breaking the plane

hawker84":38ct5y7x said:

AbsolutNET":38ct5y7x said:

What does Jack Tatum have to do with the ball breaking the plane of the goal line?

You don't sound old because you don't like a rule, you sound old because you started talking about one thing and ended up talking about something totally unrelated.

Click to expand...

the whole post was in reference to the league is getting soft, using that rule as one of the examples.. all these ticky tack fouls and calls/rulings makes it harder for me to enjoy the game.. the game was played differently back in the tatum and LT days,, do you not agree?

Click to expand...

I think the game was officiated differently, of course. The game itself has evolved and changed and I dont think anyone disagrees with how you feel about the amount of new rules we've seen over the past 4 or 5 years. I just don't understand how the goal line rule relates in any way and was just bustin your balls for being a meandering geriatric.

hawker84":18dp59xf said:

my point is , i don't like the rule... not trying to make it hard to understand? i don't like it, that's just my opinion.. i think a player should maintain possesion of the ball, just like any other play on the field.. you're entitled to disagree..

Click to expand...

Maintain possession of the ball until when? Until the play is over, correct? Once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over. End discussion.

TDOTSEAHAWK":18dp59xf said:

They actually used to get killed on the field. Between 1900 and 1910 there more than 50 on field deaths in football.

Click to expand...

Most of them were skull fractures, I believe. One of the reason why the argument to go back to LESS head protection never flew with me. Yeah it would make players stop using their helmets as weapons, but skull fractures are way worse than concussions.

tonyseahawk":18dp59xf said:

Actually, Jeremy Shockey caught the ball in the endzone in the center and a split second after his feet touched, he was nailed and the ball dislodged. Results......touchdown. The rule for that game was, he caught the ball in the air, had possession, and the second both feet touched, the play is over resulting in a touchdown.

I think its a crap rule, and should have went the other way. But that was the way they ruled it and that dick Mike Peroeirerarra said at the time is what the correct call

Click to expand...

I remember this play, was in the stadium when it happened. It shouldn't have been a TD, and I believe the subsequent rules that have been put in place would make it an incompletion in today's game.

i am a meandering geriatric, it has to be true.. i get pumped up when i see a flippin grass stain these days... how'd i get so old, where did the time go.. lol don't even get me started on the touchdown celebrations...

FTW, i understand how the rule works, i simply don't like it, you're putting to much thought into it my friend... i ain't mad at you tho bro, you've got the best Sig on the .Net

edited for spelling

You are thinking about it wrong. Lets say you get two feet down in the end zone, and then fumble. That shouldn't count? Just like when the player is down, as soon as the requirements for a TD are satisfied the play ends. If you have possession while 1 inch of the ball gets in, you fulfilled the requirements. Makes perfect sense to me.

hawker84":3t7ojztb said:

i

FTW, i understand how the rule works, i simply don't like it, you're putting to much thought into it my friend...

Click to expand...

Or maybe you aren't putting enough into it?

You said this: "i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it"

The rule for the ball crossing the plane (and subsequently the play being over) has been in place since 1889. So I HIGHLY doubt you played in an era that is different than today's rules regarding that. You also vaguely state that you think you should have to "maintain possession" and I ask, up until when? Some arbitrary point AFTER the ball has crossed the end line? That doesn't make any sense, and is contrary to the way football has been played for 100+ years.

jeeezzz.. agian , i UNDERSTAND the rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and i understand it's been in place for a long time.......

let's just say when i played, you made sure you secured the ball before,during, and after breaking the plane..... and yes i've had td's taken off the board for fumbling after i've crossed the plane.. i was a reciever in case you were wondering...

I know the old football rule was based on rugby, and was abolished years and years ago. I am sorry I didn't read the whole thread. Just wanted to chime in if nobody else did. It is called a "try", and you have to go over the line and physically place the ball on the ground to score. It is one of the few things I remember from my physical education classes for teachers. We had to learn about so many different sports and how they were related and developed from each other and so on. It was seriously a difficult class because the guy who taught it has a doctorate in sports science and has a history degree and made sure we knew EVERY game on the planet. I believe the breaking the plane rule came into place a long time ago, like seriously in the days when they just started with the forward pass.

If anything the rules have changed the other way, where now you're required to keep holding onto a ball when you hit out of bounds, and that rule didn't used to be in place. It seems you just had to have possession in bounds and it didn't matter what happened out, and there was also a force out rule that no longer exists.

hawker84":3k0e5d5j said:

jeeezzz.. agian , i UNDERSTAND the rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and i understand it's been in place for a long time.......

let's say when i played, you made sure you possed the ball before,during, and after breaking the plane..... and yes i've had td's taken off the board for fumbling after i've crossed the plane.. i was a reciever in case you were wondering...

Click to expand...

Like I said in my first post, the difference is most likely calling a game real time without having instant replay to back up the call. A lot of the time I think refs lean on instant replay in situations like you are describing, and it has become a crutch. Human error doesn't change the rule though, and that is what I am saying.

As for you understanding the rule and how long it has been in place, you could have fooled me :mrgreen:

When I first started playing foots, a player's 'forward progress' had to be stopped before he was considered 'down.' Can you imagine Lynch in such a scenario? In college it was the 'knee down' rule, but not in the pros.

While I miss some of the old, blood, snot, and teeth, flying about, I also understand the NFL is a business. A business which tries to protect it's investments.

2 cents.

finally, we can end the discussion on an agreement.. :180670: absolutely instant replay and human error play a big part in the calls these days... there's plenty of rules and rule changes established with the modern game i don't agree with, that rule being one of many...

OP is avoiding the quesiton everyone is asking him. Maintain the ball, UNTIL WHEN? Does he have to hold the ball until he walks off the field towards his teammates? Or does he need to control it until after the game ends? So is OP in favor of spiking the ball in celebration being called a fumble? Make your point clear OP, when do you think the play should be ruled over?

therealjohncarlson":uzo622ia said:

OP is avoiding the quesiton everyone is asking him. Maintain the ball, UNTIL WHEN? Does he have to hold the ball until he walks off the field towards his teammates? Or does he need to control it until after the game ends? So is OP in favor of spiking the ball in celebration being called a fumble? Make your point clear OP, when do you think the play should be ruled over?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, a smart assed answer fits right in here.

:141847_bnono:

i will take the high road still...

how about it's over , just like when a play is over on the playing field... i don't have a problem with players diving across the corner of the endzone and putting the ball over the pileon, kind of like the tight end for the steelers did yesterday... but say a running back tries to dive over the pile and reaches the ball out over the line, and it gets dislodged i feel should be ruled a fumble...

if a reciever comes down with two feet in bounds, gets blasted and holds onto the ball, TD, if it becomes dislodged imcomplete pass, (i've seen this called a TD this year, more than once)

so to answer your question, i don't have a clear answer (one step, two steps i don't know), other than, maintain posession after crossing the line..

hawker84":1yii4g3z said:

i will take the high road still...

how about it's over , just like when a play is over on the playing field... i don't have a problem with players diving across the corner of the endzone and putting the ball over the pileon, kind of like the tight end for the steelers did yesterday... but say a running back tries to dive over the pile and reaches the ball out over the line, and it gets dislodged i feel should be ruled a fumble...

if a reciever comes down with two feet in bounds, gets blasted and holds onto the ball, TD, if it becomes dislodged imcomplete pass, (i've seen this called a TD this year, more than once)

so to answer your question, i don't have a clear answer (one step, two steps i don't know), other than, maintain posession after crossing the line..

Click to expand...

No offense, but you aren't doing yourself any favors here. Just let it be.

sorry i don't like the rule, if you have a problem with that, they're plenty other threads..

hawker84":18hc5302 said:

sorry i don't like the rule, if you have a problem with that, they're plenty other threads..

Click to expand...

It isn't that, I don't care one way or another. But from the very start claiming that the rules were different when you played, to not having any real semblance of what should and shouldn't be considered maintaining possession in your opinion, your argument comes out flat. We can talk about what rules we like and dislike all day long, there are many that I think are stupid and detract from the game. It is just odd to hear someone denounce a rule that has been in place for so long and is a fundamental part of the game at all levels.

Either way, I think this thread has run its course. Have a good day, hopefully you are enjoying the win to the fullest.

Want to take this to another level? Would the NFL be as popular, and would teams throw the ball as much as they do now if the rules reverted to where every incomplete forward pass was like a lateral, a free ball, and whoever got to it first had possession?

seedhawk":38b6ng6o said:

Want to take this to another level?

Click to expand...

No.

It's a very good rule change.

Any rule that takes away referee judgement is a good thing IMO. "Breaking the plane" is a very simple thing to review, either the ball crossed the line or not. When you start bringing in judgement about possession, then that gives the refs and review officials more changes to screw up the call.

good point...