In bounds or out?

officially, as in didnt touch the ground yet, in-bounds.

As the crow flies, as in over the sideline, out.

Simpson to me was also officially in bounds according to the way rules are applied on passes.

In-bounds, no doubt in my mind.

Those are hard angles to tell, so i’m sticking with in.

Something occurred to me!

While I have changed my mind on the fact that the ball was inbounds because it did not touch the ground....Why when a punt goes out of bounds is it put into play where it crosses the plane and not where it touches the ground? Should the same logic not apply for both cases????

the ball was in bounds, because the ball is still in the air and has not yet touched the ground out of bounds even tho it is past the sideline..simspon is clearly in bounds and nothing is touching out while he clearly touches the ball last

the ball HAS to tocuh the ground out of bounds for the play to stop, which in this case happened after simpson touched it

I agree....... the ball is out of bounds when it touches the ground..

My point however is why then on a punt if the ball crosses the plain of the sideline at the 1 yard line yet touches the ground ten yards farther back is the ball considered to have gone out of bounds at the 1 and not in the endzone?

I was wondering about that as well. I think its a special rule for the punts since the kick returner is not allowed to go play the ball out of bounds theres the rule just for the punts so that punters dont intentionally kick the ball deep out of bounds too easily.

On offense and on fumble recoveries theres little chance of pinning a team deep unless you altready have the ball very deep so thats when its a when the ball hits the ground type scenario or at least that what I think

Well, ro1313, it's not a special rule for punts, because the rules for punts are the same in this case.

If a player of the receiveing team were to be right on the field near the side lines where the ball was going out, he could stand in bounds, grab a ball that was over the out of bounds line, but had not touched out of bounds, and run for a return.

Or if a team lines up someone onside, and that player is down field in bounds, but the ball is over the out of bounds line, but had not touched out of bounds, then the kicking team would get possession back if that player touches the ball while in bounds, and then it lands out of bounds.

The rules are always the same for this in any case. If the ball is in the air over the out of bounds line, but has not touched the ground or any player who is standing out of bounds, or any object that is out of bounds, then the ball is still live. It can be recovered by someone who is standing in bounds. And if a player who is in bounds, touches the ball on its way out, that player's team will get possession. And if someone leaps from a point in bounds, while he is in the air over the area out of bounds, but hasn't touched out of bounds, he can swat the ball back in bounds.

For punts, if the ball TOUCHES down out of bounds, then the point of possession goes to the point where it crossed the line to out of bounds. This makes sense since only the distance covered while the punt is in bounds should count for the punt.

This is absolutely correct!

thats a really weird ruling. like the ball could be 3 feet out of bounds, but caught by someone who was leaning over 3 feet, but his feet still in play, and makes the catch before the ball touches the ground, its still in bounds even tho its painfully obvious that the ball is clearly past the line? :expressionless:

OKAY, time to put this whole thing to rest. Section 9, Article 1: The ball is out of bounds when it touches a sideline, sideline in goal,dead line, or the ground or any object on or beyond the lines. Article 3: When, on any play, the ball is fumbled out of bounds, it shall belong to the team that last touched the ball in the field of play. Section 7, Article 6: The ball shall be considered in play until an official stops the game by blowing his whistle.

So there, it was not only a correct call, but could not be reviewed without sound . Also, according to the rules, the player touching the ball only needs one foot in bounds at the time of possession. It is Winnipeg's ball!

If you look at that whole replay, Winnipeg never touches the football after Holmes fumbled it. The correct call should have been Hamilton football.

Sambo!
Look at the second photo!
There is no question that WPG touched it!

It looks that way from the angle that picture was taken from-- but if you look close you can see black between Simspon's hand and the football, it a shadow of his hand , he never touches that ball.

Your joking right?

The are no shadows anywhere on the field yet you see one between his hand and the ball?

Look close at the photo. There is a gap between his hand and the football. The angle of the picture makes it look like he is touching the ball, but in fact he is not, therefore it should have been Hamilton football. The play should have been reviewed, audio or no audio.

Sorry but the video shows that the ball gets deflected by his hand. He touched it!

I did; and if you look really really close you can see that the date on the referee’s watch reads Aug/13/05 a game in which Winnipeg won 44-14 and the play really didn’t matter that much.

he even said he was in bounds, so whats the arguement, is a minister going to lie, please, ro you must be chatholic.....

  1. yes he prob would
  2. I already said I changed my mind and agreed he was inbounds