he crossed the goalline with the ball in his possession before he stepped out of bounds negate the fact that he never got his other foot in bounds? if the rule is the same for the entire field, then the Bills got lucky the Raiders didn't challenge the play because he clearly bobbled the ball before controlling it, during which he never got another foot down in bounds... if the rule is once you cross the goalline its a TD regardless as long as you have control of the ball, then it would be irrelevant... Any one know what the rule is on this and if indeed the Bills got away with one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 no, it was a very legit TD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsaikotic Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 well to answer that question all you need to do is look at Lynch's TD...his hole body was out of bounds but in the air, but the ball was inside the pylon...as far as I know aslong as the ball crosses or touches the goalline and its inside the pylon, its a TD....but if your catching a ball in the endzone both feet have to be down and possession of the ball is needed...so different rules really on wether u run it or catch it in the endzone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share Posted September 24, 2008 well to answer that question all you need to do is look at Lynch's TD...his hole body was out of bounds but in the air, but the ball was inside the pylon...as far as I know aslong as the ball crosses or touches the goalline and its inside the pylon, its a TD....but if your catching a ball in the endzone both feet have to be down and possession of the ball is needed...so different rules really on wether u run it or catch it in the endzone... Yes that is true, but Lynch also had plenty of feet in bounds prior to executing the whirling dervish over the pylon... I just wasn't sure if you had to establish yourself in the field of play with both feet before crossing the goalline for a TD or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsaikotic Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 ok i re-read what u wrote and i missed the only one foot down on the catch...in order for any catch to be a catch you need to have both feet down in bounds and control of the ball..so if 1 of those elaments was missing than no it wasnt a catch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 OK, I am rewatching the game and noticed something on the Parrish TD. Parrish did not get both feet in bounds with control of the football. He caught the pass, got a foot down, bobbled it, regained control and then his next step was out of bounds. The bobbled it part is the issue. That ball looked pretty much locked in to me.......therefore TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsaikotic Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 ok so mabye im wrong...is there a different rule for going over the goalline?...i guess if a player dives for a ball in the air and has the ball in his hands going over the line and lands out of bouce ..thats a TD right?...no feet but ball control...hmm got me thinking now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 The powers that be also updated interpretation of the rule last year adding the requirement of a player making "a football move" as part of the interpretation of whether a legal catch has been made. The argument strikes me as not simply a straight interpretation of the facts as written, but also involves some interpretation by the refs as to whether it was a catch or not. In general I think the addition of the call for a football move would actually raise the standard for a catch being ruled a catch, but IF it applies to this case, Parrish was clearly in control and making a football move to score a TD rather than simply being out of control and happening to just cross the line before he went OB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 The bobbled it part is the issue. That ball looked pretty much locked in to me.......therefore TD. I just watched the replay on NFL.com, and while it's not an extra closeup or anything, the ball looks secure and under control the whole way. I don't see a bobble that would make it an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Yes that is true, but Lynch also had plenty of feet in bounds prior to executing the whirling dervish over the pylon... I just wasn't sure if you had to establish yourself in the field of play with both feet before crossing the goalline for a TD or not... You know, I'm glad you posted this. I honestly doubted both the Parrish and Lynch TDs when I initially watched them. For rules clarification, yes a receiver must always get two feet in bounds after establishing control of (catching and not bobbling) the ball. After further review (frame by frame on my HD-DVR) Parrish did bobble the ball, but did get two feet in bounds after "finding the handle." It was definitely a legit TD. Lynch however did not stretch the ball across the goal line before his foot landed out of bounds. The ball about a foot short and there's a clear goal-line shot that shows it on the broadcast. The ball should have been placed inside the one. I think this call was missed because it was an incredibly athletic play and there was so much to watch in rapid succession: he did stay in bounds, he did pull off an amazing midair spin-o-rama, he did get the ball over the pylon. I also think the foot was considered by the ref, but he was waching the pylon. When he looked back to the foot, it left a mark where it landed beyond the goal-line, and he'd missed his chance to notice the ball han't "broken the plane" before it landed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts