My football rules complaint
 

Here is one rule that just ticks me off. The breaking the plain rule. If the ball crosses the plain of the goal line, it is a touchdown...................BULL
A touchdown is exactly that, touch down. Get a piece of that dirt behind the goal line.
Then to confuse their rules, if the ball breaks the plain of the sidelines, yet a receiver keeps his feet on the dirt inside the field of play, the ball is considered in the field of play, or in bounds. Breaking of the plain does not count on the sidelines..................BULL
If you are going to call breaking the plain of a chalked line, be consistent.

It would be impossible to check every sideline play to see if the ball crosses the plain, so I agree with the current rule along the sideline plays for the receivers. So to be consistent, make a touchdown, be a TOUCH DOWN.
No more breaking the plain at the goal line. No more diving at the corner where none of your body goes into the end zone, but they reach out, ball crosses over the pylon, TD...................BULL

JUST MY TWO CENTS

2 cents
 

How about the "completing the play" rule. A player catches a ball in the end zone with his feet in bounds, falls to the ground out of bounds and the ball pops out of his hands after he hits the ground. They call it incomplete. Are you kidding me?
Where is it any different than diving and reaching over the goal line and the ball pops out of his hand as he slams it to the turf over the goal line. They call this a touch down!
If breaking the plane of the end zone ends the play, what is the difference between the two plays?

A player must have possession when he breaks the plane. By rule, he does not have possession until he completes the catch. By contrast, a ball carrier, assuming he's not in the process of fumbling, has possession as he crosses the plane. That is the difference--possession.

Todd,
That is my argument. Along the side lines, a receiver catches a ball, his feet in bounds, but the ball was caught out of bound, on the opposite side of the side lines. But because his feet were in bounds, the ball is brought back into the field of play as considered in bounds catch.
The goal line, a player, his feet at the one yard line and he reaches across the goal line for a TD. The ball does not come back into the field of play, as the case of the receiver. Both lines, the plain was broken, but treated differently.

Bill


JIW,
I am from MI also, you must be talking about Johnson's catch/non catch, last year. What a crock. Even the announcers said that rule should be addressed. He had possession long enough in that case.

billyb,

My initial response was to jiw98. As for your initial post, I submit it is consistent to rule TD once the ball crosses the plane. When a runner is stretching for a first down, the ball is spotted not where his knees or other part landed, but where the ball was located in relation to the ground--no different than the TD play. If he needs to get to the 30, for example, and the stretched out ball is there before his knees land a yard short on the 29, the ball is still placed at a point on a plane at the 30. Are you suggesting that someone who clearly dives over the goal line and then gets knocked back, landing before the line must have the ball marked short? That's what I'm getting out of your initial post, where you say "Get a piece of that dirt behind the goal line." Why, when that's not how it is ruled elsewhere on the field?

What's up with all the BS interference calls?

Todd,
If a guy needs to get to the 30 for a first down, stretches the ball over the 30, before he is going down, someone knocks the ball loose, it is a fumble. Not at the end zone. If he crosses the plain of the goal line, someone knocks the ball loose, after it crossed the plain, but before the runner is considered down, it is a touchdown, where it should be a fumble. Like a receive, it should be a completion of the play.
When you were saying if a guy gets knocked back, no that is not what I meant. A runner cannot get knocked back out of an end zone, once he is in, he is in.
I have seen where the runner is at the corner, never sets foot in the end zone, but as he about to go out of bounds, reaches hi arm out, and it crosses the plain of the goal line. At no time did the runner or the ball ever really get in to the end zone.
The side lines, is different. Ball crossing the goal line is automatic TD and stop of play. Side lines catch, ball clearly caught by receiver on out of bounds side of the sidelines, but feet inbounds. Ball is not considered out of bounds, even thought it crossed the sideline plain.
I hope I explained it a little better. The side lines does not have a plain, as does the goal line, why.

Bill

Bill,

I still remain somewhat uncertain about your complaint. You state "I have seen where the runner is at the corner, never sets foot in the end zone, but as he about to go out of bounds, reaches hi arm out, and it crosses the plain of the goal line. At no time did the runner or the ball ever really get in to the end zone." That is not true--if any part of the ball crosses the plane--measured at the front end of the goal line-then the player possessing the ball has scored and is considered in the end zone. Would you agree that an offensive player who lands the ball on the front of the goal line is in "the end zone"? If so then a player hovering the ball over that same point is in the end zone.

I gather that your beef is with the fact that a player is not yet "down" and could thereafter fumble. But once the goal has been achieved, literally, why should the play not be dead? He has reached the promised land. If a receiver catches the ball in the end zone, lands there untouched, should the defense be allowed to cream him in hopes of a fumble because he's not yet "down"? A QB lunging over a pile of players extends the ball a good foot over the line while never hitting the ground. Should the defense be allowed to knock him backward and tackle him to the ground, or knock the ball loose for a fumble? I suppose the rules could be re-written for this, but I do not see what is to be gained. In fact, it is my understanding that at the beginning of football, the ball itself had to be actually "touched down" in the end zone for there to be a scoring play, and that rugby still requires it. Obviously that requirement died a long time ago.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Todd,
yea, I guess I have confused the main complaint I have.
The main point I was trying to complain about is that the goal line has a plain, but the side line does not.
The description of the plays confused my complaint.

By the way, a pile of bodies at the goal line, is an extension of the ground. QB leaps over the pile and reaches in, TD, I have no problem with that.

I understand the possession part, what I am questioning is when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone with both feet in bounds (possession?) then falls out of bounds and the ball comes loose after he hits the turf. Its been called not completing the play or catch. If he is in the end zone shouldn't the play be over when the catch is made with two feet touching the turf?

billy, yes I am referring to the Calvin Johnson play against Chicago a couple of years ago.

Because I don't believe possession is complete until he lands on the ground with control of the ball, just as would be the case if he wasn't in the end zone.

I like the plane rule. We can't go until the runner is tackled. If that was the case, then if a runner walks into the end zone untouched and then gets hammered and fumbles, he didn't score a touchdown. Or, if a runner runs into the end zone and then lets go of the ball, he fumbled. I say once you score, the play is over, and that's it - whistle blown, play over.