This rule of the ball breaking the plane

has to be changed. This is ridiculous. I don't believe that sticking the ball out is the same. The ball has to be attached to the body.

the gut. it used to be that way.

:shrug:

I was glad they challenged it.

I said the rule is bad. I believe the ball has to be in your gut and that has to break the plane. The defensive player and the tackle is based on stopping the body. If you stop the body but the player reaches the ball over the plane it is against how the game is taught.

Remember the tuck rule that went in favor of the Pats against Oakland. Bad rule, good call. Same as this.

And I say this as a Pats fan.

and the Pats weren't going to win anyway. The drive at the end of the first half said it all. I am saying there are many plays like this and they are all ridiculous.

I guess all those wonderful sideline passes where the receiver reaches out, feet in bounds, and snags the ball will be disallowed as well.

I never said that the feet in bounds was wrong. If you are old enough to remember, forward progress is where the body is stopped. that should still be the measure.

But if his hands---with ball in firmly hands were stretched out of bounds, but his feet are in---by your definition the ball would be out of bounds....correct?

I am talking to a friend and he was a guy who was invited to the NFL combine. he gave me the hypothetical about a receiver who is running towards the goal line at an angle and his feet go in and the ball is lateral and doesn't. How does one rule on that. This is complicated and a simplification is needed.

Do you remember this play from last year? Mike Periera explains it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7z4RXNwHKk

This is from the HS rule book, but it's the same concept in the pros. It's not where the body is stopped. It's the furthest advancement of the ball.

SECTION 15 FORWARD PROGRESS
ART. 1 . . . Forward progress is the end of advancement of the ball in a runner’s
possession or the forward-most point of the ball when it is fumbled out of
bounds toward the opponent’s goal and it determines the dead-ball spot.
ART. 2 . . . When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the
furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a
defender.

The rule is about the ball breaking the plane while the player is in bounds. The only thing the body has to do with it is that it has to be completely in bounds (not touching anything out of bounds).

I say the rule does not work with the way the game is really played. We have all seen players who are stopped either in a third down play or a goal line play and literally their body is stopped a full yard short of the actual line but they reach the ball out for the mark. Players don't "tackle" the ball they tackle the player so I believe the player needs to reach the "goal line or first down" marker. In other words, if he is driving towards the goal and his head and shoulders go into the end zone and the ball is in his stomach and the ball breaks the plane that is a touchdown.

if he is a yard outside the end zone and he sticks his arm out it is not a touchdown.

hands---possession--- cross the plain of the goal line---Touchdown.

I dispute the holding the ball out is hardly the real way the game is played.

The ball is the goal, and always has been. The focus on the body is just sound technique for tackling. But the goal of the offense has always been to get the ball (not bodies) across the goal line, and the goal of the defense has always been to stop the ball (not bodies) from crossing the goal line.

As Hank Stram would say, "matriculate the ball down the field."

sound technique. How is it possible to stop an arm coming out. As a tackler you have to stop the body. You have done your job but out comes the arm. Technically he did what he is supposed to do yet this arm comes out. How do you stop the arm?

:shrug:

or just the end zone? Should a player diving for a first down have to get his body (his gut, whatever) across the first down marker, in addition to just the ball?

By and large all players carry the ball attached to the midsection during the running of the ball. Why should the spot be different from what is the norm?

If the goal is to move the ball, why should the spot depend on something completely unrelated to the ball, like the player's midsection?

Sure, players usually carry the ball tucked into the midsection, but that's because the ball is more secure that way. I don't see why that should influence the spot of the ball, personally.

If you remember the famous Oakland play when Stabler fumbled it on purpose and the Raiders kicked the ball forward until Casper kicked it into the end zone and fell on it to score the winning touchdown. This was legal was it right. They did change the rule after that. Football changes rules more than any other sport. They do it constantly. It's not baseball where they never change rules

and has always been the focus of spotting the ball. It seems to me pretty natural that one should spot *the ball* based on, well, the ball.

I'm fine with changing rules when necessary (as in your example), but I don't think that changing the way the ball is spotted would improve the game at all. Rather, I think it would degrade the game. It would be a fundamental change to how the game is played without any benefit that I can see.

It's getting the ball across the goal---it's been like that since the beginning of thee game.

it would make touchdown calls VERY subjective. What if his head and part of his shoulders are in the endzone? What if he's diagonal and only one shoulder is in? What if the ball is barely touching the goal line? What if it's mostly in but partly out? What if his whole body is in the endzone but the ball and his hands didn't make it? Shouldn't he get credit for getting his BODY into the endzone?

"Any part of the ball advancing over any part of the goal line while in control of the player" is an observation that is pretty straightforward and easy to call and/or review.

he just can't extend his arm in front of his body. Really pretty simple.

What if the crown of his helmet plus his arm are in? What about half the helmet - is that good enough? Whole helmet? Helmet plus a shoulder pad? Both shoulder pads? Where do you draw the arbitrary line for having "enough" body in that the touchdown counts?

ball crosses line without knee touching. the same way it is on 98% of the calls

And if you admit the current rules are just fine for 98% of the cases today, why add such confusion and a judgment call for the remaining 2%?

If you liked the "tuck rule" you'll love "regular holding position"

simple rule- ball can't be extended past shoulder

Please point to the section in today's NFL rulebook that defines what a "regular holding position" is.

I'm sorry but as I first said, your idea is great for a purist, but totally impractical in a real world game. WAAAY too much subjectivity.

you carry footballs essentially one way. I think most of the people who comment here probably didn't play much sports. As far as me I played basketball with all of the falcons in the eighties including people like bobby butler(All pro) and steve Bartkowski(lame)_. I also played with Tom Jackson of ESPN.

My son is best friends with Bobby's son and they live in our neighborhood. Bobby's other son is at USC(Brice) and is destined to be in the`pros.

So you held a basketball like a football?

I think the reason so many here are commenting is because they played football and know the 120 year old rule that the possessed football simply needs to cross the goal line.

If I were to guess who didn't play football in this thread--- well---I would guess you... and you just confirmed that.

Beautifully put. :)

There were plenty of instances over the weekend where defensive players focused on the football when the player had it firmly in their grasp. The situation determines whether it will be a man tackle or ball tackle.

As for position of the ball vs the player. As long as the it is the position of the ball when the player goes out of bounds or breaks the goal line it should stand. There is risk when a player extends the ball beyond their body in an attempt to score. And players have lost control of the ball before they could score.

They also can't have different rules for a player that runs the ball into the end zone after a catch vs a quarterback sneak. The position of the ball is the best method.

Holding the ball out over the end zone is lame.

you got it right.

That will change a rule that has existed since football existed. It's always been the ball.

That "break the plane" rule may not be as old as you think.

But this is football now, not rugby. If you have any evidence though that the rules of the NFL originally called for the ball to be physically "touched down" in the endzone for a score to count, I'd be convinced.

Check post 23

Thank you.

In 1881, the rules were modified so that a goal kicked from a touchdown took precedence over a goal kicked from the field in breaking ties.<3>

In 1882, four touchdowns were determined to take precedence over a goal kicked from the field. Two safeties were equivalent to a touchdown.<3>

In 1883, points were introduced to football, and a touchdown counted as 4 points. A goal after a touchdown also counted as 4 points.<3>

In 1889, the provision requiring the ball to actually be touched to the ground was removed. A touchdown was now scored by possessing the ball beyond the goal line.<3>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchdown

And may I add--- when you hold a glass of water with an outstretched hand... do you possess it? Yes---of course.
When you hold a ball with an outstretched hand...do you possess it? Yes of course.

So according to a rule that has existed for 121 years... if you possess the ball past the goal line... SCORE!

Hey but good luck changing the rule.

"In 1900, the definition of touchdown was changed to include situations where the ball becomes dead on or above the goal line.<3>"

So since 1900 a dead ball above the goal line (i.e., breaking the plane) has been a touchdown.

If you remember the famous Oakland play when Stabler fumbled it on purpose and the Raiders kicked the ball forward until Casper kicked it into the end zone and fell on it to score the winning touchdown. This was legal was it right. They did change the rule after that. Football changes rules more than any other sport. They do it constantly. It's not baseball where they never change rules

they want!

are baseball and golf.

And give up on football since it bothers you SO DAMN MUCH. FFS.

now you're arguing just to argue.

Next you'll want to reshape the ball.