Buckeye Eric Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Take a look at his feet and the location of the ball in relation to his left foot and line goal and side line. Jackson Catch It looks like it crossed the plane to me
BuckeyeBill Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 No two feet in bounds, no catch... therefore no touchdown. If he had caught it inbounds, and then run to the goaline and that was the picture... it would be a touchdown because he already had posession, and the ball does cross the plain before the second foot touches out of bounds. I honestly have never seen one player ALMOST have such a great Superbowl.
1gap2gap Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Take a look at his feet and the location of the ball in relation to his left foot and line goal and side line. Jackson Catch It looks like it crossed the plain to me 596307[/snapback] He has to have posession in bounds first then. Then he can go outside of the pilan. Two feet in bounds then he can jump in the air and cross the pilan first before he lands out of bounds. He never established possession first.
Fezmid Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Yup - there were a lot of terrible calls, but this wasn't one of them. You see receivers make plays like that all the time (in bounds). It's actually surprising when they DON'T get the ball and drag the foot. CW
Like A Mofo Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Much to the happiness of the giddy Steelers fans here on the board...it was not a TD.
Dr. Fong Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Just a little bit off topic, but does anyone else wish the NFL would change the rule about two feet in bounds to the one foot college rule? I sure do.
Fezmid Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Just a little bit off topic, but does anyone else wish the NFL would change the rule about two feet in bounds to the one foot college rule? I sure do. 596341[/snapback] No, I like the two feet down thing. As I said, receivers in the NFL all seem to be able to drag their foot without a problem. If you make it one foot down, there's going to be a LOT more scoring in the league. CW
Dr. Fong Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 If you make it one foot down, there's going to be a LOT more scoring in the league. CW 596347[/snapback] Is that such a terrible thing? I also think it would make determining whether a player was in bounds that much easier. Less blown calls, less trips to the replay booth.
Fezmid Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Is that such a terrible thing? I also think it would make determining whether a player was in bounds that much easier. Less blown calls, less trips to the replay booth. 596364[/snapback] If you're going to allow that, then I think they should change the rule so that you only need one foot, BUT, if you're pushed out of bounds, you STILL need one foot down. That'd get rid of the "he would've gotten his feet down if he wasn't pushed" judgement call. Takes more pressure off of the officials. If you're stupid enough to be that close to the sideline, then you better make sure you catch it with your feet on the ground - don't jump. CW
Dr. Fong Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 If you're going to allow that, then I think they should change the rule so that you only need one foot, BUT, if you're pushed out of bounds, you STILL need one foot down. 596392[/snapback] I'd love to see a rule change like that. I think it'd go a long way towards simplifying things and making the game more exciting.
eball Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 He was out of bounds...but more distressing to me was Jackson's pathetic effort to make the play. It's the freaking SB and Jackson gives a half-hearted try at hitting the pylon. He could have easily dragged his foot, even if it meant going OOB at the one instead of scoring. He could have held the ball over the plane of the EZ. It was a really, really poor effort in the biggest game of his life. Fitting for this game.
stevewin Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 He was out of bounds...but more distressing to me was Jackson's pathetic effort to make the play. It's the freaking SB and Jackson gives a half-hearted try at hitting the pylon. He could have easily dragged his foot, even if it meant going OOB at the one instead of scoring. He could have held the ball over the plane of the EZ. It was a really, really poor effort in the biggest game of his life. Fitting for this game. 596413[/snapback] I agree completely - said the same thing last night. He also had a pathetic attempt on the last play before the missed FG at the end of the half on the sideline. At least look like you are *trying* to get your freaking feet inbounds! A high percentage of top tier receivers get their feet in on both those plays (or at least make an effort!)
BB2004 Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Take a look at his feet and the location of the ball in relation to his left foot and line goal and side line. Jackson Catch It looks like it crossed the plain to me 596307[/snapback] That suprised me that they didn't take a look at that play. At least they could have looked at it. But Seattle clock management that drive was not up to their usual standards. I'm also suprised Mike H's offense didn't have a shotgun.
Ramius Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 A question on this play that we were trying to figure out... What would the call be if D-Jax catches the ball like he did, gets one foot in bounds like he did, and his second foot hits the pilon then steps OB, without ever touching in bounds? incomplete or TD?
Acantha Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 A question on this play that we were trying to figure out... What would the call be if D-Jax catches the ball like he did, gets one foot in bounds like he did, and his second foot hits the pilon then steps OB, without ever touching in bounds? incomplete or TD? 596448[/snapback] Incomplete
BB2004 Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 A question on this play that we were trying to figure out... What would the call be if D-Jax catches the ball like he did, gets one foot in bounds like he did, and his second foot hits the pilon then steps OB, without ever touching in bounds? incomplete or TD? 596448[/snapback] My guess would be an incomplete pass, unless there is an clear indication that he has possession of the ball crossing the goal line BEFORE he goes out of bounds with the second foot. Just a guess
eball Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I agree completely - said the same thing last night. He also had a pathetic attempt on the last play before the missed FG at the end of the half on the sideline. At least look like you are *trying* to get your freaking feet inbounds! A high percentage of top tier receivers get their feet in on both those plays (or at least make an effort!) 596435[/snapback] Yep -- I didn't mention the second "effort" in order to stay on point, but you are correct. He just appeared to have an "oh well, i'm out of bounds" attitude rather than trying to make a play. The combination of Jackson's lack of effort and Stevens' abominable performance take away any feelings of empathy I had for the Seahawks over the poor officiating in the game. This SB just sucked, plain and simple. I'm glad it's over. Get me to free agency and draft news -- please.
CircleTheWagons Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I'd love to see a rule change like that. I think it'd go a long way towards simplifying things and making the game more exciting. 596402[/snapback] I agree. Calling it a catch because you were pushed out of bounds prior to getting both feet down is a terrible rule. It's the refs opinion, not reviewable, and totally unnecessary. I also hate when they use the term a "football move" when they are determining possession, or worry about whether the receiver still controls the ball after falling out of bounds. The rules for catching a football in the NFL have become so screwed up that I can't tell when it's a catch or not.
Recommended Posts