so is the pylon in bounds but it the ball becomes dead when it touches the pylon? so if a player with the possession of the ball hits the pylon then it's a TD, but if a live ball hits it as it is rolling makes it a touchback?
0-1 versus the Pylon
- Thread starter NebraskaCyclone
- Start date
Well, the pylon indicates both the endzone and out of bounds, so yes. If it touches the pylon while in control of an offensive player, they hit the end zone , and it's a touchdown. If it hits the pylon as a fumble, it's a fumble into the endzone and out of bounds, so it's a touchback.
EXACTLY!!!! You beat me to it. 2002 Eddie Robinson Classic. I stil yell "Seneca didn't get that call" every time I see someone score when touching the pylon.
This is all I've been trying to say. Don't tell me the 3rd down play with Sam's knee being down can be overturned when it's razor close, then next week a play that has even more evidence is deemed not conclusive.
He kind of threw the ball (no contact) while extending towards the end zone which was a boneheaded thing to do. Ball security is number one in football and we got penalized for lack of it on that play. I'm not a fan of that rule but it's been there for as long as I can remember. Extra effort is often penalized in football with a turnover. You have to know when to hit the ground. The pylon is the end zone...he just didn't have possession when it hit it.
I can pretty much guarantee that it can. Each play is it's own entity and each review is subject to stupidity so anything can happen regardless of what happened before.
A player touching the pylon does not represent a touchdown it's where the ball is WHEN the player touches the pylon. Obviously if the ball hits the pylon it's a touchdown… If there's possession.
If a player is heading towards the corner of the end zone reaches out with his left hand and touches the pylon but in his right hand is the ball, which is short of the end zone it's not a touchdown. The ball still has to break the plane.
Biggest thing people need to remember is the ball never changed possession. Just like a punt. The opposing team must field the punt to change possession otherwise if the ball rolls out of the end zone it is a touch back. Same is true for Bundrage on that play. Only thing that is different is if it stayed in bounds in the end zone, the punt is an automatic touch back, where as the fumble is live until recovered.
No. I was watching my 50" Vizio in crystal clear HD from a few feet away, not a video board from across the stadium.
We saw this replay. In motion, he knee is still moving, as if it is hovering over the grass. A still makes it look like his knee was down.Plain as day to me, too. Knee's down with the ball still in his hand.
Look, his knee PROBABLY was down, but there is NO WAY you can call it conclusive. Preponderance of evidence? Sure. Conclusive? Absolutely not.
There's also a very significant shadow under the ball in these stills. It's possible the tips of his fingers are on the ball in those photos but the poster who said the ball is completely in his hands does not understand light/shadow/photography/retouching. I retouch photos and create photo illustrations as part of my profession, the ball is definitely not in the palm of his hands in these low res stills or there would not be a significant shadow between the two.
The fact that a discussion about shadows is even necessary proves my point. You cannot conclusively tell what happens first even in slow motion which also proves the point.
It was too close to overturn whichever call was on the field. I won't ever agree that is was. Most of the time this would not have been overturned and if they follow procedure it probably should not be.
I think defining conclusive evidence to overturn is something that needs to be addressed by the rules committee more than anything else. This particular play is meaningless but something like our Texas replay is 10x more conclusive than this and wasn't overturned, in that Texas strip/fumble the person who ends up with the ball is 4-5 feet away from the ball carrier while his knees are still up...if we're searching for truth and logic that is so much more conclusive than a razor close still/slow motion like this.
Please. That first picture would be enough for 99 out of 100 officials to overturn that call. Was clear as day both live and on the scoreboard. Officials did a good job and both replay overturns were the correct call.
Sorry but Sam's knee was down and the ball had not left his hand.
And the pylon call was correct, too.
And the pylon call was correct, too.
Plain as day to me, too. Knee's down with the ball still in his hand.
Again, on a still photo it does look like his knee was down. On a motion replay, it looks like he's still falling sideways and the knee still moving as if it is not touching the ground.
I think his knee was down. The key word is "think."
The rule itself sucks until you try to figure what you would do instead.
Can't give the offense a TD, or give them the ball at the 20 with a new set of downs.
Maybe just give the offense the ball at the 20 with the loss of the previous down?
I do find it odd that fumbling out of bounds gives the offense the ball, but fumbling into the endzone gives the defense the ball.
Can't give the offense a TD, or give them the ball at the 20 with a new set of downs.
Maybe just give the offense the ball at the 20 with the loss of the previous down?
I do find it odd that fumbling out of bounds gives the offense the ball, but fumbling into the endzone gives the defense the ball.
IIRC They said his foot was out on the jump before getting near the goal line...and he never even touched the pylon. Plus there was no replay.
