Anyone see the final play of the Eagles/Skins game

[RavensDomination]

Couldn't help but think of the Holmes non-TD, very similar play IMO. I hate to keep bringing it up, but I just caught the replay again, the Eagles were probably hoping they had the same officials we did so they would have gotten a TD out of that final play.

[SHORTTRACK]

He wasn't in the endzone and the ball wasn't as close to the goal line but another 1/2 yard and it would have been very close....

[Bez513]

FWIW they said that Tomlin would have gone for it on 4th and 1...now that would have been something.

[Ravenswarrior19]

Here we go with this situation again.

Watching the highlight shows/commentary/etc., it seems as if people think the receiver only needed to extend the ball across the goalline for a TD.

Not true. The receiver also needed to get 2 feet (or 1 knee/etc) down to establish possesion. So the play was never that close. The receiver was in the air and caught the ball at the 1, but was knocked back to the 3, where he hit the ground. By my understanding, that is where he was downed, and where the play ended.

The real question - Why were the officials spotting the ball at the 1? Do they understand the rule? Or is there some forward progress provision that I have not seen after a week of re-hashing this play?

[pyite32]

Here we go with this situation again.

Watching the highlight shows/commentary/etc., it seems as if people think the receiver only needed to extend the ball across the goalline for a TD.

Not true. The receiver also needed to get 2 feet (or 1 knee/etc) down to establish possesion. So the play was never that close. The receiver was in the air and caught the ball at the 1, but was knocked back to the 3, where he hit the ground. By my understanding, that is where he was downed, and where the play ended.

The real question - Why were the officials spotting the ball at the 1? Do they understand the rule? Or is there some forward progress provision that I have not seen after a week of re-hashing this play?

You are wrong. If the receiver had reached out, broke the plane with the ball, then maintained posession after getting hit to the ground it would have been a touchdown.

[Ravenswarrior19]

You are wrong. If the receiver had reached out, broke the plane with the ball, then maintained posession after getting hit to the ground it would have been a touchdown.

Well here's what I got

"Touchdown: When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent’s goal line, provided it is not a touchback. "

and

"Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds."

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

Sounds like you need possession before (or simultaneously with) breaking the plane. And you don't have possession till you have feet on the ground.

So a receiver can jump up, catch a ball cleanly in the endzone, but get knocked back out of the endzone - no TD. Its the same as the new force-out rule. Get knocked out of the back of endzone before your feet are down - no TD.

Whether I'm right or wrong, I think its definately something that should be clarified in the rulebook.

[pyite32]

I agree it should be clarified.

However if a player catches the ball in the air in the endzone, then is knocked back out of the endzone, hits the ground (a part of the body counts as two feet), and maintains posession of the ball. This would be a touchdown as the forward progress of the ball was across the plane of the goal line.

Otherwise any time a player catches the ball in the air a defender could put him on his shoulder before he come down and carry him out of the endzone. I know this scenerio is ridiculous but still... Under your interpretation it would be feasable.