At least in the pope thread, Droski comes off as an old white get off my lawn guy and provides mild entertainment.
Before the play. It doesn't exist during the play. He's trucking along down field past that three yard mark. I'll try to look for a different video that shows you if we can find the rule that states the entire body has to be past the 3 yard mark.
Soccer ball has to be 100% over the line to be considered out of bounds or a goal. A player can step on or over the line all he wants as long as the ball is still in bounds.
Technically it is the point between the offensive and defensive lines of scrimmage. And it doesn't matter if it exists during the play, unless you really expect refs to be accurate to within the length of a football at all times, in which case you should just stop watching football.
From the Rule Book: Implies the whole body. Unless you're saying a lineman jazz handing down the field is an ineligible receiver the second his pinky finger crosses the 3 yard mark. Interestingly the rule mentions the neutral zone which Indy has informed us ceases to exist once the ball is snapped.
That's the only one I could think of. I can think of a lot more that are the other way. Do you have the rule? Show me. I will begin looking for the video as soon as you show me the rule that says the LG's entire body needs to be past that 3 yard mark for him to be ineligible.
Then by neutral zone it must mean the line of scrimmage. There is no way to measure the neutral zone if there is no football on the ground to measure it with. As for implying that the entire body has to be past the line, I don't see it. I'm not saying throw the flag the second any part of him crosses the line, but if he's straddling it as he appears to be in the picture, I think that satisfies the requirements for the flag to be thrown.
In tennis if any part of the ball touches even the edge of the line, the ball is in. And dudes that call balls out when they're on the line are bad people and there is a place reserved in hell for the lot of them.
I might argue with a stop sign from time to time, but I'd never argue bammer should have won anything.
When you measure the distance between two objects to you generally measure from the 2 closes points or the 2 farthest? Sometimes you might measure from the middle but the overwhelming majority of the time you measure from the 2 closest edges. But since the rule fails to clarify this sticking point and we don't live in a world where referees use laser measurements to track every ball and player at all times, any of the 3 interpretations of measurement can be interpreted as valid. You're grasping at straws Indy, you're defending Alabama harder than the most obnoxious of their fans.
And then, in contrast, it's a foot fault if your toe touches any part of the line while serving. But if I were a line judge charged with calling foot faults, I would never call one unless the player's foot was just blatantly crossing the line. And Serena agrees with my approach. She'll shove the ball down your godd@mn throat. [video=youtube;cmyad1-nr0U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmyad1-nr0U[/video]
I'm continuing to argue to defend myself, not to defend Bama. **** Bama. The more I read it, the more illegal it sounds. "No originally ineligible receiver shall be or have been more than three yards beyond the neutral zone" 3 yards is the cut off. Once he crosses 3 yards, he's illegally downfield. If half of his body is a half yard past that three yard mark, he is "more than three yards beyond." That's breaking the rule.
Obviously not. If you are arguing for automated penalty calling, you might have something. If you are arguing that Bama got screwed, you are reaching.
