Plane

[mmi16]

We all know about the 'Plane of the Goal' line - break it an you have a TD.

Why isn't the same 'Plane' concept applied to the side lines - break it and you or the ball are out of bounds. Green Bay's 'catch' that enabled them to be in position for their FG that beat the Plowboys, the ball when caught was outside the field of play, only the receivers two feet were inside the field of play.

[GOTA]

We all know about the 'Plane of the Goal' line - break it an you have a TD.

Why isn't the same 'Plane' concept applied to the side lines - break it and you or the ball are out of bounds. Green Bay's 'catch' that enabled them to be in position for their FG that beat the Plowboys, the ball when caught was outside the field of play, only the receivers two feet were inside the field of play.

If that was the case then stepping out of bounds with the ball still in bounds wouldn't matter. Or, if you look at the goal line, any part of the body going over the plane would be a TD. That's why the sideline and the goal line can't have the exact same rules.

[HoustonRaven]

It's consistent for both.

If a receiver caught a ball with only two feet in the end zone but the ball was outside the lines never breaking the plane, it would still be a TD.

A runner who tip toes into the front corner of the end zone getting his feet in but the ball is outside the plane of the end zone is also a TD.

That same catch in the end zone would have been a TD as well.

"Crossing the plane" is a TD, yes, but it's not the only way to make a TD.

[lowrider]

The key phrase here is "out of bounds". The end zone is not out of bounds, therefore he goal line cannot be treated in the same way as the sidelines.

[GreatWhiteNorthRaven]

I personally hate the breaking the plane rule. Like Brown's TD against us. He just kinda sticks the ball over the line. I always thought you should have to cross the line, but then it becomes a big question of how you rule what has to cross the line, so I understand why they use the ball crossing the plane as the measurement.

Annoying, but understandable.

[moose10101]

It's consistent for both.

If a receiver caught a ball with only two feet in the end zone but the ball was outside the lines never breaking the plane, it would still be a TD.

A runner who tip toes into the front corner of the end zone getting his feet in but the ball is outside the plane of the end zone is also a TD.

That same catch in the end zone would have been a TD as well.

"Crossing the plane" is a TD, yes, but it's not the only way to make a TD.

This is news to me. If true, why the controversy over Santonio Holmes' 2008 catch against the Ravens when he was standing in the end zone and fell into the field of play while making the catch. The determining factor was the position of the ball, not his feet, which were clearly in the end zone the entire time.

[BcRaven]

Green Bay's 'catch' that enabled them to be in position for their FG that beat the Plowboys, the ball when caught was outside the field of play, only the receivers two feet were inside the field of play.

Do you mean like the Packers will be taking a plane to Atlanta for the NFCC game?
... Bc

[HoustonRaven]

This is news to me. If true, why the controversy over Santonio Holmes' 2008 catch against the Ravens when he was standing in the end zone and fell into the field of play while making the catch. The determining factor was the position of the ball, not his feet, which were clearly in the end zone the entire time.

I don't recall the details on that one so I cannot comment.

I do know that a receiver establishing possession in the EZ, ball over the plane or not, is a TD. Move that same Cook catch down the field into the EZ and it's a TD, even though the ball never crossed the plane.

And Cam Newton and other scrambling QB's have made numerous rushing TD's without the ball crossing the plane because again, they establish themselves in the EZ. For example, Cam is on the 3 yard line looking to score, forced to scramble, rolls right and heads for that front corner of the EZ, chased by the defense. Ball is in his right hand as to keep it away from field of play and the defense, as they're taught. Two feet touch in the front corner of EZ and then out the side of the EZ. Ball was on his right side and never crossed the plane. That's a TD too.

It's one of those things not written in the rule book but has become the standard.

EDIT: Ok, went and rewatched the play from 2008. Only controversy is a misapplication of the rules by fans thinking the ball always had to cross the plane. Receivers have a different standard than rushers. Holmes catch was a TD because he establish two feet in the end zone and possession. Him falling forward back into the field of play didn't matter.

[Ravenswintitle]

In the end zone it's about the ball. On the sideline it's about the player. And what a catch

[Dade]

I personally hate the breaking the plane rule. Like Brown's TD against us. He just kinda sticks the ball over the line. I always thought you should have to cross the line, but then it becomes a big question of how you rule what has to cross the line, so I understand why they use the ball crossing the plane as the measurement.

Annoying, but understandable.

Back in the day (like way back), your whole body had to cross the line and you had to down the ball in the endzone. Hence the name touchdown.

[moose10101]

EDIT: Ok, went and rewatched the play from 2008. Only controversy is a misapplication of the rules by fans thinking the ball always had to cross the plane. Receivers have a different standard than rushers. Holmes catch was a TD because he establish two feet in the end zone and possession. Him falling forward back into the field of play didn't matter.

It did, according to Walt Coleman, who said he changed the ruling specifically because the ball broke the plane.

I see nothing in the rules that allows for a touchdown with the ball still in the field of play (aside from the "palpably unfair act" rule). And I've seen no example that would indicate that such a ruling had become the standard. Cam's touchdown in your example is only a touchdown because his body touched in the end zone while the ball was behind the goal line.

[HoustonRaven]

It did, according to Walt Coleman, who said he changed the ruling specifically because the ball broke the plane.

I see nothing in the rules that allows for a touchdown with the ball still in the field of play (aside from the "palpably unfair act" rule). And I've seen no example that would indicate that such a ruling had become the standard. Cam's touchdown in your example is only a touchdown because his body touched in the end zone while the ball was behind the goal line.

Ball behind the goal line is the same thing as it being in his right hand, hovering over the sideline. He's still establishing his feet in the goal which equals a TD no matter where the ball is. The point is the ball never crosses the plane.

You're not going to find it in the rule book specifically, but it gets its power from a loose interpretation of sub section (d) of the rule:

"Section 2 Touchdown

TOUCHDOWN PLAYS

Article 1 Touchdown Plays.

A touchdown is scored when:

(d) any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line"

Meaning, it's a TD if you establish possession and are legally inbounds.