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]

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]

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

[BigBoltIke]

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]

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]

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]

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

Your post is an A hole.

[LtFinFan66]

:rofl: Way to attack the post and not the poster :hi5:

[The_Philster]

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]

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]

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]

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." :coocoo:

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

[Earthquake Enyart]

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]

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]

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.

[LtBillsFan66]

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.
How do you explain then how Peerless' catch for the win a few weeks ago is considered a catch. His feet weren't planted.

[The_Philster]

Phil, please stop attacking our guests.

TOS still apply.
I said the comment was stupid...not the poster who made it :rolleyes:
Don't make false accusations....dishonesty is a horrible trait to show

[Meathead]

duh

the foot has to come down in bounds before any other part of his body touches out of bounds for it to be a catch

since his heel is "foot" its out of bounds if the heel is the first thing to touch out of bounds after the toes

[BigBoltIke]

...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.

I wouldn't call the receiver being unable to avoid putting his heel down out-of-bounds a gift.

I don't get upset when the rules work against the Chargers, and I don't get overly elated when they work in favor of them.

[Mitchy moo]

So teach your kids to turn and use their toes only and fall out of bounds.

[BigBoltIke]

Malcolm Floyd is an elite receiver?

No, but Harrison is, and that's the type of play that Harrison makes.

[jamze132]

Malcolm Floyd is an elite receiver?
Who?

[The_Philster]

No, but Harrison is, and that's the type of play that Harrison makes.
and if Harrison were going out of bounds backwards, his heel could come down out of bounds just as easily as Peerless's did

[BigBoltIke]

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

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

Simply put, yes. In the Pit game Floyd was in the corner of the endzone, got a foot and toe down, and bounced off his toe to throw himself out of bounds, without his heel touching, making it a TD.

[BigBoltIke]

and if Harrison were going out of bounds backwards, his heel could come down out of bounds just as easily as Peerless's did

That's true. I'm not saying that the play makes Price less of a receiver, but if he had gotten his toe down without touching down his heel it would've shown a great deal of concentration, field awareness, and commitment to his craft.

[Jeff1220]

That's true. I'm not saying that the play makes Price less of a receiver, but if he had gotten his toe down without touching down his heel it would've shown a great deal of concentration, field awareness, and commitment to his craft.

And that surely would've happenned had he not been pushed out!

[BigBoltIke]

And that surely would've happenned had he not been pushed out!

His momentum carried him out of bounds from the five replays I saw. Touching the receiver as he's going out of bounds is not the same as pushing him out.

[Michael82]

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.
the force out should be reviewable! It's ****ing obvious that he would have made the catch in bounds if he wasn't pushed out. :mad:

[Michael82]

His momentum carried him out of bounds from the five replays I saw. Touching the receiver as he's going out of bounds is not the same as pushing him out.
this post is pathetic! :yap:

[Michael82]

And that surely would've happenned had he not been pushed out!
EXACTLY! :bf1:

[BigBoltIke]

this post is pathetic! :yap:

If the Bills had won, you wouldn't be upset by the call.

[OpIv37]

His momentum carried him out of bounds from the five replays I saw. Touching the receiver as he's going out of bounds is not the same as pushing him out.

so, you're saying that a DB running full speed is capable of just touching him without having any effect whatsoever on his momentum? And you're saying that the DB wasn't trying to push him out in case it was a catch, so he didn't get more yards?

Don't be ridiculous.

The Chargers player didn't just let up and allow him to catch the ball, and even if he wanted to do that, the laws of physics would have prevented him from doing it.

[OpIv37]

the push out should be reviewable! It's ****ing obvious that he would have made the catch in bounds if he wasn't pushed out. :mad:

it's a "judgement call" and "judgement calls" are not reviewable.

We don't get judgement calls in our favor in Buffalo. Never have- never will.

[BigBoltIke]

You forget that Price was running at high speed to the sideline himself.

[BillsNick]

His momentum carried him out of bounds from the five replays I saw. Touching the receiver as he's going out of bounds is not the same as pushing him out.

Why don't you let your "momentum" carry YOU out of HERE.

Or you could make like a Charger, and Bolt.

Or you could make like the ref and Hoccu-LEAVE.

That is all.


:snicker:

[BigBoltIke]

Why don't you let your "momentum" carry YOU out of HERE.

Or you could make like a Charger, and Bolt.

Or you could make like the ref and Hoccu-LEAVE.

That is all.


:snicker:

Well, when your team is 10-2, all that anybody wants to discuss are playoff scenarios and how good LT is. Which is fine for a few weeks, but right now, there's nothing interesting to debate about the Chargers. People are just over there making stupid comments on the likelihood that we'll have HFA throughout, or whether or not the KC@SD game is going to be flexed or not.

At least you guys are talking about football.

[The last buffalo fan]

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.

**** yeah!!! I was thinking the same, when I saw the play, it was a sure catch.................. I guess no in the No Fun League.

[The last buffalo fan]

and if Harrison were going out of bounds backwards, his heel could come down out of bounds just as easily as Peerless's did

:hi5:

Not even in my ****ing dreams!!!

[The last buffalo fan]

Well, when your team is 10-2, all that anybody wants to discuss are playoff scenarios and how good LT is. Which is fine for a few weeks, but right now, there's nothing interesting to debate about the Chargers. People are just over there making stupid comments on the likelihood that we'll have HFA throughout, or whether or not the KC@SD game is going to be flexed or not.

At least you guys are talking about football.

Please keep it that way. When you talk about football, you can make nice comments, I can handle comments against my team and against the Bills players too, but sometimes it goes out of your control, and miss the point.

So, talk about football and not bullpupu. You are a very smart and wise guy, do not act like the ace in the hole.

[dplus47]

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.

good post. the rule is most likely written so the refs don't have to worry about which part of the foot hit where first and how much of the foot is good enough to consider it in bounds. they can't be looking at every catch to see if some substantial part of a 2nd foot hit in bounds before the rest of it landed out of bounds. ike's earlier "demonstration of control" explanation was good as well.

this rule makes a lot more sense to me than this: if price catches the ball, perfectly drags both feet, falls out of bounds, and then drops the ball when he hits the ground, it is not a catch. now that's a messed up rule. the foot thing? not as crazy. what's crazy is telling refs to watch for parts of feet. you really just need to have a reasonably defined standard so the refs aren't out there making stuff up or thinking about it, and on the particular point about the toe/heel thing, the league has a reasonably defined standard.

as for whether he was pushed out, that's another question, but it's unfortunately not reviewable.

[dplus47]

and if Harrison were going out of bounds backwards, his heel could come down out of bounds just as easily as Peerless's did

yes, and that should be ruled an incomplete pass just as easily as peerless' play was. i said "should be ruled an incomplete pass" of course, not "would." just sayin'.