Jimmy was ROBBED Sunday.. (2 Viewers)

[slaym]

I guess a toe drag is greater than a heel drag.

 

[bobad]

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.

That blade of grass is irrelevant. His heel came down in bounds, and that's instantly a touchdown. That's the rule.

 

[chank]

So many keep talking about whether or not his toe touched a white blade of grass. I keep thinking that it should not matter because the knee of the other leg was down in the end zone before any of that supposedly took place. If that is the case, then the play should be dead at that point & it should be a touchdown, right? Am I overlooking something? I simply cannot buy their argument that this was an incomplete pass.

And others say that we should not worry about it because we still won the game. What bothers me about it is that it could have (and nearly did) cost us the game. They need to get these calls right. They need to be precise each and every time.... especially when they now have the ability to review the plays.

 

[CoolBrees1]

I understand the toe tap and heel to foot comment...but I believe his knee was down before his foot touched/scraped the white line...that's what should have counted....

 

[jillimac]

I read this thread title before I had my coffee this AM, and thought you meant Jimmy's house got robbed

 

[st dude]

I guess a toe drag is greater than a heel drag.

The way I read the interpretation, not necessarily. In a normal step your heel goes down and then your toes. As part of that step if your heel touches first in bounds and as part of the same step your toe touches out, you are out.

I think if someone catches the ball falling backwards out of bounds, like in the end of the endzone, and drags their heels they would be considered in because the toes would not touch as part of a normal step.

I think you can drag heels or toes but in the process the rest of the foot cannot come down. If someone could tap both heels and then lift both heels off the ground and land out of bounds before their toe touches down as part of a normal step you would be in bounds.

Even someone who toe drags will still be considered out if before their toe goes out of bounds their heel touches out of bounds. You do not see this because the heel follows the toe on most human feet. That is why i think the ruling is different, or the same depending on how you think of it, when someone touches heels falling backwards where the toe follows the heel.

Graham never dragged a heel in the sense where his heel dragged and then went out before his toe touched. Had he been falling directly backwards out of bounds I think his toe would have never touched out and just having the heel down would have counted.

 

[st dude]

So many keep talking about whether or not his toe touched a white blade of grass. I keep thinking that it should not matter because the knee of the other leg was down in the end zone before any of that supposedly took place. If that is the case, then the play should be dead at that point & it should be a touchdown, right? Am I overlooking something? I simply cannot buy their argument that this was an incomplete pass.

And others say that we should not worry about it because we still won the game. What bothers me about it is that it could have (and nearly did) cost us the game. They need to get these calls right. They need to be precise each and every time.... especially when hey now have he ability to review the plays.

It looked clear on the replay to me that if his toe did touch out, it touched just a fraction of a second before his knee was down. Had his knee clearly touched first, they would not have had to look at the blade of grass. I think if you watch the clip again in slow motion you will see his toe going down before his knee. Now whether the toe touched grass is not clear to me and that is why I was worried they would uphold the call because the ruling on the filed was his toe did touch white.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d824f1caa/Graham-just-shy-of-a-touchdown

 

[robsmith32]

can't count where he comes down, till he has possession... if he had possession, prior to touching the ground, yes TD(close) good argument. but he didnt' have possession till his first foot was already down. and coming down it touched out if you start the count from when he has control.

 

[st dude]

That blade of grass is irrelevant. His heel came down in bounds, and that's instantly a touchdown. That's the rule.

I keep reading this over and over again in these threads where some Saint's fans insist that is the rule and that apparently is not the rule, or at least is not how officials interpret the rule. This interpretation was not made up for this game. I have seen that call before in a game this year. If it was just a matter of the heel touching, that was very obvious and would have been to the replay official.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/12/in-the-nfl-a-toe-is-a-foot-but-a-heel-isnt/

 

[Domeination]

The problem I have with the ruling is that Graham's knee was clearly touching after he possessed the ball before his toe may have gone out of bounds. Notice in Item 3 below that the receiver needs to have two feet "or any part of his body other than his hands" down with possession in bounds for it to be a catch in the endzone. Graham clearly fulfilled that requirement. Yes, he was robbed. Here's the applicable rule from the NFL rulebook:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book (page 43):

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. [/FONT][/FONT]A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) 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) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. [/FONT][/FONT]If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Item 2: Sideline Catches. [/FONT][/FONT]If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an
opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous
control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Item 3: End Zone Catches. [/FONT][/FONT]If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf​

 

[st dude]

The problem I have with the ruling is that Graham's knee was clearly touching after he possessed the ball before his toe may have gone out of bounds. Notice in Item 3 below that the receiver needs to have two feet "or any part of his body other than his hands" down with possession in bounds for it to be a catch in the endzone. Graham clearly fulfilled that requirement. Yes, he was robbed. Here's the applicable rule from the NFL rulebook:

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf​

Joseph, watch the video and see if you think the same way. While I am not sure if toe touched, it appeared that if it did touch it was before knee was down.

NFL Videos: Graham just shy of a touchdown

 

[Sarcastic]

also that locker td was rediculous...the guy was 5 yards out of bounds... big and athletic yes... locker could be a good thing coming for the titans... but that was no friggen way that ball was inside the pylon

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.

This is a little off-subject, but it seems few people understand the rule on the Locker touchdown. The ball does not have to go inside of the pylon. It just has to cross the plane (which is infinite) before he touches anywhere out of bounds. He can go out of bounds at the five and never come back in...if he's athletic enough to cross the goal line before touching down in the stands, it's a touchdown.

The whole "stick out the ball to reach the pylon" thing is a player not understanding the rule, which is scary - because he is opening himself up to an unnecessary fumble-touchback by doing that.

 

[Domeination]

Joseph, watch the video and see if you think the same way. While I am not sure if toe touched, it appeared that if it did touch it was before knee was down.

NFL Videos: Graham just shy of a touchdown

O.K. The knee does come down just slightly after the offending foot was down, so my memory of the play was flawed. I agree with you on that. Nevertheless, I can honestly say that if that had been a Titans player, I wouldn't have been upset if the officials had called it a touchdown because it's really hard to tell whether his toe actually was out of bounds.

 

[Le_Moyne]

This is a little off-subject, but it seems few people understand the rule on the Locker touchdown. The ball does not have to go inside of the pylon. It just has to cross the plane (which is infinite) before he touches anywhere out of bounds. He can go out of bounds at the five and never come back in...if he's athletic enough to cross the goal line before touching down in the stands, it's a touchdown.

The whole "stick out the ball to reach the pylon" thing is a player not understanding the rule, which is scary - because he is opening himself up to an unnecessary fumble-touchback by doing that.

Specially considering that Reggie had 3-4 TD just like that with us.

 

[st dude]

Nevertheless, I can honestly say that if that had been a Titans player, I wouldn't have been upset if the officials had called it a touchdown because it's really hard to tell whether his toe actually was out of bounds.

I agree a hundred percent with you on this, that is, this could have been called a td. When I first saw replay I thought it was a td but then the more I looked at his toe the more I could not be sure.

If you look at the play you can see an official in perfect position to make the call who immediately hits the ground with his hand indicating his foot hit out of bounds. I asume the replay official was also able to see the official on the field in perfect position. If the replay official had the slightest doubt as to whether the touch touched then he had to defer to the field official.

It is frustrating because that is a call that could have gone our way. It is also frustrating because it seems sometimes close calls that go our way get reversed when the evidence is not really clear.

If it helps, I am convinced the majority of NFL fans after watching games think they are on the short end of reviewed plays.

The real probelm with this game was the over officiating by the crew. That should be reviewed by the league. The constant penalties against both teams took away from the enjoyment of watching the game. It was very bad both ways. Holding penalties should be called only when blatantly obvious and when they have an impact on the play. Some of the holding calls in that game were absurd.