kobebryant wrote:I think it would pretty cool if we took this idea to hockey. Not only does the puck have to cross the goaline but it has to stay in the net - imagine the battles in front/inside the net.

I do think it is cool that a self proclaimed "old guy" is quoting Notorious B.I.G in his sig.

lol, i'm not that old, plus i was saying it way before he was ever biggy smalls...

anyways i look at it like this... you take that exact same play, redo it exactly as it unfolds with the exact same results.. but instead of him falling into the endzone, he falls at the one,the ball is jarred loose.. would it still be considered a catch? i don't think so.. and that is why i don't like the rule..

hawker84 wrote:
anyways i look at it like this... you take that exact same play, redo it exactly as it unfolds with the exact same results.. but instead of him falling into the endzone, he falls at the one,the ball is jarred loose.. would it still be considered a catch? i don't think so.. and that is why i don't like the rule..

Which play? Rice's TD catch? If so, yes it would still be a catch, and in fact there is chance it wasn't even a fumble as his knee is down at almost the exact same time as he is being hit. At worst, it would have a been a catch and fumble, as he had clear possession and turned up field to run.

Now that you are starting to question whether or not it was even a catch, makes me wonder if you truly understand the rules of the game to begin with?

i think it was a catch, but i think if it was in the field of play it would have been reviewed as a possible fumble...as boom boom of a play as it was , i think it could have been ruled a fumble, if it happened on the one...

the fact that you can't except the fact that i know what the rule is and i just don't like it is laughable at this point... you don't have to agree with my opinions dude... doesn't mean i don't know the rules.. K

hawker84 wrote:i think it was a catch, but i think if it was in the field of play it would have been reviewed as a possible fumble...as boom boom of a play as it was , i think it could have been ruled a fumble, if it happened on the one...

the fact that you can't except the fact that i know what the rule is and i just don't like it is laughable at this point... you don't have to agree with my opinions dude... doesn't mean i don't know the rules.. K

Fumble yes, I agree with, that would have been up for review. But this is what you said:

would it still be considered a catch? i don't think so.. and that is why i don't like the rule..

So what are you trying to argue? That it wouldn't be a catch, a fumble, or a TD? Between your vague reasoning, inability to keep your argument straight, and your defensiveness, not sure what you are hoping to accomplish here.

i'll agree with you , i didn't word that post right... yes i thought it was a catch, but i also think if he had come down on the one instead of in the endzone it would have been ruled a fumble... sorry for the confusion.

hawker84 wrote:i'll agree with you , i didn't word that post right... yes i thought it was a catch, but i also think if he had come down on the one instead of in the endzone it would have been ruled a fumble... sorry for the confusion.

So you don't like the rule that a play is over as soon as the ball crosses the end line because...get this...if he was a yard short of the endzone, it would have been a fumble? Am I reading this correctly?

no... had nothing to do with being stopped short of the endzone...

i don't like the rule because if that same play happend in the field of play, it would have at the least been reviewed as a possible fumble. my whole point was i feel they should have to make the same plays in the endzone just like on the field... having said that, i understand there are other situations that the endzone offers that you do not get on the field of play such as diving for the corner and hitting the pileon with the ball, etc... so there would have to be some exceptions..

since it was the seahawks that scored on that play, i love the call.. had it been a bears TD, i would have been pissed..

hawker84 wrote:no... had nothing to do with being stopped short of the endzone...

i don't like the rule because if that same play happend in the field of play, it would have at the least been reviewed as a possible fumble. my whole point was i feel they should have to make the same plays in the endzone just like on the field...

It was reviewed as a possible fumble, you realize that, yes? It was confirmed to be a touchdown.

The play is no different than a runner's forward progress being stopped, and then the ball coming out; the play is dead in that situation as well, as soon as the whistle blows, as you can't challenge forward progress. Obviously there are some arbitrary rules that are unique to scoring plays, but the essence of the rule is the same across the board.

hawker84 wrote:call me old fashioned or whatever, but i hate that rule, where only the ball has to cross the plane to be considered a touchdown.. i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it... i can't count how many td's have been scored in the last few years where the ball has been fumbled emmediately after the ball crossed the goal.

before you attack, don't get me wrong, i'm very grateful for the Rice and G Tate TD's yesterday, but i just think this game is getting too damn soft, can't touch qb's any more even when there outside the pocket, can't touch recievers any more, a slight hands to the face is a huge penalty... just go ahead and purchase the flags, because that's the direction this league is heading to, flag football..

guess i'm just longing for the old days, when football was about blood and guts, and players like Tatum and LT were to be feared when you cross the middle or run the ball.. guess i'm just getting old and stuck in my ways.. your opinions?

Wow, so what you are saying is that any vulnerable player is free game to blow up so he can be separated from the ball and if that happens there is no TD even if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line clearly in the possession of that player. This is an interesting approach but contrary to the present rules and an approach which would lead to more than one serious injury.

The game can still have physicality but there is no need to encourage a situation where players can get hurt. I disagree with you.

all scoring plays are reviewed, again i know it's a shocker but i do know and understand most of the rules... and you're trying to tell me the whistle was blown before that ball came out... beg to differ.. apples and oranges..


let's just agree to disagree because at this point we're just repeating ourselves... i respect your opinions and everyone elses , just don't agree with a rule that's been around forever.. i also don't like the horse collar rule, we can debate that and get a fresh start? NO?

jammerhawk wrote:

hawker84 wrote:call me old fashioned or whatever, but i hate that rule, where only the ball has to cross the plane to be considered a touchdown.. i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it... i can't count how many td's have been scored in the last few years where the ball has been fumbled emmediately after the ball crossed the goal.

before you attack, don't get me wrong, i'm very grateful for the Rice and G Tate TD's yesterday, but i just think this game is getting too damn soft, can't touch qb's any more even when there outside the pocket, can't touch recievers any more, a slight hands to the face is a huge penalty... just go ahead and purchase the flags, because that's the direction this league is heading to, flag football..

guess i'm just longing for the old days, when football was about blood and guts, and players like Tatum and LT were to be feared when you cross the middle or run the ball.. guess i'm just getting old and stuck in my ways.. your opinions?

Wow, so what you are saying is that any vulnerable player is free game to blow up so he can be separated from the ball and if that happens there is no TD even if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line clearly in the possession of that player. This is an interesting approach but contrary to the present rules and an approach which would lead to more than one serious injury.

The game can still have physicality but there is no need to encourage a situation where players can get hurt. I disagree with you.

huh? not saying that at all

where anywhere in my post or post's did i say i want to see more vunerable players getting hit? reaching.

hawker84 wrote:all scoring plays are reviewed, again i know it's a shocker but i do know and understand most of the rules... and you're trying to tell me the whistle was blown before that ball came out... beg to differ.. apples and oranges..

All scoring views are up for review, yes. There is a two step process though. They are either buzzed down to the field to be looked at, or are confirmed. This specific instance Mike Carey actually went under the hood to examine the play, which doesn't happen automatically.

And no, I am not saying the play was whistled dead. I am saying the play is dead as soon as the ball crosses the end line in the possession of a player. Similar to how a play is dead as soon as the whistle blows on the field. You are asking for the plays in the endzone to be consistent with what is called on the field, and I am showing you exactly that. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

1) In the field of play the Rice catch is complete and he is without a doubt DOWN. He lands on the ground with the ball in possession (which is why it was deemed a TD) then gets hit and the ball comes loose when he is on the ground. That is down by contact at the moment of impact. No fumble would be called if this was in the field of play, endzone, in his backyard, Madden NFL or wherever this was played. The only place that is a fumble is on the Chicago Bears message board........

2) When you break the plane the play has to end. The whole goal of the game of football is to get more points than the opponent. This is accomplished by getting the ball across the plane into the opponents endzone or kicking a FG. If you break the plane the play is dead the second it happens. Otherwise what he lands everyone can pile up on him and take a few licks and then we see if the ball is still in possession.

What about a play in the middle of the field. The player reaches out the ball is at the 40 yard line, the body is at the 38 yard line, knee is down, he is touched, the ball comes loose. Where do you want the ball placed? The rules say it is on the 40 yard line and the offense keeps the possession.

Should this also be a turnover then? Should the ball be back on the 38 yard line? if you place it on the 40 yard line then why would a touchdown be different?

hawker84 wrote:call me old fashioned or whatever, but i hate that rule, where only the ball has to cross the plane to be considered a touchdown.. i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it... i can't count how many td's have been scored in the last few years where the ball has been fumbled emmediately after the ball crossed the goal.

before you attack, don't get me wrong, i'm very grateful for the Rice and G Tate TD's yesterday, but i just think this game is getting too damn soft, can't touch qb's any more even when there outside the pocket, can't touch recievers any more, a slight hands to the face is a huge penalty... just go ahead and purchase the flags, because that's the direction this league is heading to, flag football..

guess i'm just longing for the old days, when football was about blood and guts, and players like Tatum and LT were to be feared when you cross the middle or run the ball.. guess i'm just getting old and stuck in my ways.. your opinions?

I am another old codger I hear ya I feel your pain.

mikeak wrote:What about a play in the middle of the field. The player reaches out the ball is at the 40 yard line, the body is at the 38 yard line, knee is down, he is touched, the ball comes loose. Where do you want the ball placed? The rules say it is on the 40 yard line and the offense keeps the possession.

Should this also be a turnover then? Should the ball be back on the 38 yard line? if you place it on the 40 yard line then why would a touchdown be different?

Exactly. These type of plays show the uniformity I was trying to express. It is the same call regardless of where it is at on the field, granted that the officials call it correctly.

it's not the same,nor is it true... the rule states (correct me if i'm wrong) that the play is dead as soon as the ball crosses the plane.. a play on the field is dead after the whistle blows.. therefore it is nothing alike. so what am i not understanding? plays on the field and plays in the endzone are no where near consistent as to how to they are called dead..

I had a great freaking post but hit post reply instead of submit - AAARRGGGH

In the field of play the play is not dead based on a whistle. It is dead based on the player being down by contact either on the tackle causing him to go down or touched on the ground.

The play in the endzone is dead based upon accomplishing the goal of brining the ball across the field into the endzone. There is nothing else to accomplish.

my original post was much better so give me credit for that instead

first of all those are two different plays arer entirely different

.. but to answer, i've always felt the ball should be placed where the ball carriers body first touches the ground, be it a knee, hand or whatever... if the ball comes loose, during the stretching it out process, then i feel it should be ruled a fumble..because he is still making a football move.. i know the ground can't cause a fumble , yet another rule i don't like..

the rice play .. he was hit and the ball was dislodged at the same time he was contacting the ground, had that play been on the 20 yrd line, you cannot tell me that play wouldn't have been reviewed and possibly called a fumble...

hawker84 wrote:it's not the same,nor is it true... the rule states (correct me if i'm wrong) that the play is dead as soon as the ball crosses the plane.. a play on the field is dead after the whistle blows.. therefore it is nothing alike. so what am i not understanding? plays on the field and plays in the endzone are no where near consistent as to how to they are called dead..

It mind boggling that you don't see this, maybe you are just being obtuse on purpose.

Each play has a designated end, where upon that point the play is dead, and nothing after that matters. In the field of play, that is the whistle being blown (either due to a player being down or forward progress stopped), a player stepping out of bounds, or the ball crossing the end line in the possession of a player. They all essentially achieve the same thing, play over. You are calling for the continuation of a play which has been deemed dead, just because you don't like the finality of it.

Would you rather go back to the rules pre-1889 where you had to physically place the ball on the ground in the endzone? At what point would a play be over in the endzone then? This is the problem, you are taking something which is arbitrary in nature (the endline) but universally agreed upon, and wanting to replace it with something much more complex in applying in action, but also arbitrary. My vote is for the universally agreed upon rules, which everyone and their mother can see with their own two eyes (unless your name is Bill Leavy).

With that said, I am out of this discussion. If you don't get it by now, you never will.

mikeak wrote:I had a great freaking post but hit post reply instead of submit - AAARRGGGH

In the field of play the play is not dead based on a whistle. It is dead based on the player being down by contact either on the tackle causing him to go down or touched on the ground.

The play in the endzone is dead based upon accomplishing the goal of brining the ball across the field into the endzone. There is nothing else to accomplish.

my original post was much better so give me credit for that instead

credit given... but to retort.. how many plays have you seen when a player appears to be down by contact , but gets up and continues the play because the whistle wasn't blown? happens quite a bit..

and again you guys keep quoting the whole breaking the plane rule to me, like i don't get it.. i do... i just don't like it..

Aros breaks a plane almost every week.

I gest, but regarding this play.....if it were a mere 3 yards before the goal line and the player was fumbling or didnt have control it would be ruled as such. Therefore the break the plane rule is bullshit in my opinion if they are fumbling without having both feet down and inbounds crossing the friggin goal line.

Start watching rubgy = problem fixed

it's mind boggling to me that you don't get that i do get it, i just don't agree with it... it's an opinion guy, nothing more nothing less.... my opinion about the rule.. whether i'm right or wrong , it's my opinion... i could care less if it's been around since the roman games, i don't like it, among other rules... why is it so hard for you to understand that?

Largent80 wrote:Aros breaks a plane almost every week.

I gest, but regarding this play.....if it were a mere 3 yards before the goal line and the player was fumbling or didnt have control it would be ruled as such. Therefore the break the plane rule is bullshit in my opinion if they are fumbling without having both feet down and inbounds crossing the friggin goal line.

give you an example, there was a DB a couple weeks back, had a pick six took it to the house, but tossed the ball away in celebration just before he crossed the goal line, it was ruled a TD, wasn't even reviewed when he clearly didn't cross the plane..

another one, less we forget NY Jets and testeverde's bullsh*t TD, his helmet crossed the plane, not even the ball , ruled a TD, no playoffs for hawks... that was the play where i started quetioning this rule.

hawker84 wrote:

Largent80 wrote:Aros breaks a plane almost every week.

I gest, but regarding this play.....if it were a mere 3 yards before the goal line and the player was fumbling or didnt have control it would be ruled as such. Therefore the break the plane rule is bullshit in my opinion if they are fumbling without having both feet down and inbounds crossing the friggin goal line.

give you an example, there was a DB a couple weeks back, had a pick six took it to the house, but tossed the ball away in celebration just before he crossed the goal line, it was ruled a TD, wasn't even reviewed when he clearly didn't cross the plane..

another one, less we forget NY Jets and testeverde's bullsh*t TD, his helmet crossed the plane, not even the ball , ruled a TD, no playoffs for hawks... that was the play where i started quetioning this rule.

Ummmm.....how are those examples of the rule? Those are examples of refs botching calls.

hawker84 wrote:

Largent80 wrote:Aros breaks a plane almost every week.

I gest, but regarding this play.....if it were a mere 3 yards before the goal line and the player was fumbling or didnt have control it would be ruled as such. Therefore the break the plane rule is bullshit in my opinion if they are fumbling without having both feet down and inbounds crossing the friggin goal line.

give you an example, there was a DB a couple weeks back, had a pick six took it to the house, but tossed the ball away in celebration just before he crossed the goal line, it was ruled a TD, wasn't even reviewed when he clearly didn't cross the plane..

another one, less we forget NY Jets and testeverde's bullsh*t TD, his helmet crossed the plane, not even the ball , ruled a TD, no playoffs for hawks... that was the play where i started quetioning this rule.

Oh man, I couldn't resist. Neither one of these plays brings into question the play being dead once the ball crossed the end line. But, considering the rest of posts, it doesn't surprise me that you don't get that either. Pretty much every example you have posted here, or complained about, is the result of human error (i.e. the refs) which if you want to start bitching about the refs, I will whole heartedly back you up on that one.

I am making a white russian, anyone want one?

AbsolutNET wrote:

hawker84 wrote:

Largent80 wrote:Aros breaks a plane almost every week.

I gest, but regarding this play.....if it were a mere 3 yards before the goal line and the player was fumbling or didnt have control it would be ruled as such. Therefore the break the plane rule is bullshit in my opinion if they are fumbling without having both feet down and inbounds crossing the friggin goal line.

give you an example, there was a DB a couple weeks back, had a pick six took it to the house, but tossed the ball away in celebration just before he crossed the goal line, it was ruled a TD, wasn't even reviewed when he clearly didn't cross the plane..

another one, less we forget NY Jets and testeverde's bullsh*t TD, his helmet crossed the plane, not even the ball , ruled a TD, no playoffs for hawks... that was the play where i started quetioning this rule.

Ummmm.....how are those examples of the rule? Those are examples of refs botching calls.

ya that's true, damanit, thought it sounded good at the time.. but that is when started disliking the crossing the plane thing,

tell you what FTW, you're right i'm wrong, i gracefully accept defeat to a clearly far more educated football fan than I.. congrats on your victory.. maybe i should start watching rugby.. might as well i don't know their rules either..

Largent80 wrote:I am making a white russian, anyone want one?

A beverage man? I'm in!!

you kidding , heck ya.. i'm just happy i've been able to knock a few hrs off the clock at work...

on a serious note, it felt good to debate a topic, have good dialog, good points, and it never went to the personal level where a lot of these go.. i apprecate all the responses.. now lets get into this whole tackling by dreadlock thing

hawker84 wrote:.. but to answer, i've always felt the ball should be placed where the ball carriers body first touches the ground, be it a knee, hand or whatever... if the ball comes loose, during the stretching it out process, then i feel it should be ruled a fumble..because he is still making a football move.. i know the ground can't cause a fumble , yet another rule i don't like..

the rice play .. he was hit and the ball was dislodged at the same time he was contacting the ground, had that play been on the 20 yrd line, you cannot tell me that play wouldn't have been reviewed and possibly called a fumble...

First part consistent with your take on the TD rules. I completely disagree but appreciate the fact that I am discussing this with someone that is consistent in his beliefs. Consistently wrong of course but never-the-less

I haven't replayed it over and over again but to me he lands on the ground then gets smacked while firmly sitting on the ground in the end-zone. He was down, got hit falls backwards and balls comes loose.

As I recall it he did not get hit as he was going down but when his body was on the ground. I looked at it specifically at the time because if they ruled him outside of the endzone it was key item to if it would be a turnover or down on the 1 yard line. I recall the commentators saying something to this effect as well

hawker84 wrote: plays on the field and plays in the endzone are no where near consistent as to how to they are called dead..

Right, and the breaking the plane rule takes out all doubt or referee interpretation of possession.

Did it break the plane? Yes. /discussion.

All other ways of determining whether it was a TD have to do with possession. Did he possess the ball all the way to the ground? Did he have possession all the way through the "football move?" All this does is leave it up to referee interpretation, which as we've found out to our benefit, but more times than not detrimental to our benefit........is not a good thing if you can avoid it. Breaking the plane avoids it.

i absolutely agree with you SGT, when that call goes for us, but if that same call is for a opposing player is it not detrimental to our benefit? kinda goes both ways does it not.. but i'm all for taking referies out of the equation, if the plane rule accomplishes that, then i'm for it on the aspect.

Mikeak... i have not seen a replay of the play as well, i'm just going off memory... but to me he looked to still be falling when he was contacted, very close , i could be wrong on that...

hawker84 wrote: but i'm all for taking referies out of the equation, if the plane rule accomplishes that, then i'm for it on the aspect.

It does, that's why the league implemented it.

/discussion