|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 19, 2016 11:25:22 GMT -8
Watch the uck/Utah game, on Utah's first TD the runner clearly hit the pylon, but from my vantage point it wasn't clear he hit the inside of the pylon. The pylons themselves are located out of bounds, aren't they? I'm kind of surprised there was no review.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beavcat on Nov 19, 2016 13:17:52 GMT -8
I was of the understanding any ball to pylon contact is a TD assuming the players is not OoB. Or are you saying the player contacting the pylon made him OoB and therefore no TD? I only caught a quick replay of the play.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 19, 2016 13:41:57 GMT -8
If a ball carrier even steps a fraction of an inch on the inside edge of the sideline stripe and gets caught, they are considered to be out of bounds. The pylon is located outside of the outside edge of the sideline stripe, essentially 6 inches out of bounds.
In this case the player left his feet in bounds a couple yards from the end zone stripe and landed out of bounds while clearly hitting the face of the pylon. What is not clear (to me) is whether or not the ball passed over any part of the legal scoring area of the end zone stripe or end zone itself.
Is the pylon itself considered to be a legal extension of the width of the scoring field even though it's inside edge is located 6 inches beyond what is considered to be out of bounds in both the normal field of play and the rest of the end zone?
I know it's being nit-picky on my part, and I assume any clear contact with the inside of the pylon would make it fairly obvious at least part of the ball did pass over a legal scoring portion of the field, but in this case the ball seemed to be contacting the upfield face of the pylon (not inside face) while his body was to the outside of both the playing field and the pylon. Considering how nit-picky the field crew can be when it comes to the ball breaking the plane of the field-side edge of the end zone line I'm surprised to see there wasn't a review (unless the pylons are considered to be an extension of the scoring surface). In case of a review I expect the ruling would have stood rather than be confirmed or overturned.
I just don't know what t he rule is when it comes to hitting the pylon.
|
|
|
|
Post by electricbeaver on Nov 19, 2016 13:44:09 GMT -8
Watch the uck/Utah game, on Utah's first TD the runner clearly hit the pylon, but from my vantage point it wasn't clear he hit the inside of the pylon. The pylons themselves are located out of bounds, aren't they? I'm kind of surprised there was no review. I believe the goal line markers are inbounds - I.e., the out of bounds is on the outer face of the marker. (Sort of like the Lateral Hazard marker in golf.) Also, the field side face of the marker is on the plane of the goal line. So if the player, or ball, touches the marker ithais either "broken the plane" of the goal, and is inbounds. [on the other hand, I could be wrong - just looked a touchdown scored and the marker face is all OB - the face is on the OB line, and goal line plane.] The markers at the back and corners of the end zone ARE located OB. The face of the marker is on the plane of the end zone. [got that one right...] |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 19, 2016 13:49:56 GMT -8
Watch the uck/Utah game, on Utah's first TD the runner clearly hit the pylon, but from my vantage point it wasn't clear he hit the inside of the pylon. The pylons themselves are located out of bounds, aren't they? I'm kind of surprised there was no review. I believe the goal line markers are inbounds - I.e., the out of bounds is on the outer face of the marker. (Sort of like the Lateral Hazard marker in golf.) Also, the field side face of the marker is on the plane of the goal line. So if the player, or ball, touches the marker ithais either "broken the plane" of the goal, and is inbounds. The markers at the back and corners of the end zone ARE located OB. The face of the marker is on the plane of the end zone. Ah... it looked to me the pylons were outside of where they apparently are located. In the words of Emily Litella.... never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 19, 2016 18:37:52 GMT -8
If a ball carrier even steps a fraction of an inch on the inside edge of the sideline stripe and gets caught, they are considered to be out of bounds. The pylon is located outside of the outside edge of the sideline stripe, essentially 6 inches out of bounds. In this case the player left his feet in bounds a couple yards from the end zone stripe and landed out of bounds while clearly hitting the face of the pylon. What is not clear (to me) is whether or not the ball passed over any part of the legal scoring area of the end zone stripe or end zone itself. Is the pylon itself considered to be a legal extension of the width of the scoring field even though it's inside edge is located 6 inches beyond what is considered to be out of bounds in both the normal field of play and the rest of the end zone? I know it's being nit-picky on my part, and I assume any clear contact with the inside of the pylon would make it fairly obvious at least part of the ball did pass over a legal scoring portion of the field, but in this case the ball seemed to be contacting the upfield face of the pylon (not inside face) while his body was to the outside of both the playing field and the pylon. Considering how nit-picky the field crew can be when it comes to the ball breaking the plane of the field-side edge of the end zone line I'm surprised to see there wasn't a review (unless the pylons are considered to be an extension of the scoring surface). In case of a review I expect the ruling would have stood rather than be confirmed or overturned. I just don't know what t he rule is when it comes to hitting the pylon. Pylons are in bounds. |
|
