Football touchdowns

[Rukirchoff]

do you agree or disagree with me

I feel like the whole ball should have to be over the plane for a touchdown. Not just break the plane.

 

[ScarletKnightRider]

Ugh... scoring reviews would take sooo much longer.

 

[Ataylor1989x]

Nah, you can't taint the value of every touchdown by a fingertip ever. Besides, if you're adding the distance of the goalline stripes onto the gridiron, that's more than 100 yards....probably a good four to six inches more.

 

[RU Husky]

do you agree or disagree with me

I feel like the whole ball should have to be over the plane for a touchdown. Not just break the plane.

This ain't soccer. F*ck off.

 

[Rukirchoff]

Ugh... scoring reviews would take sooo much longer.

Honestly didn't even think of that great point haha

 

[RUMBA-JK]

Think about it from sort of a purist precision engineering / mathematical sort of way -

- the term that is used is "break the plane" - and that is what it has to be - simply break the thin 'plane' - in order to have it be a simple yes/no - scored / didn't score situation - and then the only issue that could be debated is where you locate the "plane" (front edge of the goal line stripe - or back edge)

- if you want to say that the entirety of the ball must cross the plane - it will be hideously more controversial - because visualization of the entire ball is often difficult you will have endless arguments over whether the entire ball crossed the plane - - if you got 7/8 of the ball into the end zone & it was not a score ? ugh it would be messy

 

[Rukirchoff]

This ain't soccer. F*ck off.

There's always that one d*ck

 

[Rukirchoff]

Agreed I didn't look at it in that aspect.

 

[robcac26]

Think about it from sort of a purist precision engineering / mathematical sort of way -

- the term that is used is "break the plane" - and that is what it has to be - simply break the thin 'plane' - in order to have it be a simple yes/no - scored / didn't score situation - and then the only issue that could be debated is where you locate the "plane" (front edge of the goal line stripe - or back edge)

- if you want to say that the entirety of the ball must cross the plane - it will be hideously more controversial - because visualization of the entire ball is often difficult you will have endless arguments over whether the entire ball crossed the plane - - if you got 7/8 of the ball into the end zone & it was not a score ? ugh it would be messy

I don't see how determining if the entire ball crossed the entire line is any more difficult than determining if the entire ball did not cross the plane (plane meaning the front of the goal line, as the current rule indicates). Either way, some part of the ball, either the front or the back, need to cross some line. To me, the issue is where the 100 yards is measured from. It is 100 yards between the goal lines, then the ball should only need to cross the plane. If the 100 yards include the goal lines, then it should have to cross completely.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

I don't see how determining if the entire ball crossed the entire line is any more difficult than determining if the entire ball did not cross the plane (plane meaning the front of the goal line, as the current rule indicates). Either way, some part of the ball, either the front or the back, need to cross some line. To me, the issue is where the 100 yards is measured from. It is 100 yards between the goal lines, then the ball should only need to cross the plane. If the 100 yards include the goal lines, then it should have to cross completely.

The current rule does not require that the entire ball completely pass beyond the "plane" ( that ultra-thin imaginary vertical membrane at the very front edge of the goal line) - the rule is that if any part of the ball "breaks the plane" it is a touchdown. The current rule is close to a binary "Yes/No" question - did any part of the ball break the plane? ... there is no judgment that has to be made as to 'entirety' of the ball.
Having to confirm that the entire ball completely passed beyond the "plane" would be almost infinitely more difficult when a runner has the ball tucked in, well secured and only partially visible. While even the most casual football fan can confirm that currently there is occasional difficulty in correctly calling touchdowns, the process would become a monumentally more challenging matter if the officials had to determine if 100% of the ball had passed beyond the plane.

 

[WhiteBus]

Simply if a part of the ball gets into the white or just touches the pylon it's a TD

 

[RUsSKii]

The current rule does not require that the entire ball completely pass beyond the "plane" ( that ultra-thin imaginary vertical membrane at the very front edge of the goal line) - the rule is that if any part of the ball "breaks the plane" it is a touchdown. The current rule is close to a binary "Yes/No" question - did any part of the ball break the plane? ... there is no judgment that has to be made as to 'entirety' of the ball.
Having to confirm that the entire ball completely passed beyond the "plane" would be almost infinitely more difficult when a runner has the ball tucked in, well secured and only partially visible. While even the most casual football fan can confirm that currently there is occasional difficulty in correctly calling touchdowns, the process would become a monumentally more challenging matter if the officials had to determine if 100% of the ball had passed beyond the plane.

I agree that the current rule for touchdown scoring by the ball "breaking the plane" is probably the most practical and easiest to enforce. However, the engineer in me thinks that if a football field is 100 yards long center-to-center (which denotes the distance between the centers of two objects, rather than their nearest edges), then the ball would have to reach halfway past the goal line to truly have traveled said distance. In that respect, Alabama's final touchdown last night would otherwise not have counted, since the running back barely even broke the plane with the ball to begin with..

http://www.sportsknowhow.com/football/field-dimensions/nfl-football-field-dimensions.html

 

[WhiteBus]

I agree that the current rule for touchdown scoring by the ball "breaking the plane" is probably the most practical and easiest to enforce. However, the engineer in me thinks that if a football field is 100 yards long center-to-center (which denotes the distance between the centers of two objects, rather than their nearest edges), then the ball would have to reach halfway past the goal line to truly have traveled said distance. In that respect, Alabama's final touchdown last night would otherwise not have counted, since the running back barely even broke the plane with the ball to begin with..

http://www.sportsknowhow.com/football/field-dimensions/nfl-football-field-dimensions.html

The white of the goal line is the endzone, not the middle of it. Just like the white of the sideline.

 

[DHajekRC84]

Simply if a part of the ball gets into the white or just touches the pylon it's a TD

the rule I hate is that if a runner's foot is in the endzone but the ball crosses outside the cone it is considered a TD. That I do not get. The ball itself should have to cross the front of the white line in bounds with the player in possession and in bounds (by inbounds I mean nothing physically touching the sidelies). Also, as the cones are not IN the endzone but out of bounds I also don't get how a ball touching them is also considered a TD.

 

[RUsSKii]

The white of the goal line is the endzone, not the middle of it. Just like the white of the sideline.

Yes, I understand and agree about the sidelines. Though correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a player not out of bounds unless their foot touches the white edge of the sideline, regardless of whether the ball they're possessing is positioned in or out of bounds itself? So in actuality, the goal lines and touchdown pylons are enforced differently than the sidelines.

 

[WhiteBus]

The goal line is enforced differently but the boundary is defined the same. It the front of each line not the middle

 

[RUsSKii]

The goal line is enforced differently but the boundary is defined the same. It the front of each line not the middle

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm just not crazy about the differing enforcement between the goal lines and sidelines. Also, unless I'm missing something with respect to a standard field's dimensions (per my previous link), the distance between the two closest edges of the goal lines is actually slightly less than 100 yards.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

I agree that the current rule for touchdown scoring by the ball "breaking the plane" is probably the most practical and easiest to enforce. However, the engineer in me thinks that if a football field is 100 yards long center-to-center (which denotes the distance between the centers of two objects, rather than their nearest edges), then the ball would have to reach halfway past the goal line to truly have traveled said distance. In that respect, Alabama's final touchdown last night would otherwise not have counted, since the running back barely even broke the plane with the ball to begin with..

http://www.sportsknowhow.com/football/field-dimensions/nfl-football-field-dimensions.html

spoken like a research engineer....
- manufacturing engineer would say "eh.. it is within tolerance" pack it & ship it! ;)

 

[RUsSKii]

spoken like a research engineer....
- manufacturing engineer would say "eh.. it is within tolerance" pack it & ship it! ;)

Hey now, as a practicing civil engineer in heavy highway/subway/building construction there are almost always tolerances. But in general we are taught that center-to-center and end-to-end are two very different things [winking]

 

[beaced]

And which dual threat QB is all of this informed conversation going to impress enough to commit to RU?

 

[RUMBA-JK]

And which dual threat QB is all of this informed conversation going to impress enough to commit to RU?

-one that is a real "renaissance Rutgers man" !

 

[robcac26]

The current rule does not require that the entire ball completely pass beyond the "plane" ( that ultra-thin imaginary vertical membrane at the very front edge of the goal line) - the rule is that if any part of the ball "breaks the plane" it is a touchdown. The current rule is close to a binary "Yes/No" question - did any part of the ball break the plane? ... there is no judgment that has to be made as to 'entirety' of the ball.
Having to confirm that the entire ball completely passed beyond the "plane" would be almost infinitely more difficult when a runner has the ball tucked in, well secured and only partially visible. While even the most casual football fan can confirm that currently there is occasional difficulty in correctly calling touchdowns, the process would become a monumentally more challenging matter if the officials had to determine if 100% of the ball had passed beyond the plane.

Yes, I am well aware of what the current rule is. This must be the fourth consecutive thread in which someone asks for the reasoning behind a rule and someone else responds by just stating what the rule is. My point is that determining if any part of the ball crossed an imaginary line is the same as determining if the entire ball did NOT cross an imaginary line--with option A you need the entire ball to be on one side of the front of the line to say it is not a touchdown, and with option B you would need the entire ball go be on the other side of the back of the line to say it IS a touchdown, so either way you need to see whether or not the ball was completely on one side of an imaginary line to make the call. I don't see why one would be easier to enforce than the other.

 

[cRURah]

This is one rule that isn;t controversial as now stated. Leave it alone.

 

[Upstream]

Also, unless I'm missing something with respect to a standard field's dimensions (per my previous link), the distance between the two closest edges of the goal lines is actually slightly less than 100 yards.

Why would the distance between the inside edges be less than 100 yards? The goal lines are painted so that the inside edges of the goal lines are exactly 100 yards apart, as per rule.

 

[Upstream]

Yes, I am well aware of what the current rule is. This must be the fourth consecutive thread in which someone asks for the reasoning behind a rule and someone else responds by just stating what the rule is. My point is that determining if any part of the ball crossed an imaginary line is the same as determining if the entire ball did NOT cross an imaginary line--with option A you need the entire ball to be on one side of the front of the line to say it is not a touchdown, and with option B you would need the entire ball go be on the other side of the back of the line to say it IS a touchdown, so either way you need to see whether or not the ball was completely on one side of an imaginary line to make the call. I don't see why one would be easier to enforce than the other.

Because if the front of the ball is hidden (such as if it is cupped in the hand of the runner), you still know that the front of the ball crossed the plane if you see a visible part of the ball further back cross the plane. As long as you see any visible part of the ball cross the plane, you know that a touchdown has been scored.

If the rule required the entire ball to cross the plane, and you can't see the back of the ball (because it is tucked by the runner), you can't easily tell if the entire ball has crossed the plane, even if all visible portions of the ball have crossed the plane. This becomes more difficult, time consuming, and probably controversial.


(And if, as you suggest, they are both equivalent, then it doesn't really matter if the rule is based on the front-end of the ball passing the plane, or the back-end of the ball passing the plane.)

 

[RUMBA-JK]

Yes, I am well aware of what the current rule is. This must be the fourth consecutive thread in which someone asks for the reasoning behind a rule and someone else responds by just stating what the rule is. My point is that determining if any part of the ball crossed an imaginary line is the same as determining if the entire ball did NOT cross an imaginary line--with option A you need the entire ball to be on one side of the front of the line to say it is not a touchdown, and with option B you would need the entire ball go be on the other side of the back of the line to say it IS a touchdown, so either way you need to see whether or not the ball was completely on one side of an imaginary line to make the call. I don't see why one would be easier to enforce than the other.

The "why" it is this way is somewhat rooted in the practical execution - & from a practical execution / officiating standpoint it is NOT the same -
You are saying that determining if any part of the ball crossed an imaginary line is the same as determining if the entire ball did NOT cross an imaginary line. I disagree -

I am not sure how the convince you - but let's focus on the instances that are close- calls - where the ball is at or on a very crowed & contested goal line -
it is far far more workable to focus on identifying if any one point crosses the plane - and if yes - touchdown

It would be far more challenging to try to instantly determine if 100% a football that measures (NFL) about 11 inches in length and 22 inches in circumference - the entirety of which is only partially visible because of the ball carrier's body and arms and hands - and opposing players and blockers - completely passed beyond the plane.

Another way to look at it is like the finish of a horse race - the winner is 'by a nose' ... you don't need to get the entire horse across the finish line.

 

[robcac26]

Because if the front of the ball is hidden (such as if it is cupped in the hand of the runner), you still know that the front of the ball crossed the plane if you see a visible part of the ball further back cross the plane. As long as you see any visible part of the ball cross the plane, you know that a touchdown has been scored.

If the rule required the entire ball to cross the plane, and you can't see the back of the ball (because it is tucked by the runner), you can't easily tell if the entire ball has crossed the plane, even if all visible portions of the ball have crossed the plane. This becomes more difficult, time consuming, and probably controversial.


(And if, as you suggest, they are both equivalent, then it doesn't really matter if the rule is based on the front-end of the ball passing the plane, or the back-end of the ball passing the plane.)

I still don't see how this is any different than when you can't see the front of the ball with the current rule. Either way, you still can't see the part of the ball that matters. If the visible portions of the ball have not crossed the plane, but the front of the ball is not visible, it is just as difficult of a call as if the rule required the entire ball to cross the line and all visible portions have crossed but the back of the ball is not visible.

 

[robcac26]

I am not sure how the convince you - but let's focus on the instances that are close- calls - where the ball is at or on a very crowed & contested goal line -
it is far far more workable to focus on identifying if any one point crosses the plane - and if yes - touchdown

How is this any different than determining if any one point of the ball did not cross the plane?

Current rule: any part of the ball needs to touch the goal line. In other words, if the entire ball is on one side of the line, it is not a touchdown.

Hypothetical rule: entire ball needs to cross the goal line. In other words, if the entire ball is on the other side of the line, it is a touchdown.

Either way, you are determining whether or not the entire ball was on one side of the line.

 

[RUsSKii]

Why would the distance between the inside edges be less than 100 yards? The goal lines are painted so that the inside edges of the goal lines are exactly 100 yards apart, as per rule.

The diagram I linked (and others I have seen) show a standard NFL football field to be a total of 120 yards long (including end zones). That would mean that either the opposing goal lines would be spaced 100 yards apart center-to-center, or that the goal line width is actually part of the 10-yard total endzone length in order to maintain a 120-yard overall length. Thank you for clarifying that the former isn't true.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

yes - it is a vexing logic puzzle .... most likely this evolved out of practical experience - in football & from other sports where close judgment calls are made.
It is possible that since the objective in football is to move the ball forward - the official is likely to instinctively focus on the leading edge of the ball and determine if the forward tip broke the plane .

From a pure mechanics / dimensions standpoint - on paper it makes no difference - but it is in the nuances of the game & the ability to reproducibly make judgment calls with the human eye that the differences would appear.

 

[Nosoj]

There are some real problems with rules in football, if not always in concept than in execution (see: "What's a Catch" and "Targeting"). This is not one of them. This is literally the first time I've ever heard any one have an issue with breaking the plane being a touchdown.

It's fine, don't dig up problems where there aren't any.

 

[Upstream]

The diagram I linked (and others I have seen) show a standard NFL football field to be a total of 120 yards long (including end zones). That would mean that either the opposing goal lines would be spaced 100 yards apart center-to-center, or that the goal line width is actually part of the 10-yard total endzone length in order to maintain a 120-yard overall length. Thank you for clarifying that the former isn't true.

I checked the NCAA rules, but I assume the NFL rules for field dimensions are the same. The NCAA rules only specify the locations of the goal lines (where the field-side edges are 100 yards apart) and the end lines (where the end-zone-side edge of the end line is 10 yards from the field-side edge of the goal line). There is no specification for the other yard markers, other than the lines are 4 inches wide. I assume they are 10-yard center-to-center (since you'd have an anomaly at the 50-yard-line if they were 10-yards from the edges). This means the distance from the distance from the mid-field edge of the 10-yard-line to the field-side edge of the goal line is actually 10 yards 2 inches.

 

[JQRU91]

If touchdowns were ruled like that you could actually have the line of scrimmage be in the endzone.