if the entire pylon is sitting out of bounds

M

madscientist

1,000+ Posts
then why does touching the pylon constitute a touchdown?

it seems like the only way the ball is in the endzone is if it hits the pylon on the side that faces the endzone since the ball has to be over the line and in bounds to contact that side.

but when it hits the front of the pylon, like quan's fumble did, why is that not out of bounds?
 
The pylon is part of the endzone. That's why when the ball hit it and went out of bounds, it was a touchback. Same as if it had rolled into the endzone and then out.
 
i think he's asking why the pylon is part of the endzone when none of it is in the endzone. where the endzone ends, the pylon starts, so it seems weird to say that a ball hitting the outside of the pylon is considered in the endzone, when it hasn't actually crossed any part of the endzone.
 
but how can the pylon be a part of the endzone when it is not sitting in the endzone? it sits just off to the side, out of bounds.

istockphoto_2287808_goalline.jpg


this ain't baseball, the side line is out of bounds. if the whole thing was in the field of play, i'd understand.
 
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it a TD if the football crosses any part of the goal line? Because if so, then the pylon is even with that and it would be a TD were it to hit the inside of the pylon.
 
I see what the op is saying. Totally makes sense to me. The pylon is ob, so a ball that touches any part of it without first crossing the goal line should be considered ob as well, by that logic.

I understand that the rules don't seem to follow this logic. I think the op does, too, and is just wondering why (for those who didn't already get that).
 
The goal line actually extends into out-of-bounds territory. It is an imaginary line that extends beyond the sideline. That is why the ball doesn't have to be within the field of play even if the playing diving in the air himself is "out-of-bounds". It would actually be a TD if you ran in-bounds but the ball was in the outside arm and literally outside of the pylon.
 
It's because the plane of the goal line extends into infinity vertically and horizontally. If you leave the field of play (airborne) in bounds and cross the plane of the goal line 6 feet out of bounds without touching the ground, it's a touchdown.

On Cosby's fumble, the ball last touched the ground in bounds and bounded into the air and then struck the pylon. By it's nature the pylon where the goal line is. Thus, since the ball was airborne and had never touched out of bounds it's considered to have broken the plane of the goal line and, by rule, that is a touch back.

Edited for spelling.
 
You have to remember that the ball, in the play in question, had last bounced in bounds somewhere around the 4 - 5 yard line, before it hit the pylon. The pylon is out- of- bounds, but the point of the play in question is that the pylon is out of bounds at, or on, the goal line.

Since the ball hit the out-of-bounds pylon at the goal line the ball was ruled to have gone out of bounds on the goal line, therefore being a touchback.

You can't spot a ball touching the goal line!

Conversely, when determining whether a touchdown has been scored, either the ball, or the player himself, or both, must cross the goal inbounds, or inside the pylon. The ball carrier can, however, cross the goal line inside the pylon while carrying the ball outside the pylon.

This is the goal line to infinity rule as I understand it.
 
The coaching point to the play is to shift the ball to the boundary side arm so you are less likely to get stripped. I was surprised to see a smart veteran like Cosby make that mistake.
 
Rule 4 Section 2. Out of Bounds

3b. A ball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line.

on another point in this discussion:
4b. A touchdown may be scored if the ball is inbounds and has broken the plane of the goal line before or simultaneous to the runner going out of bounds.
 
Thanks to 71Grad for posting the rules. It's amazing how much we always pontificate on things like this before somebody actually takes the trouble to post something definitive.
cool.gif
 
And that something is the ball.
It is a little odd that the pylon is sitting on the out of bounds stripe, which at any other spot if the ball crosses it, would be out of bounds. I am referring to the horizontal length of the field, not the plane of the goal line. But by definition, the pylon is in the field of play, so when a runner leaves his feet, flies out of bounds, but just touches the pylon with the ball on the very inside edge of the pylon, that is a TD. So you get an extra three inches of field width there at the goal line that is not out of bounds, unlike the other 100 yards of playing surface.
Maybe the pylon should be just inside the stripe, so this width discrepency would not exist. Not likely to change, so live with it.
 
I love these stupid phrases that get out there that are incorrect:

"The ground can't cause a fumble"

"The goal line extends to infinity and beyond."
 
The goal line extends around the world. (2-11-1)
The in bounds portion of the goal line extends from pylon to pylon. Pylons are out of bounds, and a ball that touches them is by definition out of bounds beyond the goal line. (4-2-3-b)

An inbounds player (ie, one who is contacting the ground inbounds) may score with the ball outside the pylon. A player who is tackled toward out of bounds but extends the ball over the goal line (extended) before contacting the ground out of bounds should be awarded a touchdown. (8-2-1)

An airborne player is neither inbounds nor out of bounds until he returns to the ground. A player who dives in an attempt to score and crosses the sideline, and subsequently lands out of bounds, will only be awarded a touchdown if the ball crosses the inbounds portion of the goal line. If not, the ball will be spotted at it's forwardmost point when it crossed the sideline. (4-2-4-e)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top