I'll Never Understand It

[Barton]

Why can you you stick the nose of the football over the endzone line before getting pushed outa bounds and it can be called a touchdown, but if a wide reciever catches a pass in the endzone but only has 1 foot down its NOT a touchdown?

Doesnt make any sense. Sticking the football over the line (leaping over the pile at the goaline) thats a touchdown when you dont have a single toe in the endzone, but if you dont have 2 feet in when you catch the pass in the endzone its NOT a touchdown

:?

[TomShane]

I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

[BwanaZulia]

I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

I don't know what it is, but all MJ's songs and lyrics make my skin crawl now.

Of course, when you quote them, it all seems perfectly natural.

BZ

[Barton]

I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

hey dooshey, why dont you just answer your PMs and leave the intelligent football conversation to the men.

On 2nd thought, go bake me some brownies, bit$h!

[TomShane]

I don't know what it is, but all MJ's songs and lyrics make my skin crawl now.

Of course, when you quote them, it all seems perfectly natural.

BZ

It's Whitney Houston. And knowing her songs makes me gay, but NOT, I repeat NOT, a pedophile.

[spjets]

dooshey.......

hey dooshey, why dont you just answer your PMs and leave the intelligent football conversation to the men.

On 2nd thought, go bake me some brownies, bit$h!

[stormshadow19]

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules

Look it up yourself.

[Scott Dierking]

Let me help the kid out:

When you cross the goal line and then are pushed out-YOU WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE FIELD OF PLAY.

In your example of the receiver-The receiver still has yet to establish (2 feet in the playing field with possesion) himself in the field.

Why can you you stick the nose of the football over the endzone line before getting pushed outa bounds and it can be called a touchdown, but if a wide reciever catches a pass in the endzone but only has 1 foot down its NOT a touchdown?

Doesnt make any sense. Sticking the football over the line (leaping over the pile at the goaline) thats a touchdown when you dont have a single toe in the endzone, but if you dont have 2 feet in when you catch the pass in the endzone its NOT a touchdown

:?

[Barton]

Let me help the kid out:

When you cross the goal line and then are pushed out-YOU WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE FIELD OF PLAY.

In your example of the receiver-The receiver still has yet to establish (2 feet in the playing field with possesion) himself in the field.

I'm not sure I still understand it.

A running back can leap over a pile and barely sneak the ball 7 feet in the air over the goaline with no toes in the endzone and its ruled a touchdown? But when a WR catches a pass in the endzone (with control of the ball), but just 1 foot inside the actual endzone, and its NOT a touchdown?

[stormshadow19]

The running back has possession in the field of play. The receiver doesn't. What is so bloody hard to understand?

[Barton]

The running back has possession in the field of play. The receiver doesn't. What is so bloody hard to understand?

Neither one has possession inside the endzone

[Jetlag]

Neither one has possession inside the endzone

You don't need possession in the end zone. You just need to have possession in the field of play. Once possession is established the only thing that matters is the ball crossing the endzone line.

But a WR who catches a ball with only one foot in never had possession in the first place (seeing that you need either 2 feet down or to have been forced out by the defender). What you're asking is similar to: why can't a guy who's out of bounds catch the ball.

[Barton]

You don't need possession in the end zone. You just need to have possession in the field of play. Once possession is established the only thing that matters is the ball crossing the endzone line.

But a WR who catches a ball with only one foot in never had possession in the first place (seeing that you need either 2 feet down or to have been forced out by the defender). What you're asking is similar to: why can't a guy who's out of bounds catch the ball.

I dont understand this. Doesnt it make sense that you should have possession inside the endzone for it to be a touchdown?

Like the running back who leaps over the pile and out streatches the nose of the football, he has possession of the football but is not inside the endzone. IMO, thats exactly like a WR having possession of the football in hand but not inside the endzone.

I mean, how is sticking the football over the goaline without having a single foot inside the endzone a touchdown, but when a WR catches the football and has the nose of the football inside the endzone and its not a touchdown because their not in the endzone, but the running back isnt in the endzone either when he leaps on the pile and strethes the football out over the line?

I know thats the rule, but IMO, its stupid because it contradicts.

[Green DNA]

I dont understand this. Doesnt it make sense that you should have possession inside the endzone for it to be a touchdown?

Like the running back who leaps over the pile and out streatches the nose of the football, he has possession of the football but is not inside the endzone. IMO, thats exactly like a WR having possession of the football in hand but not inside the endzone.

I mean, how is sticking the football over the goaline without having a single foot inside the endzone a touchdown, but when a WR catches the football and has the nose of the football inside the endzone and its not a touchdown because their not in the endzone, but the running back isnt in the endzone either when he leaps on the pile and strethes the football out over the line?

I know thats the rule, but IMO, its stupid because it contradicts.

Re-read Jetlag's post! It will be good practice for the reading comprehension portion of the English Regents (or whatever they call them in Fla.).

[Jetlag]

I know thats the rule, but IMO, its stupid because it contradicts.

Where's the contradiction?? The guy with one foot in bounds was NEVER IN PLAY. Regardless if he's at the 37 yard line or the end zone. Therefore a player who never has possession of a ball can't score a touchdown.

Ok how about this, do the refs mark the ball where the player is or where the player got the ball? They mark yardage at where the players got the ball because that's the only thing that is important. So if a player gets the ball to the endzone while in bounds ( they aren't out of bounds until a body part touches the ground and the ball is outside the boundary line) then it is a Touchdown.

I don't understand where you are having the problem.

[Scott Dierking]

EB-You are differentiating the end zone from the rest of the field. The only difference that the end zone has that all it needs in order for a TD to be called, is the nose of the ball to break its front plane.

That is with the preseumption , and it has to be, that the player has established both feet in teh plaing field.

In your end zone receiver scenario, the player has yet to establish possion anywhere on the field, which of course he must do to complete a pass.

[PatsFanTX]

I dont understand this.

Dumbass.

[Jetlag]

EB you have to treat them as 2 entirely different entities. One does not relate to the other at all.

There's no where on the field you can come down with 1 foot in and it be called a catch. Cut and dry, so therefore if you never have possession of the ball (meaning 2 feet in bounds) then it could never be ruled a touchdown.

The running back has complete possession and gets the ball across the endzone line because you mark the spot of the ball as far as the player has reached. Just like when players reach for first downs. They don't mark it where his body is, they mark it where the ball was when hit the ground.

If this is still unclear I don't know what else to tell you. Hopefully this helps.

[stormshadow19]

You don't need possession in the end zone. You just need to have possession in the field of play. Once possession is established the only thing that matters is the ball crossing the endzone line.

But a WR who catches a ball with only one foot in never had possession in the first place (seeing that you need either 2 feet down or to have been forced out by the defender). What you're asking is similar to: why can't a guy who's out of bounds catch the ball.

Isn't that what I said, in two sentences, no less? It's not that hard to bloody understand. He's got five guys teaching him about it. Kid's never going to get to college

[Jetlag]

Isn't that what I said, in two sentences, no less? It's not that hard to bloody understand. He's got five guys teaching him about it. Kid's never going to get to college

Well if he doesn't get it now then I truly worry for him.

[Barton]

EB you have to treat them as 2 entirely different entities. One does not relate to the other at all.

There's no where on the field you can come down with 1 foot in and it be called a catch. Cut and dry, so therefore if you never have possession of the ball (meaning 2 feet in bounds) then it could never be ruled a touchdown.

The running back has complete possession and gets the ball across the endzone line because you mark the spot of the ball as far as the player has reached. Just like when players reach for first downs. They don't mark it where his body is, they mark it where the ball was when hit the ground.

If this is still unclear I don't know what else to tell you. Hopefully this helps.

I get it now, thanks.

But I still dont like it!

[Barton]

How bout this?

I had a good answer for it when a foreigner I know asked me this question

"How come the size of the outfields and the lengths of the fences in baseball stadiums arent the same as each stadium?" "Football fields are the same"

I told him because then they'd have to knock down every stadium and build new ones and it would also take away the fun of going to different ballparks with their different elements like the green monster.

[sirlancemehlot]

I have a simpler solution: Electricity. when you played tag as a kid, you could quickly touch another kid that was "safe" and call out "Electricity!" signifying that by touching a safe player, you, in turn, became safe. So, the guy stretching the ball over the goal-line has made it "home" and is therefore safe. The guy in the endzone must get both feet in the "home area" to be considered safe. Electricity takes a positive and negative polarity, necessitating two wires, (the right and left leg), and if both wires are not connected, you then are vulnerable to being "it". There, that explains everything clearly in a nutshell. Now don't you feel stupid?