Toe-then-heel...deja vu all over again

[PSU73]

I saw mention of the Gesicki play in another post. This remains unclear to me.
The announcers during the game kept talking about the toe in but when the heel came down was it in or out. Presumably implying that if his heel came down out of bounds it was no catch. [Of course in a Michigan game a few years ago when the toe was in but the heel clearly out the call was a catch.]

Is there specific language about "toe then heel"? What puzzles me is that we all the time see a player make a catch with both feet off the ground, then manage to get only a toe down in bounds and drag it across the boundary. Great catch!!!! BUT, only his toe was down inbounds. So why would it be that if you catch a ball and your toe is down first, followed by your heel out of bounds, it is not a catch?

 

[Obliviax]

I saw mention of the Gesicki play in another post. This remains unclear to me.
The announcers during the game kept talking about the toe in but when the heel came down was it in or out. Presumably implying that if his heel came down out of bounds it was no catch. [Of course in a Michigan game a few years ago when the toe was in but the heel clearly out the call was a catch.]

Is there specific language about "toe then heel"? What puzzles me is that we all the time see a player make a catch with both feet off the ground, then manage to get only a toe down in bounds and drag it across the boundary. Great catch!!!! BUT, only his toe was down inbounds. So why would it be that if you catch a ball and your toe is down first, followed by your heel out of bounds, it is not a catch?

A great observation by you. I don't know the answer to your specific question but the announcers clearly said that the toe and heel MUST be in bounds in order for it to be a catch.

 

[jim cummings]

Maybe this would be best answered by Bob Griese.

 

[Nittany.Lion]

I saw mention of the Gesicki play in another post. This remains unclear to me.
The announcers during the game kept talking about the toe in but when the heel came down was it in or out. Presumably implying that if his heel came down out of bounds it was no catch. [Of course in a Michigan game a few years ago when the toe was in but the heel clearly out the call was a catch.]

Is there specific language about "toe then heel"? What puzzles me is that we all the time see a player make a catch with both feet off the ground, then manage to get only a toe down in bounds and drag it across the boundary. Great catch!!!! BUT, only his toe was down inbounds. So why would it be that if you catch a ball and your toe is down first, followed by your heel out of bounds, it is not a catch?

toe then heel touching out of bounds = incomplete pass
During an official review the officials didn't have a good enough view to confirm or over rule that the heel actually touched the ground as it is very possible that the heel doesn't touch the ground on a play like Gesicki's

 

[michnittlion]

Rule 7-3-6-XV is very clear. Toe-heel is NOT a catch.

As I recall, the referee said the play "stands" as opposed to the play was "confirmed." Which essentially means that the play stands because the video evidence wasn't conclusive.

--------------------------

The exact wording of Rule 7-3-6-XV is shown below, FWIW. Of note, Rule 7-3-6-XV did NOT exist in the 2005 college football rulebook. It was added in the late 2000s.

XV. Eligible A80 is airborne near the sideline when he receives a legal forward pass. As he comes to the ground facing the field of play, his toe (a) clearly drags the ground inbounds before he falls out of bounds; (b) touches the ground inbounds and then his heel comes down on the sideline in a continuous motion. He maintains firm control of the ball in both cases. RULING: (a) Complete pass. (b) Incomplete pass. The continuous toe-heel touching is part of a single process and by interpretation he has landed out of bounds, thus not executing a catch.

 

[lurkerlion]

toe then heel touching out of bounds = incomplete pass
During an official review the officials didn't have a good enough view to confirm or over rule that the heel actually touched the ground as it is very possible that the heel doesn't touch the ground on a play like Gesicki's

Agree that the replay was inconclusive with regard to the heel so no one had to worry about the rule.

However, is this the rule either written or otherwise? I know this was debated ad nauseum after the Avant catch way back when, but I don't remember whether a "final" answer was reached. Is it written?

 

[pandaczar12]

That likely wasn't a catch for Gesicki, but there wasn't the video evidence to overturn it. While PSU certainly benefited from what was a less than perfect call, MSU definitely won the bad call battle during that game.

When someone is in going forward falling out of bounds, they can't get their entire foot down, they just don't bend that way. So in that case, just dragging your toes is sufficient. But if someone lands on their feet, the entire foot must be in bounds.

 

[lurkerlion]

That likely wasn't a catch for Gesicki, but there wasn't the video evidence to overturn it. While PSU certainly benefited from what was a less than perfect call, MSU definitely won the bad call battle during that game.

When someone is in going forward falling out of bounds, they can't get their entire foot down, they just don't bend that way. So in that case, just dragging your toes is sufficient. But if someone lands on their feet, the entire foot must be in bounds.

Again, is this written? The Avant catch/noncatch was clear on replay even though it was not reviewed. I never saw that question before then and am just curious if there is a clear answer.

 

[Westcoast24]

Again, is this written? The Avant catch/noncatch was clear on replay even though it was not reviewed. I never saw that question before then and am just curious if there is a clear answer.

XV. Eligible A80 is airborne near the sideline when he receives a legal forward pass. As he comes to the ground facing the field of play, his toe (a) clearly drags the ground inboundsbefore he falls out of bounds; (b) touches the ground inbounds and then his heel comes downon the sideline in a continuous motion. He maintains firm control of the ball inboth cases. RULING: (a) Complete pass. (b) Incomplete pass. The continuous toe-heel touching is part of a single process and by interpretationhe has landed out of bounds, thus not executing a catch

 

[PSU73]

Rule 7-3-6-XV is very clear. Toe-heel is NOT a catch.

As I recall, the referee said the play "stands" as opposed to the play was "confirmed." Which essentially means that the play stands because the video evidence wasn't conclusive.

--------------------------

The exact wording of Rule 7-3-6-XV is shown below, FWIW. Of note, Rule 7-3-6-XV did NOT exist in the 2005 college football rulebook. It was added in the late 2000s.

XV. Eligible A80 is airborne near the sideline when he receives a legal forward pass. As he comes to the ground facing the field of play, his toe (a) clearly drags the ground inbounds before he falls out of bounds; (b) touches the ground inbounds and then his heel comes down on the sideline in a continuous motion. He maintains firm control of the ball in both cases. RULING: (a) Complete pass. (b) Incomplete pass. The continuous toe-heel touching is part of a single process and by interpretation he has landed out of bounds, thus not executing a catch.

Appreciate your posting the rule and pleased to see it is specifically covered. Now if I just can remember and not have a Yogi moment some time later.

 

[michnittlion]

Appreciate your posting the rule and pleased to see it is specifically covered. Now if I just can remember and not have a Yogi moment some time later.

NP --- unfortunately, that wording didn't exist in the 2005 college football rulebook. Toe-heel was one of those things that wasn't specifically covered. Michigan folk aren't wrong if they argue that the referee's call "was not wrong." (little bit of wordplay there - that's not the same thing as "correct")

But there's no doubt about it: if the Jason Avant toe-heel catch occurred now, the refs (or a replay official) would be in error if they didn't call it incomplete.

 

[artsandletters]

If the toe is in you’re in. Who cares about the heel. What the OP means is that when the receiver catches and goes out of bounds facing the boundary line with a toe in, he’s in. If his back is facing the boundary and his toe is in, why shouldn’t the ruling be the same. Screw the heel. Who needs the heel.

Toe in, receiver in.

That toe/heel rule is BS and makes no sense. A toe is a toe.