On the 40 yard grab go slayton where he was ruled out of bounds, it appeared that his ankle/calf was down in bounds. Ankle/calf are considered down for purposes of a tackle, so I kind of assumed the 2 foot rule would not be applicable and you just need one other body part down in bounds (similar to your butt). Am I over thinking this or could that have potentially been challenged on that somewhat quirky rule.
Also for all the complaining about re-signing him he was clutch yesterday IMO
Way different. He didn't get two feet down. His heel was out of bounds hence not a foot. If your shin is down, that is equivalent to to feet. It is like a toe drag. If your toes come down inbounds but slide out it is good. If your heel steps down out of bounds it is not good.
The image above clearly shows his shin down before his knee. And this is with my tv not the ability to go frame by frame.
No. This is wrong.
This is what I assumed the Giants felt like . Ruled an INC catch they most likely not going to change it. Either ways I stated. He made a really nice catch on the tying drive too. IMO his current contract is a steal in todays NFL
what about the case where you're going out of bounds backwards, you toe drag in bounds and then the heel touches down out of bounds? that is essentially the same thing.
No, you are guessing. The rule is any body part other than a foot or hand is considered down. Please show me where it says limb. You are making that up.
Anything above your ankle or below your wrist counts as being down - ie shin or forearm.
is this true? I think this is confusing a couple different points.
I think if your forearm is down you are not actually down and you can keep running. Has to be a knee right?
but since you introduced fumbling the ground can't force a fumble so not sure how that gets called. there's a lot going on there, lol. too much for 8am on a Monday.
Quote:
His elbow he is down. We've seen this with shins before too.
is this true? I think this is confusing a couple different points.
I think if your forearm is down you are not actually down and you can keep running. Has to be a knee right?
but since you introduced fumbling the ground can't force a fumble so not sure how that gets called. there's a lot going on there, lol. too much for 8am on a Monday.
actually just checked the rule book. forearm is in fact down. my apologies, anything above the wrist.
Quote:
I think you’re wrong about that. If it’s your shin that is the limb the you don’t get to divide the lower shin from the upper shin. Just like you don’t get to divide the front of the foot from the back of the foot unless that’s the only part that touches the ground. If any part of the determining limb is OOB I think you’re OOB.
No, you are guessing. The rule is any body part other than a foot or hand is considered down. Please show me where it says limb. You are making that up.
It’s true for the foot example I gave. Right?
I know the shin has been used to call a runner down and we all know the knee counts as two feet for a catch.
I just can't recall a time where a shin has been used to signify a catch against the boundary.
Quote:
I think you’re wrong about that. If it’s your shin that is the limb the you don’t get to divide the lower shin from the upper shin. Just like you don’t get to divide the front of the foot from the back of the foot unless that’s the only part that touches the ground. If any part of the determining limb is OOB I think you’re OOB.
Anything above your ankle or below your wrist counts as being down - ie shin or forearm.
Yes, but half his shin was OOB. What about that.
Yes. Thank you.
Quote:
The ATL game earlier. The receiver caught the ball, tapped his toes, then his heel came down after the toes were firmly down in bounds and they called no TD. I think they are applying the same logic here. His shin is down but in the same catch motion his knee hits out of bounds so it’s considered out. It’s a dumb rule but I think they applied the same logic here.
Yes. Thank you.
Bradshaw, I saw that ATL game too and do not understand that call. How was that any different than a WR toe tapping the sideline then falling OOB?? 2 toes = inbounds catch? They may have applied the same logic but it seems an inconsistent call. The pic above does not show possession, maybe that was the determining factor?
COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:
a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
it was all close enough i think they would have probably stuck with call on the field, but i would 100% call it slayton's best catch ever any way. if that is a big name receiver they call it a catch and it is the top replay everywhere.
you can see in the gif right after this part where the ball skids on ground (and moves) he snaps his other hand over to protect it but i think at that point they would have called it incomplete.
either way amazing effort and amazing near catch. almost beckham level. if they had called it a catch i think it would have held up and if he was a big name player like beckham i think they call it a catch.
Kinda agree here. I'll admit I was no where even near realizing the "shin" was down, but I can see the point.
The overall issue here is the shin is down but it also appears he's OOB at the same time. Considering it was ruled incomplete, I think it would have stood but who knows with these huckleberry replay guys.