UPDATED 10/30/07 TO INCLUDE FEEDBACK FROM NFL REFEREE ED HOCHULI (at the bottom)
We've all heard this before: "The plane of the goal line extends to infinity horizontally and vertically."
It's not true. The field of play is a well-defined rectangle, consisting of the sidelines and the two end lines. The goal line is special too, but only in that possessing the ball in the field of play beyond the goal line can have special outcomes, either a touchdown, safety or touchback.
So why is there so much confusion?
The goal line is treated differently from the sidelines. To score a touchdown, a player must possess the ball in bounds at or beyond the plane of the goal line. This should not be confusing, but after officials ruled that Ben Roethlisberger scored in SB XL, despite absolutely no visual evidence of the ball crossing the goal line, it has become a bigger problem.
With regard to the sideline plane, when a player dives OB with the ball, the ball is properly placed where the ball is when the possessing player touches something out of bounds. This means that on the sideline, except at the goal line, a player could dive three yards out of bounds, and get the benefit of the ball being spotted where the ball is when the player touches ground.
If a player were to dive for a TD, with the ball clearly outside the pylon, and then land out of bounds, the ball would be spotted out of bounds where it left the playing field (as that was the last valid location of the ball within the field of play, since it cannot be spotted in the end zone). There is pervasive myth that the goal extends sideways indefinitely, into the seats and eventually the parking lot. Under this theory, an infinite goal line plane is probably intersecting me right now, from some high school, college or professional field somewhere. People who dial into this concept often wonder why players make such an effort to get the ball inside the pylon.
spacer
blaahblah What will land first and where will the ball be when he flies by the goal line?
The confusion lies in the three methods of breaking the plane of the goal line, two of which are essentially the same. The first method is the best known - break the plane of the goal line with the ball (hence the desire to get it inside the pylon). The second method is commonly seen, but never really considered - catch the ball in the end zone, thus legally possessing a ball that has already broken the plane of the goal line.
The third method is essentially the second, but is a source of infinite goal line confusion. If some part of the player touches in bounds beyond the goal line, no matter where the ball is in relation to the field of play, the player is in bounds beyond the goal line and in possession of the ball. Even though the sideline plane was broken by the ball, and the ball itself never broke the goal line plane between the pylons, the superceding rule provides that an in-bounds player in possession of the ball beyond the goal is credited with a touchdown. The NFL rule itself reads "The goal line is actually in the end zone. A player with the ball in his possession scores a touchdown when the ball is on, above, or over the goal line." Why do they say "above" and "over"? Isn't that redundant? No, because the knuckleheads who wrote the rule meant BEYOND when they said "over". "[A]bove" refers to the fact that the goal line does extend infinitely vertically, between the pylons. Ed Hochuli could show them a thing or two about drafting.
To illustrate, a few years ago Warrick Dunn dove for the pylon, but missed badly, landing a few feet out of bounds. However, on his way down his foot clipped the pylon. The pylon is considered in-bounds (because the interior face of the pylon is lined up precisely with the sideline), and Dunn was credited with a touchdown. If you re-read my explanation for the "third method" to score a touchdown, he possessed the ball while technically in bounds and beyond the goal line. The ruling was correct.
Now for some real fun: the goal post. We know the goal post is in bounds, right? Otherwise, a field goal that hit the cross bar or uprights and went through would not count because it struck out of bounds. Well......not exactly. According to retired NFL referee Jerry Markbreit, the goal post is in bounds for field goal and extra point attempts, but out of bounds for all other plays. Since the cross bar and uprights, like the pylon, line up exactly with the back line of the end zone, you may rightly be thinking "what the hell?!?". The effect of the cross bar being out of bounds is that a pass or punt caroming off the crossbar into the hands of a player would be blown dead. More interestingly, if a player leaps to catch a pass, and any part of his body or the ball touches the crossbar, the player would be out of bounds, no matter where his feet land. Given the athleticism of some WRs and CBs, and that the crossbar is only 10 feet off the ground (the same as a regulation basketball hoop), this definitely could happen.
I hope that clears it up. Note that picture above is an optical illusion. This is Willie Parker's record-breaking TD in Super Bowl XL, and he was diving for celebration and well in-bounds.
Ed Hochuli says:
Excellent explanation, Jason. You are absolutely correct. The NFL rule was changed this year, so the Warrick Dunn play referenced would no longer be a TD because the ball did not pass over the top of or inside, and no part of the player touched in the end zone. But under the current rule, a player in possession of the ball gets a TD at the goal line pylon by either touching some part of his body in the EZ after the ball has broken the goal line plane extended, or by getting the ball over the top of, or inside, the goal line pylon.
October 30, 2007
The Plane of the Goal Line
Summer is here and there's never been a better time to try your hand at online sports betting. Place your bets on your favorite horse with horse racing or even try your luck with your favorite football team. Enjoying sport is just a click away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 Responses:
Only a lawyer could write this post.
Or Ed Hochuli.
I get what your saying and was clearly thought out, but, damn you really think too much.
The plane of the goal line does not extend infinitely enough for the Ravens.
That actually doesn't clear things up, but it's not your fault. It's just a simple rule that's become overly complicated.
Ben, I laughed out loud. If only it came out to Matt Stover's field goal range.
It is a simple rule, and the "touching in bounds" concept isn't complicated either, as that's true anywhere on the field.
The truly complicating factor is that the pylons have height, unlike the goal line, and are considered in bounds. Players dive for the pylon because, logically, it's easier to hit and hitting it before anything else touches OB results in a TD. As Warrick Dunn showed a few years ago, you can badly miss your dive for the pylon, but if your foot clips it on your way out of bounds, it's still a TD. I wouldn't recommend trying to do this on purpose, but it does illustrate the effect of the pylon.
Note also that the back line pylons would not save a TD if the player otherwise does not have a second foot down. If, however, a player gets one foot down and then kicks the pylon trying to get the second foot down, the second foot would be in bounds and the play would result in a touchdown.
In college, a player who gets no feet in bounds but clips a pylon on his way out of the end zone with possession of the ball would presumably be credited with a touchdown. Think THAT would piss off the home crowd?
I was scared for a minute, because a Jerry Markbreit post I found did refer to the goal line as extending infinitely "around the world". Then I found this Chicago Tribune feature from just this past Wednesday:
In Sunday's Bears-Lions game, a Lions receiver apparently did not step on the goal line or into the end zone. He did kick the orange goal line marker. Since he was carrying the ball in his right hand, and the ball never crossed the goal line inbounds, was this correctly called a touchdown? - Mike, Melrose Park
When a runner in possession of the football kicks the orange goal line pylon before hitting a sideline, he is ruled out-of-bounds in the end zone and, consequently, he is awarded a touchdown by rule. If a player dives for the pylon from the field of play and his body passes over the pylon, the ball must be over or inside the pylon for a score to be awarded. These two situations are different. The first example scores a touchdown, even though the ball is physically out-of-bounds in the right hand of the runner. The second example makes it necessary for the ball to pass over or be inside of the pylon to score. The play in the game that you describe was correctly ruled a touchdown. --Jerry Markbreit
Awesome post, J-Red. I think you've conclusively answered the question of what happens when a player dives diagonally from the 1 yd line out of bounds across the goal line (ball is spotted at the 1).
But what happens if he dives from the 1 yard line diagonally and lands out of bounds, but passes inside the pylon. He never established himself in-bounds after the ball crossed the plane, right? Shouldn't the ball be spotted at the 1 in this situation, also? But the ball did cross the plane of the goal, so it's a touchdown, right?
Brien,
Your scenario is still within method one of scoring a touchdown, breaking the plane of the goal line with the ball itself. Of the "on, above or over" trio of methods of scoring, passing the ball above the plane of the goal line between the pylons is a touchdown, so long as the player is in bounds when it occurs. A player is in bounds until some part of him touches out of bounds. If he breaks the plane of the goal line between the pylons with the ball without having touched anything out of bounds, he can land anywhere on Earth and it's still a touchdown.
Markbreit also addressed your scenario implicitly when he said the ball must pass over or inside the pylon to be a touchdown if the player dives out of bounds.
Steve Czaban, on his Milwaukee blog, makes an excellent point. Since the entirety of the pylon is in bounds, the end zone is actually a 10 yard deep, 53 1/3 yard wide rectangle with four tiny squares on the corners and two tiny squares lined up with the hash marks on the back line.
Czaban also quotes a former NFL official who agrees with my presumption that one foot plus a kicked back line pylon would be a touchdown.
Wow, Czabe has a Milwaukee blog? What's that all about?
He's always done a segment for a Milwaukee-based show for some reason. He also guest hosts for Rome. He probably has a lot of connections in sports radio since he's a UCSB grad, like Rome.
Actually, I just thought of the perfect illustration to show that the goal line does not extend infinitely sideways.
Suppose a ballcarrier is carrying the ball in his left hand down the left sideline. He's about to get hit, so he dives parallel to the sideline towards the left pylon. His body passes over the pylon, but the ball is outside the pylon when he passes over. In midair, he switches hands and the ball passes over the end zone, beyond the goal line.
If the first part of the player/ball combo to touch the ground is out of bounds, the play DOES NOT result in a touchdown, as the ball did not pass over the goal line between the pylons, and it was never possessed in bounds beyond the goal line. If the first part of the player/ball combo to touch the ground is in bounds, the play DOES result in a touchdown, as the player posseses the ball in bounds beyond the goal line.
Query whether it would be a touchdown if the first and only part of the player/ball combo to touch in bounds is the ball itself. I'm not sure on that, because the ball touching the ground while in a players possession does not down a player. It should, however, establish a player as in bounds for that split second, as the ball is considered an extension of the hand in such a circumstance.
CORRECTION: The NFL no longer uses back line pylons. In college, they are still used but are located on the BACK of the end line, not at the junction of the end line and the end zone.
You may wonder why back pylons are used at all? I suspect, because they line up with the hash marks, that the back line pylons are used when the field is covered with snow and the hash marks are not visible. In the NFL, hash marks are plowed in game in case of snow (or brushed/blown depending on the surface). Many colleges would not have this luxury.
The back corner pylons, however, are in bounds.
While you were looking up pylons, I was looking up Czabe. He did, in fact, do radio in Milwaukee for a time. So there you go.
As for your new examples:
"If the first part of the player/ball combo to touch the ground is in bounds, the play DOES result in a touchdown, as the player posseses the ball in bounds beyond the goal line."
What if the first and only part of the player/ball combo to hit inside the endzone is one foot? That's a TD?
"Query whether it would be a touchdown if the first and only part of the player/ball combo to touch in bounds is the ball itself. I'm not sure on that."
I would have to assume yes, it's a TD, as at that point the ball has clearly crossed the goal line...although you're saying it didn't cross the goal line because it went around it...
Okay, say Kyle Boller takes lots of steroids and can throw the ball around the world.
From the line of scrimmage, he turns around so his back is to the opposing teams end zone (where they want to score). He throws the ball facing his own endzone, out of the stadium and around the world.
Clayton is standing in the opposing team's endzone, balancing on the back pylon with one foot. He catches the ball that has traveled around the world, yet the ball never crossed the plane of the endzone (front or back).
Is that a TD?
For your first question, the whole one foot/two foot distinction is only applicable to catches. One foot in the end zone, assuming the player already possesses the ball, definitely anchors the player in bounds and would result in a touchdown.
An analogous situation would be if a fumble popped up in the air near the sideline. If the recovering player anchored one foot in bounds and lunged and managed to secure the ball, even if the ball was over the out-of-bounds area, the player would be deemed to have recovered the ball in bounds.
It is for that reason that I think that the ball being the only thing touching in bounds in the end zone, if in possession of a ballcarrier, would result in a TD as it would anchor the player's hand in bounds.
Physics aside, you asked a trick question. Normally, a catch requires two feet in bounds, which means Clayton's second foot is critical.
However, your hypothetical posed an around the world backwards lateral. One foot would suffice (just as with a fumble), and the play would result in a touchdown.
Of course, your hypothetical also points out that the NFL rule book presupposes that no player is capable of throwing a ball around the world. Otherwise, the entire playing field would be "over" the goal line.
Not true actually. The rule book presupposes that the rules governing the field of play determine that "over" the goal line is bounded by the back line.
I think one of the most important qualities needed to be a good lawyer is the ability to argue with oneself. It's also why lawyers don't sleep much.
Imagine, Boller throws the ball around the world and finally hits a receiver in the endzone and he STILL doesn't get credit for a TD pass because it's a lateral.
Meanwhile, I won't bother to calculate the negative rushing yards for Clayton, but I'm betting it'd be enough to negate the fantasy points you get for the TD.
After hearing TV football commentators use the expression "break the plane" for the millionth time, and still being confused by the concept, I finally googled to clear up my confusion. NFL TV commentators are the WORST commentators of any sport, by a wide margin. I have never heard an NFL TV commentator ever explain anything clearly using proper language.
Where is this plane? The line painted on the ground by the grounds-crew has a thickness of several inches. So does this goal-line exist at the back of the line on the ground, or the front? If the answer is both, then it is not a plane, it is more like an invisible wall.
Here is the picture:
At the back:
|
|
|
--- <-- towards end zone
At the front:
|
|
|
--- <-- towards end zone
The plane is a wall:
|||
|||
|||
--- <-- towards end zone
According to the rule you've linked to, the second diagram is correct. Despite the millions of words uttered by TV commentators debating controversial touchdowns and non-touchdowns, never have I heard the rules explained clearly.
Sean, you are correct that it is technically a wall. A plane is two dimensional, in the geometrical sense. The "wall" of the goal line begins at the front edge of the paint and continues in depth to the back edge of the paint. The pylon is exactly as wide as the goal line.
Others,
Note that my previous comments about touching the pylon with any part of your body are no longer valid in light of what Ed Hochuli said was a rule change this past offseason. Another part of the confusion is that small rule changes are almost never publicized. The older commentators are basing what they say on what they think they know, but little rule changes add up. It took three years for them to grasp the "two steps and a football move" catch concept and "control the ball through hitting the ground".
I'd like to call attention to Dewey's first post on that said Lawyer or Ed Hochuli. In fact, Hochuli is a lawyer.
Now J-Red, are you telling me Hoch reads your blog, or do you stalk him?
If Ed says it, it must be true.
I stalked him.
I am not sure I understand how the rule change prevents Warrick Dunn's play from resulting in a touchdown.
Here is a ruling from 2005 from Jerry Markbreit:
"Please explain the plane on the goal line and how it differs from the sidelines and yard lines and maybe the endline. Thanks. -- Bill Patton, Boiling Springs, S.C.
The goal line plane is unique under NFL rules. When a player breaks the plane of the goal line with the ball in his possession, it is a touchdown, even though the player's body may be in the field of play. This plane extends to infinity and if a player crosses the goal line with his body and the ball extended over the sideline, it is a touchdown because of the invisible plane. The sidelines and endlines do not have the same magic; however, if a player has the ball extended over the sideline or endline and his body is completely in the field of play or the end zone, the play is not ruled out of bounds in the field or the end zone.
In a recent game played in Atlanta, Michael Vick dove from the field toward the pylon in the corner of the end zone with the ball extended out-of-bounds. His hand passed over the pylon while the rest of his body and the ball continued out-of-bounds. The play was correctly ruled a touchdown because he had qualified under the goal line plane described above."
So by the above interpretation (old ruling), even if a player never crossed the goaline inbounds (their body and the ball is extended over the sideline), they would still be awarded a touchdown, right (also, if this used to be a touchdown, what was the point of pylons previously)?
However, the new ruling states that the player must touch some part of his body in the endzone after the ball has cross the plane extended.
The new ruling would seem to imply that the Warrick play is still a valid touchdown because he touches the pylon (which is still part of the endzone, correct?).
You also stated that there have been subtle rule changes about this over the years... is there anyway you could find out what the previous rulings would award for a player in both situations I have described above ?
Thanks for the help, I am close to finally ending a 4 year argument.
"The third method is essentially the second, but is a source of infinite goal line confusion. If some part of the player touches in bounds beyond the goal line, no matter where the ball is in relation to the field of play, the player is in bounds beyond the goal line and in possession of the ball. Even though the sideline plane was broken by the ball, and the ball itself never broke the goal line plane between the pylons, the superceding rule provides that an in-bounds player in possession of the ball beyond the goal is credited with a touchdown."
This is must an incomplete statement. Take the case where a receiver is standing just inside the endzone then leans out of the endzone toward the playing field to catch the pass. He catches the pass as he is falling back on the playing field and lands with the ball on the 1 yard line, the ball having never crossed the goal line. Is it a touchdown? By the above quoted statement, it is. The player was in bounds, in the endzone, when he caught the ball and was in possession of it. I think that, in this case, the ball must still have to cross the "extended" plane of the goal line.
This is a stupid rule and it drives me crazy. carry the ball into the end zone.stop this waving of the ball crap.
Since this was an old post (most in 2007). What is the latest rule? We had a kid dive out of bounds at the 2yr line. He hit the pylon with his left hand while the ball was in his right arm. AFTER he hit the pylon, he then crossed the goal line "extended" and landed out of bounds. TD or no TD???
Does the football have to cross the front of the goal line or the back of the goal line? You always here must break the plane but what is the defintion of the plane?
"Does the football have to cross the front of the goal line or the back of the goal line? You always here must break the plane but what is the defintion of the plane?"
Here is a crude drawing of an end zone. Proportionately, it is not accurate, but it should demonstrate what I am trying to convey...
On the picture below, the ball must cross the top line in the drawing. The line at the beginning of the end zone is only 4-5 inches thick, but you only need to cross the start of the line, and not the whole thing (or the second line in my picture).
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
END ZONE
-----------------------------------
I hope that helps
Post a Comment