Jimmy was ROBBED Sunday.. (1 Viewer)

[tommy582000]

Graham has to realize where he is on the field and not allow it to be that close.

 

[GSaint]

Graham has to realize where he is on the field and not allow it to be that close.

 

[Vrill]

That is one of those calls that I cant get mad over. It was too close either way.

 

[SippiSaint35]

The refs were totally against the Saints. The knee touched down before his foot touched that blow up white grass blade.

 

[Twags14]

i really think its rediculous locker gets his airborne TD, which really didnt seem all that close to me, and JG doesnt.

 

[Saint Jeremy]

The problem is the rules and how they are interpreted. In a couple of minutes span you had a great pass/catch overruled because the receiver may have touched one blade of white grass. On the other hand you had a guy never enter the end zone possibly stick the ball over one blade of the white grass on the goal line, and there's a 14 point swing right there. Thank God the Saints won anyway.

The criteria for a receiving TD (or any catch) has become so ridiculous that the rules need to be changed. Some commonsense must prevail.

 

[tj]

It was never called a touchdown, so it was never taken away from Jimmy, Please learn the rules of football. or at least pay attention to the broadcast because they actually explained the whole scenario.

 

[Bill]

If Jimmy Graham should not have been awarded a touchdown by dragging his heel in bounds before the rest of his foot went out of bounds, then Santonio Holmes should not have been awarded his touchdown catch in Superbowl 43 when he dragged only his toes before the rest of both feet (and body) went out of bounds.

Either give that catch to Jimmy, or give the Cardinals their Lombardi trophy!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mdK5z4xK7Rk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(Posting this video only to show that no other part of his foot touch except his toes. Not trying to make the claim of this video.)

 

[jerryrip]

I think the issue was the right foot and whether his toe touched the white after his heel came down. Looking at the second angle from the field, I say that it didn't touch the white. Call should've been overturned. Typical from this ref crew though.

 

[Bill]

I think the issue was the right foot and whether his toe touched the white after his heel came down. Looking at the second angle from the field, I say that it didn't touch the white. Call should've been overturned. Typical from this ref crew though.

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.

 

[Le_Moyne]

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.

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.

 

[Bill]

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.

And this is printed in the NFL rule book this way? Or is it just 'understood'?

 

[Le_Moyne]

And this is printed in the NFL rule book this way? Or is it just 'understood'?

This is a quote from Mike Pereira:

The interpretation of the NFL rule is that if a catch is made with a normal step and without a drag or a toe tap, it requires that the entire foot must come down in bounds. On this play, there is no question that Graham’s heel of the right foot came down, but the toe looked like it might have come down on the white line. That, on its own, is enough not to reverse the original ruling on the field.

I'm not sure how it is written in the NFL rule book but I have no doubt he knows it better than all of the guys on this forum combine.

 

[1badsailor]

The replay they showed where he touched the white blade of grass was pretty convincing. It's amazingly close, but I have to begrudgingly say they made the right call.

the heel was down first with posession (play over td right there), there isnt a rule that says the toe has to be down. he dragged the heel. terrible call

 

[st dude]

The NFL has confirmed via email that the official rule book merely says that a player must get two feet in bounds, with no elaboration or explanation regarding the ability of a player to make a catch while only ever getting a toe or the top of the foot down. But the league interprets the rule to mean that a toe is a foot, as long as the toe is dragged. If in the act of dragging the toe the foot comes down and any portion of it is out of bounds, a catch was not made.

In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn

I think the heel would also work in a case where a receiver catches a ball falling backwards out of bounds with both heels down so long as his toes do not come down and touch the line.

I saw this call in another game this year and the rule was explained, I am not sure if Graham's toe touched white, but if it did it was the right call. Had it been called a td, I doubt there was enough to overturn it.