I don't understand the heel rule

[LtBillsFan66]

You're telling me you can slide your tippy toes along the sidelines and fall on your face and it's ruled a catch. But if your heel comes down out of bounds(even though the toes came down first in bounds), it's not a catch. Jeez.

I know it's a rule. But the rule sucks. That's what I'm saying.

[RedEyE]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

It's freaking bull**** is what it is.

It reminds me of the fumble recovery we had a couple years back, but since the guys feet slid out of bounds before he "gained official control" on the field (cough*bull*****), they instead called it a dead ball.

Who makes this **** up? Id' love to see an official NFL rule book, so that I can wipe my ass with about half of the chapters.

[DynaPaul]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The heel rule is about as sensible as the tuck rule.

[BigBoltIke]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The idea of the rule is to demonstrate control. dragging your toes or doing the toe-tap demonstrates control. Letting your heel slap the big white line does not. If the receiver had put his toe down without touching the heel (see Malcolm Floyd's second half catch in the SD-Pit game) and then jumped out of bounds, it's a catch.

The rule makes sense to me, because it seperates the good receivers from the elite receivers.

[RedEyE]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The rule makes sense to me, because it seperates the good receivers from the elite receivers.

...and because you were on the receiving end of that gift. If that play happens to the Chargers I can guarantee you'd see it our way.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

I believe that rule was misinterpreted by the bookies... I mean refs.

I believe if the heel touches the paint before (or at the same instant) the toe touches in-bounds, it's considered out-of-bounds. But... if the toe touches 1st, it should be a catch.

[BillsNick]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The rule makes sense to me, because it seperates the good receivers from the elite receivers.

Your post is an A hole.

[LtFinFan66]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

Way to attack the post and not the poster

[The_Philster]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The idea of the rule is to demonstrate control. dragging your toes or doing the toe-tap demonstrates control. Letting your heel slap the big white line does not. If the receiver had put his toe down without touching the heel (see Malcolm Floyd's second half catch in the SD-Pit game) and then jumped out of bounds, it's a catch.

agreed

The rule makes sense to me, because it seperates the good receivers from the elite receivers.

stupid and unnecessary comment. No WR is perfect and that could've happened to anyone.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The idea of the rule is to demonstrate control. dragging your toes or doing the toe-tap demonstrates control. Letting your heel slap the big white line does not. If the receiver had put his toe down without touching the heel (see Malcolm Floyd's second half catch in the SD-Pit game) and then jumped out of bounds, it's a catch.

The rule makes sense to me, because it seperates the good receivers from the elite receivers.

Malcolm Floyd is an elite receiver?

[OpIv37]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

and we're all forgetting one important thing- Price was PUSHED OUT. If he wasn't hit by the defender, he would have had both feet in bounds and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

It seems to me that the Bills are always on the wrong end of that damn push rule- if we're pushed out, it's not a catch. If we push someone out, it is a catch.

[LtBillsFan66]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The idea of the rule is to demonstrate control. dragging your toes or doing the toe-tap demonstrates control. Letting your heel slap the big white line does not. If the receiver had put his toe down without touching the heel (see Malcolm Floyd's second half catch in the SD-Pit game) and then jumped out of bounds, it's a catch.

The rule makes sense to me, because it seperates the good receivers from the elite receivers.

So if his head hit out of bounds before his heel, it would be considered "in control."

Of if he "bounced" off his tippy toes and landed out of bounds....

[Earthquake Enyart]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

agreed

stupid and unnecessary comment. No WR is perfect and that could've happened to anyone.

Phil, please stop attacking our guests.

TOS still apply.

[LtBillsFan66]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

I believe that rule was misinterpreted by the bookies... I mean refs.

I believe if the heel touches the paint before (or at the same instant) the toe touches in-bounds, it's considered out-of-bounds. But... if the toe touches 1st, it should be a catch.

Can we get an official ruling?

[DraftBoy]

Re: I don't understand the heel rule

The rule is fine as is, we didnt get screwed on the call. It was completely legit. Alot of receivers practice only touching their toes and then falling out of bounds instead of trying to fully plant, its just like running the ball, if half your foot is in bounds and half your foot is out of bounds, the player is out of bounds. If he tippy toes the line, he's in bounds. Its not a tough call.