The Big Cat Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Between a guy dragging his toes and then falling out of bounds with his torso being the first thing out and a guy tapping his toes and then having his heels fall out?? What is this "whole" foot nonsense??? Why does it apply to the bottom of the foot but evidently not to the top? STUPID RULE!!
ofiba Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Yeah that is a dumb rule. Theoretically a guy could land on both of his toes in bounds, tip toe down the sideline for 90 yards, and step out of bounds with his heels at the 1 yard line and it would be ruled incomplete.
East Brady Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Yeah that is a dumb rule. Theoretically a guy could land on both of his toes in bounds, tip toe down the sideline for 90 yards, and step out of bounds with his heels at the 1 yard line and it would be ruled incomplete. 856471[/snapback] If Price did that, we would all be very happy today, because that would have been a complete.....
stevewin Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I think the rule exists because of the difficulty/subjectivity of trying to determine what part of the foot is in/out in the whole 'toes in first, then heel touches' scenario. With the foot facing the other way it is usually pretty apparent (and usually shows up well on review) if the toes get it. With the foot the other way it would be extremely difficult in most cases, with the back part of the foot hovering over the sideline, to determine which part of the bottom of the foot is touching in bounds and which out of bounds.
Mike in Syracuse Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 What's really bizzare about this rule is that you can be diving out of bounds with 98% of your body OB but if your toes are down and in you're in. Turn around 180 degrees and it's a totally different rule? How does that make sense
Recommended Posts