CRAB TD?

LakerFan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
1,738
Reaction score
382
Points
83
Replay in the stadium looked like CRAB had one toe clearly down in the endzone. Was there a bobble or earlier touch out of bounds? Did they question it on the broadcast?
 

Replay in the stadium looked like CRAB had one toe clearly down in the endzone. Was there a bobble or earlier touch out of bounds? Did they question it on the broadcast?
It's how the rule is written. If you drag your toe moving forward, all you need is a toe. But if you are taking a step (as he did backwards) then it is the whole foot and if your heel is out then you are out
 

Replay in the stadium looked like CRAB had one toe clearly down in the endzone. Was there a bobble or earlier touch out of bounds? Did they question it on the broadcast?

Toe was in-bounds but heel was out of bounds.
 

Toe was in-bounds but heel was out of bounds.
^ This.

Had he "tapped" his toe down, touchdown. But the back of his foot came down on the line, out of bounds.
 

I am surprised at how many people are surprised at the rule/ruling. The TV commentators were surprised at it as well.
 


Replay in the stadium looked like CRAB had one toe clearly down in the endzone. Was there a bobble or earlier touch out of bounds? Did they question it on the broadcast?
They said that since he was stepping down in one motion, the whole foot had to be in bounds, not just the toe.
 

I am surprised at how many people are surprised at the rule/ruling. The TV commentators were surprised at it as well.
Rules guy on the broadcast nailed it and explained it really clearly as did the ref during the call after replay.
 

Really dumb rule. With instant replay if you can clearly see the toe come down first then why not allow it? I get it can be hard to tell, but then just make a ruling on the field and don’t overturn it if it’s too hard to see.
 

Really dumb rule. With instant replay if you can clearly see the toe come down first then why not allow it? I get it can be hard to tell, but then just make a ruling on the field and don’t overturn it if it’s too hard to see.
Now ya went and did it. Now you're opening up a can or worms and this thread will go for pages and pages dissecting some little nuances of some contrived example lol.

Like this: what if you're catching the ball near the sideline and your heel hits a nanosecond before the front part of your foot, heel in bounds, front half of foot out of bounds. Is that a catch to you? ;)
 



Really dumb rule. With instant replay if you can clearly see the toe come down first then why not allow it? I get it can be hard to tell, but then just make a ruling on the field and don’t overturn it if it’s too hard to see.
What if they step with heel first and then the rest of the foot is out of bounds? I think most would agree that's not a catch. Crab did the backwards version of that. Toe then heel. Still a step, just not the usual kind.
 

Really dumb rule. With instant replay if you can clearly see the toe come down first then why not allow it? I get it can be hard to tell, but then just make a ruling on the field and don’t overturn it if it’s too hard to see.
The rules guy in the studio explained it perfectly, as did Word in post #2. The rule makes sense. It was the right call and easy to see.
CRAB did a great job of hauling that one in though, at first I thought Morgan was throwing it away.
 

Now ya went and did it. Now you're opening up a can or worms and this thread will go for pages and pages dissecting some little nuances of some contrived example lol.

Like this: what if you're catching the ball near the sideline and your heel hits a nanosecond before the front part of your foot, heel in bounds, front half of foot out of bounds. Is that a catch to you? ;)
Ref should call it on the field and it can be reviewed. A nanosecond would not be conclusive to over turn it.
 

What if they step with heel first and then the rest of the foot is out of bounds? I think most would agree that's not a catch. Crab did the backwards version of that. Toe then heel. Still a step, just not the usual kind.
That’s a catch if you can obviously tell the heel touched first. There’s plenty of cases like the one we saw where you can tell part of the foot came down inbound first. Is this rule even the same as NFL?
 



The rules guy in the studio explained it perfectly, as did Word in post #2. The rule makes sense. It was the right call and easy to see.
CRAB did a great job of hauling that one in though, at first I thought Morgan was throwing it away.
I get the rule and agree it was called right, but I still think it’s a bad rule.
 

That’s a catch if you can obviously tell the heel touched first. There’s plenty of cases like the one we saw where you can tell part of the foot came down inbound first. Is this rule even the same as NFL?
That's not how the rule is written.
 







Top Bottom