REDSKINS-BILLS SUPER BOWL 26 ON ESPN NOW, Wed 2 PM

[davy]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I hate to say it, but it was a good call. Art Monk's foot was on the white line in the back of the end zone. I hated that, because that drive was an Art Monk drive! If I remember correctly, we botched the field goal attempt on that drive and came away with no points.

Watch it again skinsguy, I've been trying to convince people for years it was a TD. Monk got his first foot in clearly then the heel of his second foot came down in bounds and at that point it was a TD, the fact that his toes came down out of the endzone a moment later is irrelevant.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by davy

Watch it again skinsguy, I've been trying to convince people for years it was a TD. Monk got his first foot in clearly then the heel of his second foot came down in bounds and at that point it was a TD, the fact that his toes came down out of the endzone a moment later is irrelevant.

Nope. Both feet, from heel to toe have to be in. It was a good call.

Sucks though. Art Monk never caught a touchdown pass in a Super Bowl. Some jerk is probably using that fact as a reason not to vote him into the Hall.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Nope. Both feet, from heel to toe have to be in. It was a good call.

Sucks though. Art Monk never caught a touchdown pass in a Super Bowl. Some jerk is probably using that fact as a reason not to vote him into the Hall.

If this is right and I agree that it is according to the prevailing interpretation of the rules, then why are all these catches where the receiver drags his toe ruled as complete? I think a better interpretation would be that Monk scored a TD in the instant he had one foot and one toe(s) down. Play over. Anything after that is quite inconsequential.

Another rules interpretation I hate is that when a quarterback is hit in the process of throwing a pass, that pass is considered foreward, even if the ball travels backwards. IMO, that should be a free ball.