Jimmy was ROBBED Sunday..

Bill said
The real issue is, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

If having both heel and toe of both feet is required for a legitimate catch, then a LOT of big plays of the past (such as the BIG one above) would have been null & void.

Suppose Jimmy had been falling out of bounds while he was touching only his two knees before rolling out of bounds. Would it have been a catch? Why would two knees be more identified as a catch than two heels?

Even if Jimmy's left knee had not been on the ground prior to the infamous 'toe touch', what makes his right heel so unimportant?

If I were a heel, I'd feel discriminated against after all of this. :scratch:

The rule is clear, it's either 2 feet or one body part (knee). in this case the knee doesn't matter.

And a "toe tap" is not considered the same as a "heel tap". If the heel come down first, then the ENTIRE foot must come down inbound.

I'm not saying it's a good rule but it's the rule. The rule may be stupid but if you think the toe touched the paint, then the refs made the right call.