|
Replies: 9
| visibility 1,648
|
Orange Blooded [4249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2926
Joined: 12/2/03
|
Serious question about keeping a foot in bounds..
Nov 6, 2016, 3:04 PM
|
|
Cain's toe went down in bounds but his heel hit the line so it was not a catch. I know it was the proper call because I've seen it before. I've seen catches where the toe hits in bounds and it drags along the turf until it goes out of bounds. This, too, is legal. My question is, what is the difference between the two?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3559]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4197
Joined: 3/21/06
|
I was also wondering about this
Nov 6, 2016, 3:06 PM
|
|
I've seen several catches where the receiver toes the sidelines...unless they just didn't think he had control of the ball before his heel hit. That's all I can figure
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Serious question about keeping a foot in bounds..
Nov 6, 2016, 3:12 PM
|
|
They consider the toe drag to be the same as taking multiple steps because the foot is in bounds in multiple locations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [262]
TigerPulse: 50%
Posts: 424
Joined: 5/4/16
|
It's the whole foot-
Nov 6, 2016, 3:22 PM
|
|
Unless a player is on the ball of their foot in bounds and then drags it out of bounds before their heel comes down.
If part of the foot is still in bounds, then the rest of the foot comes down out of bounds, then it's out of bounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3222]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4841
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Re: Serious question about keeping a foot in bounds..
Nov 6, 2016, 3:27 PM
|
|
If it had been ruled a catch, would it have been overturned ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3545
Joined: 7/7/12
|
Yes.
Nov 6, 2016, 6:25 PM
|
|
He was out of bounds the second his heel touched the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 202
Joined: 9/30/06
|
Re: Serious question about keeping a foot in bounds..
Nov 6, 2016, 6:32 PM
|
|
Seems to me that if his toes touch cleanly in bounds and then another part of his body touches out of bounds--even a part as close as the heel--then he already established possession in bounds. What if his toes touch in bounds and he springs off of that foot out of bounds without the heel having touched the ground? Is that not a catch?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3545
Joined: 7/7/12
|
Yes......
Nov 6, 2016, 6:56 PM
|
|
In that case, it would be a catch. The heel coming down out of bounds is considered a continuation of his footstep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2926
Joined: 12/2/03
|
Re: Serious question about keeping a foot in bounds..
Nov 6, 2016, 11:12 PM
|
|
Thanks all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2564
Joined: 3/15/99
|
Muse be based on implication.
Nov 6, 2016, 11:23 PM
|
|
If the toe goes down whe the receiver is facing out of bounds, it's implied that the heel would come down in bounds. If the recover is facing out of bounds, the implication doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 9
| visibility 1,648
|
|
|
50
