If you score a touchdown by "breaking the plain of the goal", then why do you have to put the complete ball outside of the goal to keep from having a safety? Just wondering, I know that seems awful petty, but that 2 points started a bunch of trouble for the Ducks.
Another Rules Question?
- Thread starter Bama'sthegreatest
- Start date
Think about it. If any part of the football is in the endzone it's a safety or it's a touchdown.
Correct.
But a stranger rule to me is on the interception during the first half where the Oregon player caught the ball and had a foot down and possessed the ball until he hit the ground out of bounds. He possesed the ball and controlled it until he landed out of bounds and then bobbled it.
I know this is the correct ruling, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
The one I questioned was at the end. The run by #5, I thought his wrist hit the ground. In another game in the last few days (I have watched so many, I can remember which on it was) there was a player that did the same thing and the ruling was he was down because his wrist hit the ground, his hand is legal but the wrist would make him down. I didn't know that until just the other day. I thought his wrist definitely touched the ground.
Also I thought all players had to wear a mouth piece. Last night I never saw CN wear one the entire game. I know in the past I have seen refs motion to players to put them in before the ball is snapped. Any thoughts?
That is a rule, but I can't recall the last time I saw it called and it happens in every game.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Sanders energized after Buffs' training camp trip- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
Link: Jahmyr Gibbs becomes the highest paid RB in NFL history- Started by sanjosecrimson
- Replies: 4
-
ESPN: USC loses starting center O'Connor for season
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: New AD of rival Purdue takes dig at champion IU
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
