Brandon Minor's "Touchdown" Catch... a full review of the NCAA Rulebook
So, I was confused as the rest of you when Brandon Minor's apparently incomplete pass was ruled a Touchdown after a video review. I bought the ESPN commentary during the play, but thought I'd look into it more. The article mentioned by Bryan does look at the Rule Book, but only at one part. I decided to kill way to much time and read the whole thing.
I'll start with my conclusion, to spare you the reading: Minor's catch was in fact a Touchdown. Now, to the evidence.
We start with the basics (all quotes are from the NCAA Rulebook, downloadable in PDF here http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=387):
"Field of Play
ARTICLE 2. The field of play is the area within the boundary lines other
than the end zones.
End Zones
ARTICLE 3. The end zones are the 10-yard areas at both ends of the field
between the end lines and the goal lines. The goal lines and goal line pylons
are in the end zone, and a team’s end zone is the one it is defending (A.R.
8-5-1-X and A.R. 8-6-1-I)."
Based on this rather simple explanation, we come to the understanding that the End Zones are special areas on the Field considered separate from the rest of the Field of Play. Additionally, the pylons on the goal lines are in the end zone.
Now, let's take a look at passing:
"ARTICLE 6. Any forward pass is completed when caught by a player of the
passing team who is inbounds, and the ball continues in play unless completed
in the opponent’s end zone or the pass has been caught simultaneously
by opposing players. If a forward pass is caught simultaneously by opposing
players inbounds, the ball becomes dead and belongs to the passing team (Rule
2-2-7) (A.R. 2-2-7-III and A.R. 7-3-6-I-IX)."
This rule specifically makes a difference between catches in the end zone and catches in the rest of the field of play. Minor was inbounds when he caught the ball, having left the ground from the Field of Play; when he landed out of bounds, the play was already over, because he touched the end zone first.
"ARTICLE 7. a. Any forward pass is incomplete if the ball is out of bounds by
rule or if it touches the ground when not firmly controlled by a player. It also is
incomplete when a player leaves his feet and receives the pass but first lands on
or outside a boundary line, unless his progress has been stopped in the field of
play or end zone (Rule 4-1-3-p) (A.R. 2-2-7-III and A.R. 7-3-7-I)."
Further evidence: the ball was firmly in control by Brandon Minor; his progress was stopped when he hit the goal line pylon; the goal line pylon is considered part of the end zone. Thusly, Brandon Minor scored a Touchdown to confuse us all.
This makes sense, right?
October 28th, 2008 at 6:08 PM ^
"If a forward pass is caught simultaneously by opposing players inbounds, the ball becomes dead and belongs to the passing team"
Huh? Does this mean that if two DBs catch the pass at the same time it is incomplete?
What am I missing here?
October 28th, 2008 at 6:17 PM ^
October 28th, 2008 at 6:18 PM ^
I think this deals with those weird situations where they say that both the receiver and the DB come down with possession of the ball. When that happens, they count it as a completion for the offense.
By opposing players, they mean "the two people who are in possession are for opposite teams", not "the two people in possession are both opposing the player who threw it"
Man, way too wordy.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:40 PM ^
October 28th, 2008 at 6:18 PM ^
October 28th, 2008 at 6:25 PM ^
October 28th, 2008 at 6:22 PM ^
October 28th, 2008 at 7:07 PM ^
October 28th, 2008 at 7:08 PM ^
October 28th, 2008 at 10:54 PM ^
October 29th, 2008 at 12:32 AM ^
It says, "The end zones are the 10-yard areas at both ends of the fieldbetween the end lines and the goal lines. The goal lines and goal line pylonsare in the end zone..."
"The goal lines are in the end zone." The goal lines are obviously out of bounds. I think this shows that the purpose of this sentence is to give a definition of where the end zone is and isn't. It also demonstrates that being "in the end zone" isn't equivalent to being "in bounds," because someone on the goal lines ("in the end zone") is not in bounds. Which is to say that this rule specifically does not declare that the goal line pylons are part of the inbounds area of the end zone.
Anyway, that's all moot, as tbliggins pointed out, due to (A.R. 4-2-1-I and II). b.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:53 AM ^
October 29th, 2008 at 2:11 AM ^
October 29th, 2008 at 1:00 PM ^
Just touching the pylon doesn't make you out of bounds. We've all seen a million plays where a ball carrier will dive at the pylon, touch it with the ball or an elbow or some shit and then land out of bounds and get awarded a TD. So clearly touching the pylon doesn't make you out of bounds.
The fugazi part is this: "ARTICLE 7. a. Any forward pass is incomplete... when a player leaves his feet and receives the pass but first lands on or outside a boundary line, unless his progress has been stopped in the field of play or end zone (Rule 4-1-3-p) (A.R. 2-2-7-III and A.R. 7-3-7-I)."
I'm having trouble parsing that last (bolded) clause. How could someone simultaneously land outside a boundary line (as Minor did) and have his progress stopped either in the field of play or in the end zone? Is it related to the pro "force out" rule? Like, if I'm a db and some jitterbug slot receiver goes up and catches a ball, I can't catch him in the air and carry him out of bounds, right? His forward progress would have been stopped in the field of play. And if that happened in the end zone, that would be a TD, right?
I'm not saying any of this has to do with Minor. I don't see how touching the pylon is having your forward progress stopped. The only thing I can imagine is that the pylon is literally considered to be part of the turf in the end zone, so that if you touch it with your foot (which Minor did), it's just like touching the turf with your foot (which he clearly did not).
I say it wasn't a touchdown, and if it was it shouldn't be, and so Collective Sparty can rejoice in the knowledge that they beat us 35-14 instead of 35-21. Put it on a t-shirt, even.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:58 PM ^
Touching the pylon with the ball means you broke the plane. So if you had possession in bounds and hit the pylon, it's a touchdown. The fact that you're out of bounds at that point is irrelevant since you've already had possession in bounds and gotten the ball across the goal line. It's effectively the same as if you run through the end zone and out the side.
The difference here is that Minor never established possession in bounds first. Since he caught the ball in the air, touching the pylon first means that his first contact with the ground with possession is out of bounds and the pass is incomplete.
Regarding the bolded part: I don't think college has the "force-out" rule; the only thing I can think of is that this is intended to handle really odd cases like a defender catching the guy and hauling him ten yards back out of bounds before he can touch the ground, same as if the running back got stopped and they just kept shoving him back.
All academic at this point, though, as the call didn't make the difference in the game. (And even were I so inclined to argue the final score, I wouldn't call it 35-14; Michigan was in makeable FG range on 4th down, so it would likely have been 35-17 assuming nothing afterward changed - a silly assumption to make in any case.) The only thing I'm concerned about is making sure the officials (on the field and in the booth) actually know the rules, and this guy clearly doesn't.
(FWIW, I've never seen a replay of the '05 fumble that's bemoaned so much here. I think I was so ticked off at our kicker that I didn't dare watch any highlights for fear of having to watch him shank an easy kick - or at least one that should be easy for anyone who has a D-1 scholarship as a kicker - and wanting to break something.)
October 29th, 2008 at 9:23 PM ^
I agree with all of what you say. I was reacting to you saying "You touch the pylon, you're out of bounds." I wasn't clear what you meant by that.
Anyway, my only remaining wonderingment is whether there is some supa bizarro rule re the pylon that makes it, in effect, part of the turf in the end zone. Again, I don't think that it does, that is, I think that the call was totally blown, but that's the only way I can imagine it not having been totally blown. And, if there is some weirdo rule about the pylon, it should be changed to a less weirdo rule.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:15 PM ^
I have not seen where the NCAA has said this was in error. Anyone else??
The end zone does have weird rules. For example, possession is "instantaneous" in the end zone but not on the field of play.
Also, you have possession (running or passing play), leave your feet, touch the pylon with the football, and land out of bounds. TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!
Or, you have possession, leave you feet, your foot touches the pylon and the ball is over the goal line, but you land out of bounds. TOUCHDOWN !!!!!
So, if Minor had possession, his foot hit the pylon, the ball was over the goal line, and he landed out of bounds -- it is a ???????? TOUCHDOWN (I THINK).
October 29th, 2008 at 7:44 PM ^
On your examples, you ignore that the player had established position inbounds before jumping and hitting the pylon. Minor had yet to get a foot down with the ball before he hit the pylon.
We need to stop automatically defending all referees' decisions when they go our way. Face it, we got a break because of a bad call, just as they did in 2005 with that stupid Peko fumble return, and, just as in 2005, the bad call failed to help the team win. Arguing this just shows that people can argue anything to the death just to avoid something that puts UM in a bad light.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:32 AM ^
"We need to stop automatically defending all referees' decisions when they go our way."
Nah, you need to learn to read:
"I bought the ESPN commentary during the play, but thought I'd look into it more."
It doesn't sound like the original poster automatically assumed anything. He dug into the rule book and provided quotes. Much more than you did before issuing your edict that Michigan fans defend all calls that go our way. Two things for you:
1) Back up your claims and you give us the last 10 calls that went Michigans way. Maybe I'm a homer, but I feel we've gotten shafted more often than not. The crowning shaftjob was the Nebraska game which was just unwatchable because of the reffing. Name one game that you felt we got calls like that our way. No? Thought so.
2) Say a receiver catches a ball with two hands while diving in the end zone. He touches the ball down in the end zone and his momentum / the defensive player, prevents him from any part of his body coming down in the end zone. TD or not?
Your opinion is clearly not from what the OP posted but rather a single reference posted during the game. Mine? A call didn't go against us. Period. Did we get a break? We're at home and the rule book clearly contradicts itself based upon what the OP found and the rule that was posted during the game.
The rulebook will be amended next year to clear up this discrepancy. Count on it.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:54 PM ^
out of the many clear choices you had to argue, such as, "the conclusion from the rules is wrong", or the quoted Article 7 as taken out of context doesn't make sense, you instead chose to make a clearly wrong statement, "you touch the pylon, you're out of bounds".
The pylon is sitting on the endzone line in bounds. By the rule Baxter quoted it is part of the end zone, which is an inbounds area of the field.
As I read article 7 as quoted, the rule itself is illogical, or I suppose correct but useless in it's statement.
"a pass is incomplete if the player leaves his feet but lands out of bounds" makes sense and is pretty well accepted, but the part about "unless progress is stopped" is illogical, since how could a player have their progress stopped in bounds, yet still land out of bounds after catching the ball in the air?
I've seen a fumble play where the pylon kept the ball on the field. The ruling was that the ball did not go out of bounds because the pylon "is part of the field".
I don't see anything in the quoted rules that state touching the pylon means you are inbounds. You basically have to stretch the fact that the pylon can keep the ball alive, or "inbounds" to become an inbounds part of the field. If you accept that, then a player touching any part of the pylon is inbounds.
I don't think that is the intention of the rules, and whether the rules are clear or not, the official making the judgement from unclear rules, made an incorrect decision based on what most people understand the intention of the rules to be.
I think Baxter confused the part of the rules that define when the play ends because a touchdown has been scored with the rules that determine a complete pass.
By Baxter's conclusion no pass into the end zone is incomplete as long as the player leaps from inbounds and catches the ball in the air, since he concluded that play "instantly stops" because the ball is past the goal line.
not a touchdown.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:42 PM ^
October 30th, 2008 at 9:52 PM ^
“The people in the replay booth made a mistake,” Delany said while meeting with reporters at the conference’s basketball media day Sunday. “It wasn’t a mistake of judgment; it was a mistake of an application of the rule. They applied the wrong rule and they applied it improperly.”
And since we're quoting Big Ten officials, I also wanted to remind everyone that Spartan Bob handled the game clock correctly:
The Big Ten Conference ultimately upheld Stehlin's timekeeping; three years later, Dave Parry, the conference's coordinator of football officials, said, "That play, as much as we've put that under a high-powered microscope, was correct. We could not prove that timer wrong." http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/2001-MSU-vs.-UM-football-game
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 PM ^
there is a HUGE difference between "the pylon is in the endzone" and "the pylon IS the endzone"
the first point you made was that the pylons are in the endzone
but your last paragraph says "the pylons are part of the endzone"
the ground below the pylon is the endzone but the pylon is not
how do you make that leap?
that's like saying another player in the endzone is part of the endzone
he still has to touch the f*cking ground!
November 4th, 2008 at 9:29 PM ^
According to that, Sparty, all you need to do is touch the END ZONE to get a TD. The rule states that the pylon IS in the end zone, so if he touched in the end zone, he got a TD. I thought there was no was and a bogus call, but they can back up the call with a rule.
Obviously, it is immaterial, but worth discussing.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:40 PM ^
Comments