|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1203
|
Standout [309]
TigerPulse: 99%
15
|
Touching pylon question
Oct 1, 2012, 6:06 PM
|
|
Sorry if I missed the discussion earlier, but if touching the pylon makes you out of bounds, why didn't the ref throw a flag for illegal touching? Since the flag was not thrown, how can the review booth make a judgement on a non-call? I thought they could only review the call as made.
If the review booth can rule on non-calls, we are doomed. Think about some official in the booth reviewing where to spot the ball and noticing a hold which was not called. Can the replay official now rule on that?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2253]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Touching pylon question
Oct 1, 2012, 6:10 PM
|
|
I think the official ruled Nuk out of bounds. They can review that....I think !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2194]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Touching pylon question
Oct 1, 2012, 6:14 PM
|
|
When his foot touched the pylon, he was out of bounds. He would only be flagged if he came back in bounds to catch the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2194]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
That rule makes no sense...
Oct 1, 2012, 6:17 PM
|
|
If a player dives for the end-zone with the ball in his outstretched hands touches the pylon with the ball, it's considered a touchdown. So in that instance, the pylon is considered a part of the end-zone. But in Nuke's case, his foot touching the pylon meant he was out of bounds. I don't understand how a rule can be written to give contradictory jurisdiction on the pylon. Makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [79693]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 120628
Joined: 1998
|
Re: That rule makes no sense...been hashed and rehashed here
Oct 1, 2012, 6:20 PM
|
|
didnt make sense any of those times but apparently it is the rule
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50675]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43018
Joined: 1998
|
you already have the ball when diving to the pylon
Oct 1, 2012, 6:25 PM
[ in reply to That rule makes no sense... ] |
|
and are deemed to have crossed the goal to touch the pylon
nuk didn't have the ball yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [198]
TigerPulse: 89%
12
|
Gotta disagree with you here
Oct 1, 2012, 6:32 PM
|
|
I posted this earlier, but if your foot knicks the pylon, youre out of bounds. if you dive for the pylon with the ball, its a touchdown. doesnt make sense. also, if the pylon is knocked down during play, then the pylon's "imaginary line goes up as if it were there." therefore if nuks foot were in the same posiition after the pylon was knowcked over, he would not be out of bounds bc his foot hadnt touched out of bounds but if the pylon were there, then he's deemed out of bounds.
imo i think its a flawed rule. If anyone knows where to find a clip of the play, i'd appreciate it.
GO TIGERS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [107]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [401]
TigerPulse: 92%
17
|
It isn't "part of the endzone"
Oct 1, 2012, 6:36 PM
[ in reply to That rule makes no sense... ] |
|
It is breaking the vertical plane of the endzone. You never have to step into the endzone or ever touch part of the endzone with any part of your body. Just as long as 1 mm breaks the front part of the white (or yellow on some fields) line that marks the beginning of the vertical plane of the goal line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [309]
TigerPulse: 99%
15
|
Re: Re: Touching pylon question
Oct 1, 2012, 7:58 PM
|
|
Correct. He touched the pylon and then came inbounds. Since his foot in the end zone was clearly inbounds, then he should have been flagged for illegal touching. Since there was no flag, that consideration of being out of bounds should never have been a point. The only thing reviewable should have been dis foot in the end zone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15863]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 28957
Joined: 2001
|
THAT PYLON IS SOMEONE'S DAUGHTER !!!!!!!
Oct 1, 2012, 7:59 PM
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50675]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43018
Joined: 1998
|
don't tell ot***
Oct 1, 2012, 8:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1203
|
|
|
50
