The Gurley "fumble" Touchback

[jrry32]

What I'm wondering is even if Gurley didn't have complete control of the ball, he was touching it after he stepped out of bounds before it hit the pylon. Isn't the ball considered dead when a player who is out of bounds touches it?

 

[Zodi]

but I thought the whole pylon counted as the end zone.

You're right, it does. You have to break the plane to touch the pylon.

Not sure why anyone would try to debate otherwise.

 

[jrry32]

Yep, the refs screwed us:
https://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2012/12/23/randall-cobb-takes-advantage-of-bizarre-nfl-rule
The NFL's rule regarding that play is the same as on a fumble: If any part of a player's body is out of bounds when he makes contact with the football, the ball is considered out of bounds as well.

 

[lordbannon]

Keep seeing people saying it wasn't a fumble and I'm not sure what they saw. He clearly started losing the ball before stepping out and the ball hit pylon which is all you need for it to be considered in the end zone. The only way that's not a touchback is if it was indisputable but again it clearly was. Really the only thing to be upset about is Gurley not diving

He fumbled. certainly. But for the purposes of a TD at least, the ball has to go inside of the pylon. Hitting the outer edge does not count as a TD. The pylon is certainly not inside the end zone.

 

[shovelpass]

What I'm wondering is even if Gurley didn't have complete control of the ball, he was touching it after he stepped out of bounds before it hit the pylon. Isn't the ball considered dead when a player who is out of bounds touches it?

From my perspective, ball comes out, Gurley steps out, ball bounces off the pylon into Gurley's hand. The ball hit the pylon before Gurley touched it.

 

[jrry32]

Yep, refs screwed us on that call:

View: https://twitter.com/NFLosophy/status/917123326182600705

 

[Tron]

He fumbled. certainly. But for the purposes of a TD at least, the ball has to go inside of the pylon. Hitting the outer edge does not count as a TD. The pylon is certainly not inside the end zone.

i always thought if ball hits pylon its a td, never seen it not be.

 

[jrry32]

From my perspective, ball comes out, Gurley steps out, ball bounces off the pylon into Gurley's hand. The ball hit the pylon before Gurley touched it.

The ball was touching his hand. The only debate would be control. But that's irrelevant (now that I confirmed the rule). That should have been a dead ball at the 1.

 

[Tron]

Still dont think refs screwed us. Dont matter. We lost. Could have won many other times and they screwed the pooch. Shit happens. Learn from it and move on. Time to focus on Jags.

 

[RamBall]

As far as I know, only touching the inside of the pylon counts as being in the end zone. The other 3 sides should be out of bounds.

How does the ball hitting an item out of bounds, and not beyond the plane count as fumbling out of the end zone?

I get why fumbling out of the end zone is a touchback. I do not get why the edge of the pylon against the field of play counts as in the end zone.

The front of the pylon is the same as the plain of the goal line. Bad break for TG and the Rams.

 

[lordbannon]

Still dont think refs screwed us. Dont matter. We lost. Could have won many other times and they screwed the pooch. crap happens. Learn from it and move on. Time to focus on Jags.

I don't think the refs screwed us - but that is the third time this year the decision of the refs of when to call a TD vs not a TD has gone against us in that the review (or lack thereof) has directly hurt the team. If they had called Gurley out, there is no way Seattle challenges it to get a turnover.

 

[RamBall]

What I'm wondering is even if Gurley didn't have complete control of the ball, he was touching it after he stepped out of bounds before it hit the pylon. Isn't the ball considered dead when a player who is out of bounds touches it?

Good point.

 

[lordbannon]

The front of the pylon is the same as the plain of the goal line. Bad break for TG and the Rams.

My mistake then. Apparently I have misunderstood that for years.

 

[RhodyRams]

Nothing we can do about it now

 

[jrry32]

Here's the video:

View: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000858488/Thomas-makes-nifty-play-to-turn-would-be-Gurley-TD-into-fumble


Rule is that if Gurley is touching the ball when his foot steps out, the play is dead. It doesn't matter if he has control. He only has to be touching the ball. It should have been a dead ball at the 1. The refs blew the call.

Yea, it doesn't accomplish anything to be pissed now, but I also think it's fucked up that we keep ending up on the wrong end of these missed calls.

 

[shovelpass]

The ball was touching his hand. The only debate would be control. But that's irrelevant (now that I confirmed the rule). That should have been a dead ball at the 1.

By a fingertip, you're right.

 

[Picked4td]

Yep, the refs screwed us:
https://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2012/12/23/randall-cobb-takes-advantage-of-bizarre-nfl-rule
The NFL's rule regarding that play is the same as on a fumble: If any part of a player's body is out of bounds when he makes contact with the football, the ball is considered out of bounds as well.

Wow great catch completely overlooked that

He fumbled. certainly. But for the purposes of a TD at least, the ball has to go inside of the pylon. Hitting the outer edge does not count as a TD. The pylon is certainly not inside the end zone.

I very well could be wrong but I'm 99% sure that any part of the pylon is a td because if the pylon isn't there impeding the balls path it would cross the goal line. Now a light touch on the outside of pylon could be different but to hit the outside and make the pylon move I believe would be a touchdown.

Either way IIRC Gurleys case the ball hit the top of pylon

 

[jrry32]

 

[Ram65]

Here's the video:

View: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000858488/Thomas-makes-nifty-play-to-turn-would-be-Gurley-TD-into-fumble


Rule is that if Gurley is touching the ball when his foot steps out, the play is dead. It doesn't matter if he has control. He only has to be touching the ball. It should have been a dead ball at the 1. The refs blew the call.

Yea, it doesn't accomplish anything to be ticked now, but I also think it's freaked up that we keep ending up on the wrong end of these missed calls.

By a fingertip, you're right.

It so close. It looks like he loses the ball and steps out at the same time. It seems impossible to tell if he is still in contact with the ball when his foot hits the ground. I don't think he is.

 

[ausmurp]

I always thought the ball had to cross inside the pylon? Faulk would always do that leap over the goal line through the end zone.

Inside the pylon unless you touch it. Same in College.