CRAB TD?

Donate To GopherHole
LakerFan

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?
 

LakerFan said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 

LakerFan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

cjbfbp said:
Toe was in-bounds but heel was out of bounds.
Click to expand...
^ 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.
 


LakerFan said:
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?
Click to expand...
They said that since he was stepping down in one motion, the whole foot had to be in bounds, not just the toe.
 

matt said:
I am surprised at how many people are surprised at the rule/ruling. The TV commentators were surprised at it as well.
Click to expand...
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.
 

btowngopher said:
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.
Click to expand...
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? ;)
 



btowngopher said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

btowngopher said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
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? ;)
Click to expand...
Ref should call it on the field and it can be reviewed. A nanosecond would not be conclusive to over turn it.
 

Word said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 



FredCoxRocks said:
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.
Click to expand...
I get the rule and agree it was called right, but I still think it’s a bad rule.
 

btowngopher said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's not how the rule is written.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom