I will admit I was uncertain about this TD call. The point you make about the fade route makes total sense and delivers it in an easy to understand package.

Thanks Styg.

I remember seeing it, just can’t remember who did it.

The BALL broke the plane of the goal while it was in his chest, but the two feet in the endzone explanation also works. If you look at that picture, his knees are on or across the goal line and the tip of the ball is in his chest behind his knees. Good call on the refs part not to reverse the TD call.

My biggest question is… how in the HELL do you not have a goal line cam for MNF?! That fact alone blew me away considering the magnitude of a divisional rival game in prime time.

I had already received 2 texts last night about it :)

Works going to be fun today.

The play will give Charger’s fans something to whine about, which is something they enjoy.

Whether the ball broke can be debated and, on its own, can make for good discussion. But while feet-in-bounds is the standard for the field boundaries (e.g. sideline catches), it’s the location of the ball for the rest of the field. If that catch happens at, say, the 20 yard line, it’s positioned where the official believes the ball to have ended. Likewise, if you turn his body around, it’s the position of the ball, not his feet, that dictate the location.

That Steelers play that will be the obvious precedent – correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the review dispute centered around whether the ball broke the plane?

The whole debate of feet/ball is probably situationally moot in this case; the ball most likely did break the plane. Now, if only the NFL would bother publishing their rules online like NCAA does.

I never understand why officials in any sport get absolutely slated when they make a wrong call but get no praise when they make a good call.

This TD and the Scheffler catch were both outstanding calls by the officials. Both were spot on and both were made with minimal fuss and consultation.

Here are more points.

1. The official didn’t say the call was upheld (which means that the call “just” stands), he said the call “is confirmed”. As the announvers pointed out, this means the official saw clear and convincing evidence that the call was correct, and not just “probably correct” or upheld because there wasn’t good enough proof to overturn.

2. Even if someone who is unfamiliar with the actual rules of football still makes a fool of themselves arguing the call, the margin of the Denver victory was greater than the touchdown.

3. SD had the chance to get a FG and missed it. Thus, they wouldn’t have tied the game anyway.

4. Even if (in some alternate universe), SD HAD made that FG, who’s to say that Denver wouldn’t have gotten their own FG after not being awarded the TD.

But none of those points matters. The rule that Stokley scored under is the same rule that a player scores with when he catches a ball in the endzone and has to get both feet down. The ref explained this, and so did Styg. My points are only for the inevitable whiner who doesn’t like the NFL rules and thinks the whole football world is a conspiracy to hurt his team.

I watched the game at someone else’s house and I was trying to explain to everyone there that when he originally caught the ball he was in the endzone and his momentum carried him out and then he was touched by the defender. They were not buying it. No DVR to rewind and pause last night. The ESPN crew did a terrible job at showing wheter or not he caught it in the endzone. They should of come up with a similar picture.

I love it.

All Ready!

had this touchdown been overruled. I was pulling for a Moreno dive over the top on fourth and inches….

I am mean, I know….but I am a San Diego native, so their fans have earned it from me.

No question, and not just because I am a fan. I am waiting for Chargers Fan to come into the office this morning and start in on it.

Not…that…I would blog at the office. Just saying…

While I agree it is a TD, even if the refs had reversed the decision, the Broncos are looking at 4th and inches, likely score on the next play, even if they don,‘t, Phyliss is looking at a 99 yard drive against a defense that was smelling blood, in all likelyhood we would of gotten a safety, the game was over anyway you slice it. SD was a defeated team, if they want to hang their hat on that being equivalent to the Houcilli call then they are grasping at straws. The Houcilli was a blown call and Denver was trailing, this call would not of changed the fact that Denver was up by 4 points or given the ball to the chargers. This is a different season, and SD was beat mentally and physically by the 2nd half, they aren’t coming back.

We won by 11 points. Take away 7 or 4 and Denver still wins.

But now I understand. Gracias. Now the ref’s explanation makes sense. I didn’t think the ball crossed the plain. But it didn’t have to? Cool.

Broncos would have won regardless. 4th and goal from the 2-inch line, either they punch it in or give SD 99.9 yards to go to win it.

Should be fun to watch though.

The ball WAS caught in the endzone (as evidenced by the feet being in), at which point the play ended.

Your parenthetical addition seems to strongly indicate (and your later posts seem to uphold this) that “feet in the endzone” entails “ball caught in the endzone” (controlling for extraneous variables such as bobbling, etc.)

What if a WR is running a slant to the right and the QB throws the ball to him. The WR catches the ball with both feet in the endzone but the ball outside the plane of the goal. The WR falls forward (due to the angle of the throw), and maintains possession and in-boundedness throughout. Is such a pass a TD?

According to how I interpret your position, the answer is “Yes.” However, I find that at the least a highly strange state of affairs and at most quite probably incorrect.

yes, thank you for this. The proverbial, picture being worth…….

When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent’s goal line, provided it is not a touchback.

To me that means the ball still has to break the plane of the endzone even if both feet are in the endzone. In the case of a fade, while the ball doesn’t necessarily land in bounds, it is still beyond the plane of the endzone.

It seemed to me that the call should have been a first down at the point of the foul, and then a dead ball unsportsmanlike personal foul (couldn’t keep it together, so Stokes had to take him back to the huddle every play after that), and thus a first and 25.

The result was a replay or 3rd and 8 after the official’s call. Correct one?

I haven’t read through all the comments but I get the flavor of the debate.

Let me frame this issue in my own way, and I commented on this point during the game because I thought the announcers’ comments were misleading and unnecessarily contentious.

The camera angle in the MNF coverage was poor and gave a false impression. Jeremy’s screen shot above is taken from a much better angle. It’s also easy to see that Stokley is in the endzone in the following clip from the NFL Channel.

(look at the 1:50 mark and on) http://bit.ly/2q0sOH

I could enter into the debate over “maintaining possession” or “establishing possession” but it’s moot. Stokley has possession in the endzone (quite clearly) so it’s a touchdown. The only reason it’s a controversy in some people’s minds is because he traveled out of the endzone after making the catch. This is irrelevant. Being touched outside the endzone is also irrelevant. Moreover, there’s never any question as to whether he had control of the ball since he doesn’t bobble the ball at any point, so it’s clearly in his possession.

I expect this particular play will be covered on the weekly segment in which the head of NFL officials explains controversial calls. I predict that they’ll show a different angle to show you that the ball is clearly over the goal line, and the replay officials have this angle at their disposal during the game in order to make calls such as this one.

I could stand another year where bolts fan say we won cause of the refs!

I was going to refrain from discussing the quality of the announcers but it’s nearly impossible. I prefer watching without listening to them but there’s some information they deliver that I can’t get otherwise.

We were done a great disservice by these announcers. It’s a sad spectacle to see these creature opine with great certainty when they’re wrong. They’re paid to be opinionated; not to be right.

I want to compliment PDXTai for finding this quote -

Touchdown and conversion receptions in the end zone are made when a receiver catches a legal pass and has possession of the football and both feet in bounds within the end zone.

source

It seems to affirm what Jeremy, myself, and several other members have said. While not perhaps the final word (we’ll hold our breath to see if the NFL issues a retraction), it looks like the inbound rule for the endzone applies to all four boundries, and supports what the referee said.

Instead of just saying that the call was “upheld”, and it wasn’t clear if the player broke the plane, He made the strong statement that the call was “affirmed”. He then went on to explain that the player had possession, and the play ended at that moment. This sound like full agreement with quote.

This seems to be a common theme this year, the “what could have beens”. It started with the first game “fluke play” and still continues today with this call on the TD. The arguments always are that the end result would have been different.

On the “fluke” the argument is that Cincy would have won. That’s not true. It would have been an incomplete pass and NO ONE knows what would have happened after that because it didn’t happen. For all anyone knows, we would have completed several more passes and kicked a field goal to win. It’s like arguing that a near interception somehow changed the game.

If the TD had been ruled not a TD, no one knows what would have happened next, so how can it even be discussed what the outcome was? Denver might have (would have?) gone for the TD and might have made it, or then again, maybe not. Maybe Denver would have sacked Rivers in the end-zone for a safety and we would have won by 6. It’s not as though this TD call converted a sure win for SD to a loss…(unlike the Hochuli call which would have resulted in a loss if called a fumble).

or did it change.
it was like as long as the ball breaks the plane [extending outward from the beginning of the endzone] then only a part of his body has to go within the actual defined endzone.
I remember looking this up extensively 3-4 years ago because of a ruling

this was from someones artice published 2 years ago

The third method is essentially the second, but is a source of infinite goal line confusion. If some part of the player touches in bounds beyond the goal line, no matter where the ball is in relation to the field of play, the player is in bounds beyond the goal line and in possession of the ball. Even though the sideline plane was broken by the ball, and the ball itself never broke the goal line plane between the pylons, the superceding rule provides that an in-bounds player in possession of the ball beyond the goal is credited with a touchdown. The NFL rule itself reads “The goal line is actually in the end zone. A player with the ball in his possession scores a touchdown when the ball is on, above, or over the goal line.” Why do they say “above” and “over”? Isn’t that redundant? No, because the knuckleheads who wrote the rule meant BEYOND when they said “over”. “[A]bove” refers to the fact that the goal line does extend infinitely vertically, between the pylons. Ed Hochuli could show them a thing or two about drafting.

To illustrate, a few years ago Warrick Dunn dove for the pylon, but missed badly, landing a few feet out of bounds. However, on his way down his foot clipped the pylon. The pylon is considered in-bounds (because the interior face of the pylon is lined up precisely with the sideline), and Dunn was credited with a touchdown. If you re-read my explanation for the “third method” to score a touchdown, he possessed the ball while technically in bounds and beyond the goal line. The ruling was correct.

it’s important to remember that the Chargers were nowhere near getting a touchdown on the drive where Nate Kaeding missed his 55-yard field goal, just saying.

Can somebody call The Fan and tell Alfred that (a) the play was confirmed and (b) it was a pass play not a run so the position of the ball doesn’t matter??

We won by four and only gave up three points that entire half. It did not determine the outcome and really only added icing and released some anxiety about the outcome of the game. I’ve heard that some moron Dolt fans are whining again, but this was no Hoculi deal; the better team outplayed, outcoached and outperformed the lesser team. Touchdown at the end or no touchdown at the end. Period.

but here is my take, and keep in mind I am not going into any hypothetical situations or saying what would have happened if it were not ruled a touchdown, and I am a Broncos fan and was cheering for them and wanted it to be a touchdown. I simply think the ball has to be in the end zone (“crossed the plane”) in any and all cases for a touchdown to score. Essentially I am agreeing with Hooper in his posts above, but trying to flesh out this position.

On the rule noted above:

From Rule 11, section 2, article 1 "it is a touchdown:
a) when the runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents goal line (plane); or
b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the opponents’ goal line"

“on or behind the opponents’ goal line” is a prepositional phrase that could be modifying “player” (the subject of the sentence) or “ball” (the direct object of the sentence). It is ambiguous as written, and I believe in the context of NFL rules it is referring to the ball. The hypothetical that keeps coming up in this thread is the hitch route back to the line of scrimmage, where the receiver catches the ball, feet are in the end zone, but he falls out of the end zone and the ball clearly had never crossed the plane of the end zone. I don’t remembering seeing a play like this, and I definitely don’t remember it ever being called a touchdown.

Using the fade route (ala Scheffler last night) as an example of the “feet in, touchdown” is misleading. In that case, the ball has already crossed the plane, the fact that no one had possession at the moment it crossed the plane does not matter, when the receiver gains possession, it is entirely IN the end zone and hence has entirely crossed the plane. “Infinite end zone line” sounds complicated but is correct. In the case of the fade route, the feet establish that the player was in bounds when he caught the ball, the position of the ball (well past the end zone line) establishes the touchdown.

In this case, the feet mean nothing, the position of the ball when he gained possession and when he was down mean everything, just like any other time you spot the ball.

So the question becomes: when Stokely gained possession of the ball, had it crossed the plane? I have yet to see a picture or clip from a good angle to confirm or deny this. Personally, I’m not debating that specific point at all. I am just asserting that this is the important point as to whether it was a touchdown. The feet don’t matter for it being a touchdown…only for being in bounds.

I don’t believe anything has been stated in this thread that proves it absolutely either way, and the official rule excerpt that was dug up is ambiguous…hence this is my position/belief, and I will defer if someone can find something more official and less ambiguous from the NFL.

to overturn any call. had they not called the TD on the field, i don’t think it gets overturned either

I was at a bar and didn’t hear the official after the challenge, I just saw the ruling. I haven’t found it in any of the recaps online. I would like to hear exactly what the official said after the review.

….that the NFL Rules Committee is following this.

Steve, Hooper, apple, and everyone else who got into the nitty gritty absolutely rock!!!!

This was a truly amazing dialectic. I admit when i posted it that I was less than 100% sure about the rule being 2 feet in the goal by a receiver, but I was 100% sure of what I heard the ref say, so I figured even if it was wrong I would learn something…

Boy did I ever! What a great series of points and counterpoints here. Also, I appreciate taht everyone understood teh spirit within which this was posted: I’m not interested with debating with anyone here or elsewhere whether the Broncos deserve to win that game, that wasn’t the point of the post. It was just to delve deeper into a rule that is critical to the game.

I agree with Bradley above: I hope more clarification on this issue is forthcoming from the NFL over the next week or so!

Cheers!

The review commentary on the NFL.com video states that:

… Well, it actually looked like his knee was down before he got in the end zone, but they looked at it, Charles, and said the ball was actually across the line so the touchdown would stand. Broncos on top 34 to 23. …

Skip forward to 3:45 here.

Now for a lot of fun, listen to what the OFFICIAL said. I think you’ll be surprised.

The official says the call is affirmed, then pauses. Then he goes on to state that the player was in the endzone, and the ball was caught, so the play ends at that moment. Nothing after that point matters. He says nothing about the ball, which is what an official would say at any of the other edges of the endzone.

Here.

But I did enjoy it for a short time. Thanks everyone for being respectful and grown-up about it. Thanks Hooper, asdqqq for fighting the good fight with me :-).

I’ll concede. I don’t really care at this point. BUT I STILL THINK I’M RIGHT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA EVIL LAUGH I WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD (okay just joking around now).

That’s what NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira said in his review of Santonio Holmes’ TD catch in the Steelers-Ravens game. (Thanks to broncosmontana for providing the link in his post.) I think the bit about both feet having to be in the end zone is a red herring. The receiver has to have possession and have both feet down for it to be a legal catch. Those conditions have to be met while the ball is touching or beyond the plane of the end zone for it to also be a TD. If the ball is “in” the end zone when a player leaps and catches it but short of the end zone when he comes down it’s not a TD. If the ball is “in” the end zone when it touches the receiver’s hands but short of the end zone when he gains control it’s not a TD. The back and sides of the end zone toe tap TD scenarios are also red herrings. In such instances the ball is already beyond the plane of the goal line and hence not short of it when the receiver establishes possession and gets both feet down in bounds, thus making it a legal catch and a TD.

In Pereira’s review he states that three questions had to be answered, and one of them was: Were the feet down in the end zone? I believe “in the end zone” is imprecise and misleading and merely reflects the “in the end zone” was where Holmes happened to be at the time. Thereafter Pereira refers, in several instances, only to the feet being down. At any rate he makes it inarguably clear that, wherever the feet are, their being down and the receiver having established possession are NOT sufficient for it to be a TD. Whether not the ball touches the plane of the goal line after these conditions have been met is the leitmotif of the review. He comes back to it repeatedly and concludes, “He had control, he had feet down, and the ball was over the plane.”

Note the similarity of his phrasing to that of the official in the Broncos game: “The receiver had possession of the ball, with two feet down, in the end zone.” Without the clarification of the rulebook (which I didn’t read the way some others apparently did) and Pereira’s review of the Holmes catch, and without a comma between down and in, one could hear “two feet down in the end zone” and assume that’s where the feet had to be in addition to being down. Be we do have the context of Pereira’s review, the rule does not (in my opinion) say what some here think it does, and the official’s encunciation was precise and clear: The receiver had possession of the ball . . . with two feet down . . . in the end zone. Given the context “in the end zone” clearly refers to the ball, not the feet, and at any rate as Pereira makes clear the feet are not sufficient to make it a TD.

As a side note, as one who has always loved formal debate and was once very good at it, I couldn’t help noticing what seemed to be some questionable debate tactics. It only drives your opponent into a shell and hence doesn’t serve the purpose of getting at the truth (whatever we might mean by that) to assume that you’re right and your opponent is wrong, that he just likes to argue, that he’s disagreeing with the rules rather than with your interpretation of them. I don’t wish to name names. It’s just an observation.

Finally, a side note to HT’s interesting comment that hopefully “doesn’t mean what many people think.” He asserts that "Hopefuly, we’ll go to the park later" doesn’t mean "I hope we go to the park later". Apparently (and somewhat to my relief) Merriam-Webster begs to differ:

1 : in a hopeful manner
2 : it is hoped : I hope : we hope
usage In the 1960s the second sense of hopefully, which dates to the early 18th century and had been in fairly widespread use since at least the 1930s, underwent a surge in popularity. A surge of criticism followed in reaction, but the criticism took no account of the grammar of adverbs. Hopefully in its second sense is a member of a class of adverbs known as disjuncts. Disjuncts serve as a means by which the author or speaker can comment directly to the reader or hearer usually on the content of the sentence to which they are attached. Many other adverbs (as interestingly, frankly, clearly, luckily, unfortunately) are similarly used; most are so ordinary as to excite no comment or interest whatsoever. The second sense of hopefully is entirely standard.

It’s been a fascinating discussion, even though I was late to the party. Hope I haven’t rubbed anybody the wrong way with my opinion. I trust we all enjoyed the on-the-field result of that play and of the game as a whole. While this discussion was going on I was elsewhere, um, discussing some people’s inability or unwillingness to give Orton credit where credit is due, to accept that he’s a prettty damned good QB and we’re pretty damned fortunate to have him. Boy, did McDaniels fleece Chicago!