Why breaking the plane of the goal line is bogus

[wilt the stilt]

I think the Pierre Thomas call says it all.

[Onceuponalife]

1. Explain.

[wilt the stilt]

7. he was down n/t

[JonLP24]

8. He reached before the knee was down..n/t

[wilt the stilt]

11. did not reach the goal

the replay clearly showed his knee was down and the ball was still a yard out.

[JonLP24]

12. Clearly?

That was the first thing I looked for when watching the replay and I'm rooting Vikings in this game.

[wilt the stilt]

15. the replay wsa very clear

the ball was a good yard out and his knee was down

[rep the dems]

19. It was quite clear.

He was probably a good yard shy.

[Goblinmonger]

17. If his knee was down it wan't a TD

the rule would not be the problem but the call. It has to break the plane before the runner is down.

[JonLP24]

2. I like the rule

The idea is to move the ball so if you reach the ball past the a goal line marker or first down line it should count. I know you disagree and that's ok, I just feel differently. :)

[madinmaryland]

3. Didn't you start a thread like this a couple of weeks ago?

ITS THE RULE!! Move along!

[taterguy]

4. Lighten up Francis

[wilt the stilt]

9. Because you can stretch the ball past the body

you got a touchdown call when it wassn't a touchdown. That is why the rule sucks.

[madinmaryland]

14. The whole idea of the game is to advance the FOOTBALL.

It's not who can advance their dick the longest.

[radiclib]

5. 'Touchdown' is a stupid word

They should be called "breakplanes".

[Onceuponalife]

24. They should call them "reached goals"

[fishwax]

6. It was a good call. It is a good rule. (And it was Pierre Thomas.)

[wilt the stilt]

10. did you see the replay?

his knee was down and the ball was a good yard out of the plane. look at the replays.

[fishwax]

13. the angle I saw was hard to tell, but it looked to me like the ball got to the plane

Even if it wasn't a good call I'd still say it's a good rule, though.

[wilt the stilt]

16. the angle was straight on

he was down. because you have to judge it on the field when the knee is down and when the ball is extended it the you leave it up to interpretation. bad rule.

[fishwax]

20. If it was a bad call it could have been overturned on replay

I didn't see the straight-on angle. The replay I saw was from directly behind, and then I found another at a bit of an angle.

But regardless, just because the call was bad doesn't make the rule bad. It's certainly a better rule than going on where the ball carrier's chest is when the ball is down.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. The officials made a bad call. It happens. The rule is a good one.

Bad calls happen in EVERY sport. Something you have to deal with. Part of the game.

[caraher]

21. The rule is fine, the call was wrong

wilt's right, the replay was unambiguous and I think the Vikings could have successfully challenged. I'm not sure whether they didn't know they had a case or just figured they didn't want to risk a TO when the Saints could probably punch it in on their remaining downs anyway (though given the trouble they had on 3rd-and-short all game maybe it was not a given!).

But the RULE is not a problem. While it's true that banning "stretching the ball out" it would definitely not have been called a touchdown, that doesn't mean the actual rule is a bad one. Every rule will be badly enforced sometimes.

Out of curiosity, exactly where would you have the ball spotted on a play like that other than wherever it was when the knee touched - and how would you write an enforceable rule to embody your idea of where the spot should be?

[wilt the stilt]

22. quite a simple rule

ball can't be extended past the shoulder. very easy to enforce. The call was bad because the rule is bad. it leaves it up to snap judgment of a moving play.

[fishwax]

23. refereeing is largely about snap judgments on moving plays

:shrug:

And I don't see how your rule about the shoulders would lessen any confusion. Are you saying that extending the ball past the shoulder would be a penalty? Or simply that if you extend the ball past the shoulder then the ball would be spotted where the shoulder was when the player was down? Or that the ball would be spotted where the shoulder was when the player was down, whether the ball was extended beyond the plane or not?

Best case scenario, you still have to make a snap judgment about whether the shoulder crossed the plane before the ball went down--or whether the ball crossed the plane before the knee went down if the ball were still tucked, or whether whatever is required for a touchdown under your rule happened before the player was down. In other words, it will still require a snap decision and the call on the field can still be made incorrectly.

I don't see how a focus on the shoulder is any simpler than a focus on the ball. :shrug:

[trumad]

25. Again---the rule is 125 years old.

The current rule is much easier to enforce.

[wilt the stilt]

26. So is corporate personhood

and I bet you think that is a bad idea. You said it all to me when you supported the superbowl in it's present format being played in front of celebrities. You muty not remember or ever watched a true NFL championship in front of the hometown fans. You obviously support corporatism.

[trumad]

27. You're a funny guy...

So--- if they played the Superbowl in say--- New Orleans or Indy instead of Miami---... Corporate interests and celebrities wouldn't snatch up those seats as well?

Or is this another set of rules that you're calling for?

No celebrities allowed at the Super Bowl. If you're not from the cities that are playing, you're not allowed to attend.

Good luck enforcing that.

[wilt the stilt]

28. if we let season ticketholders

have first dibs like all playoff and games in other sports then I can live with the rest of celebrities having no more right to have tickets like anyone else.

Why do you approve of a system that fucks the regular fan? The people who support the team all season long should be supported by the NFL.

I have never understood the mindset of people who support the current system. It is the ultimate FU to the fan.

Furthermore, normal home field and normal noise provides for the best games. All other sports gives a homefield advantage to the team that has earned it. Why not football? What is so special about football that they get to Fuck the local fan?

[trumad]

29. I've been to 3 Superbowls in the last 20 years...

Number one: There are plenty of "regular fans" at the game. Oh sure they have to pay out the nose to be there...but guess what...they'd have to pay the same if it were held at their own stadium. Have you ever been to a NFC or AFC Championship game? Those tickets are crazy expensive.

The only sport that I can think of that offers home games during a championship is Hockey and Baseball... These are seven game series. So---the home field shifts back and fourth during the series. The NFL has one game---The Super Bowl. So you really think that one team should have the advantage over another with home field advantage?

Also: You want Season ticket holders get first rights? Well---The Buffalo Bills have 49,000 season ticket holders---The Packers have 55,000. So what you're saying is these fans have first rights to tickets and then the left overs.... what 20, 30 thousand should get the rest? What about season ticket holders from the other team? Do they get shut out?

Look ---- I hear you...the SB has become to corporate... but your ideas are a bit simplistic and simply won't work in today's environment.

[wilt the stilt]

30. home game like all the others

Basketball has the home facility. Why are you against the home team hosting? all other games are like that?

[trumad]

32. B-Ball has a 7 game series.

NFL has one game...so only one team would have home field for the Championship.

[wilt the stilt]

31. yes I do think that someone deserves a homefield advantage

I know that we are way beyond and it won't be changed but all 7th games of any series has a home field advantage. That is just part of sports. One earns the home field advantage plus you end up getting a better game. Isn't it all about a better game.

Think of all the playoff games. Most are better that the Superbowl. By and large there have been very few really good Superbowls but plenty of really good playoff games.

Why do you think that until the Superbowl in Atlanta all the NFL talked about was the Ice Bowl.

That was about 30 years of bad games.

I have always maintained that it is because of the fans at the superbowl that it is a flat and unemotional game.

Don't we want the best for the fans and the best for the people who support their teams?

[trumad]

33. Wow---

The SB games the last several years have been amazingly good.

Again--- Attending a SB is an experience you'll never forget. Flat and unemotional...not even close.

[wilt the stilt]

36. last couple of years it has been good

no argument there. But overall mediocre. Ccmpare playoff games vs. superbowls- no comparison. furthermore based on your placing value on being only one game why can't you make that argument about all the playoff games.

[JonLP24]

39. It depends on the games you're comparing

Minnesota vs Dallas..boring hell for an average fan my team Arizona vs New Orleans boring. If you want to say Conference Championship games.. Bears beat the Saints 39-14. Year before that the Seahawks beat the Panthers 34-14. Sometimes the games are good and sometimes they are blowouts, playoffs-Super Bowl doesn't matter. It's about match-ups.

I'm fine with playoff games being hosted by the home team because it is a Conference tournament, with the best record team and divisional winners getting the home game. The Super Bowl should be neutral because it is the best team from each Conference and it should be like that.

[wilt the stilt]

40. I always think that the saturday before the conference

championships to be the best day of football of the year. This year was b disappointing. Overall that day is outstanding. highly competitive games with plenty of emotion with a bit of gambling by the teams who are trying to win vs. trying not to lose.

So under your premise, all 7th games of baseball, hockey and basketball should be played at neutral sites because it would be unfair.

[JonLP24]

41. I just don't see anything broken that needs fixed

That is all.

[wilt the stilt]

42. So let me understand your premise

screw the local fan who spends his hard earned bucks and take care of corporatism.

[trumad]

43. Because we're talking two different conferences.

NFC. AFC

Just because the Colts won one more game than the Saints doesn't mean they get home field advantage.

Nah---Neutral filed is the only way to play the game....

[wilt the stilt]

38. Marla maples reading a book

'nuff said.

[KamaAina]

34. I had no idea Minnesota was "whine" country

:eyes:

[JonLP24]

35. In the OP's defense

He has complained about the reaching the ball to break the plane rule long before this game was even played.

[wilt the stilt]

37. I am not a Minnesota fan

I have no skin in the game. I think the rule for stretching the ball out is flawed.