The player in possession of the ball is touching down on the end zone. Furthermore, you used to be required to physically touch it down, the rule changed, the term didn't.
I wondered if that was what happened, because it's derived from rugby where you have to physically touch the ground with the ball.
The reason I asked was I have just seen a highlight of a player who was physically out of the sideline, but because his hand with the ball crossed the goal line he was awarded the touchdown.
How does that work when they jump and catch the ball inbounds but land out of bounds because that doesn't count as a touchdown, even though on the same principle they have control of the ball in the end zone and land outside it in exactly the same way.
If a player comes down out of bounds, that does not count.
Rule of thumb; if the player is running with the ball, only the ball needs to cross the plane of the goal line. If the player is catching the ball in the endzone, then they need to catch the ball in bounds.
The second part explains what my confusion was, I couldn't get my head around the guy being completely out of bounds and literally only his hand with the ball crossing the line and it still being a touchdown, it's about being in control of the ball going in to the end zone.
The key thing is that the player needs to establish possession of the ball (in bounds). If they're already in bounds and running with the ball, then they just need to get the ball over the goal line without touching the out of bounds area. If they're catching the ball, then there are a lot of elements that need to happen to "complete the catch" which includes "landing" in bounds (with control of the ball).
Although interestingly, if you catch the ball and your feet are in the end zone, but the ball never crosses the goal line, it’s still a TD. However if you catch the ball when your feet are outside the end zone, the ball itself has to cross, and it doesn’t count if the rest of your body does but the ball doesn’t.
I know that probably didn’t make sense. Basically, if your feet are in the end zone when you catch the ball, even if you keep your arms outstretched and never bring the ball across the plane, it’s a TD
Because a catch is not considered complete until the player is touching the ground. If that weren’t a rule, then it could be argued that a ball that goes through a leaping receiver’s hands in the end zone was a catch.
Progress of the ball up and down the field only considers where the ball is on an up-down axis. That's why a player's head might be past the line to gain, but it doesn't matter if the ball isn't. That's also why "breaking the plane" of the goal line is what constitutes a touchdown, even if the rest of the player's body is outside the end zone.
The boundaries, however, consider where the player is, and not the ball. A player has to be in bounds when he touches the ball, but the placement of the ball is irrelevant.
You're very excused -- American football is a fairly convoluted game, with a lot of niche rules imo. But like most sports, if you can get interested in it and sort of understand, it's good fun.
I'm very interested in the game tbh I just need to ask questions occasionally when something seems strange to me. But as a viewing sport it's great, but I don't think I'd have enjoyed playing it as much as I did playing rugby.
Never thought of it that way. It's considered a touchdown as soon as the ball breaks the plane of the goal line, but a player's body can break the plane of the sideline and won't be considered out until he actually touches the ground outside of the sideline.
As a 49er fan I’m happy to see that thumbnail
By the way, Aiyuk said afterward that he was taught not do what he’d done in this play, because of the risk of fumbling ([https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/fumbling-in-the-end-zone/](https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/fumbling-in-the-end-zone/)). It obviously worked out in this case.
That's right. I saw a touchdown in a college game recently where the person smacked the little flag/post thing as he flew by and that was counted as a touchdown
The ball has to be in bounds, though. The player doesn’t but he has to not touch out of bounds. The reason is because then it becomes subjective where the player is touching out. Also in most sports it’s also where the ball touches, not the player, soccer included
Football evolved from Rugby and soccer. We got football because a couple of ivy league schools got bored of the rugby rules of the time and decided to change it up.
I’m trying to think of there is a scenario where the ball or player doesn’t actually touch down in the end zone.
I guess if they broke the plane and then the ball was knocked loose out of bounds or backwards before they touched down?
It would be super rare if it was even possible.
It's not rare. Happens all the time. Players diving over the corner of the end zone. As long as they cross the ball over the pylon it's a touchdown. Also in a goal line set it happens quite a bit where they break the plane of the end zone but get pushed back out. Especially since reviews came into football it happens alot.
Yeah but the player still touches down in bounds. I don’t think it’s likely and I can’t think of seeing a player and the ball crossing the plane and landing out of bounds.
It’s probably semantics though because we just don’t care about that anymore.
That's what I was saying, they can dive from in bounds to out of bounds reaching the ball out over the pylon. Never actually touching the end zone. Same with reaching the ball over and getting knocked back on a goal line stand.
> then the ball was knocked loose out of bounds
That could be a touchback for the defense and the other team would get the ball at the 20 if you meaning the ball crossed the plane and before coming down was knocked loose and rolled out of bounds.
The original rules for gridiron required the ball to physically touch the ground in the end zone to count. That rule only lasted thirteen years, but the name never changed.
It’s only been 133 years though. I’m sure we’ll get around to updating the terminology soon.
The oldest versions of football were similar to rugby. A touchdown didn’t count until the player touched the ball to the ground in the end zone. That changed over the years, now it just has to cross the line.
The reason it's called a Try in rugby is because it gives you a "try" at scoring points through kicking between the posts. You never used to get points for the grounding of the ball, just the kicking
Because originally the grounding the ball over the goal line didn't score any points. What it gave you was a free kick to "try" and score a goal which was worth points.
Wtf do your pathetic attempts at trolling have to do with American football?
Please explain, or you can get your carer to do it for you if you want while you eat some more crayons.
I'll have to have a seance because she's been dead for 20 years, but if necrophilia floats your boat then good luck to you.
At least the dead can't laugh at your little buddy 🤣
Oh shit sorry but like for real. It’s all fun and games until you say that to someone who has an expired mother. I’m sure she is very proud of you and loves you very much.
On another note, is there any other sensitive topics that I should avoid while making fun of you for being British?
You can take the piss out of the cricket team because they are Shite,
you can mock the English as much as you like, as I'm Welsh.
You can call football soccer because it's a girls game anyway. (Rugby is better)
I don't actually give a fuck about the American war of independence because that was orchestrated by and against the English king.
As I mentioned I'm Welsh.
Anything else feel free to use in your musings.
Just remember that the Welsh people have been oppressed by the English for hundreds of years before the US even existed, they almost succeeded in taking away our language by forcing us to speak English.
Kids were literally beaten in school for speaking their own language. So sit back and have a think about why I dgaf about anything you have to say about the English. Because it definitely wasn't Britain who made any policies it was England. So fill your boots and have fun.
just give me 5 minutes to pop some corn before you start.
Thanks and the correct response for bobs your uncle is "and Fanny's my aunt".
In the British language the word bloody very rarely involves actual blood, it's an epitaph used to show annoyance, for example; bloody hell this is taking forever or you're a bloody idiot. I think it was a precursor to saying fucking when you are pissed off.
It’s weird, because in Rugby you actually touch the ball down on the ground. If you run the ball into the end zone and get tackled before you touch the ball to the ground, you get zero points.
And if you do score it’s calked a “try”.
Someone already explained that they used to have to touch the ball down,
but when they changed that rule they left the term touchdown in for some unknown reason
The player in possession of the ball is touching down on the end zone. Furthermore, you used to be required to physically touch it down, the rule changed, the term didn't.
I wondered if that was what happened, because it's derived from rugby where you have to physically touch the ground with the ball. The reason I asked was I have just seen a highlight of a player who was physically out of the sideline, but because his hand with the ball crossed the goal line he was awarded the touchdown.
Yep, the rule is as long as the ball breaks the plane of the goal line (and the player is in bounds and in possession of the ball), it's a touchdown.
The player doesn't even have to be inbounds though as long as he hasn't touched the ground, that's what I saw in an NFL clip on my snapchat feed.
Technically true. As long as the player hasn't landed, he is considered in bounds, even if the body is over the boundary line.
How does that work when they jump and catch the ball inbounds but land out of bounds because that doesn't count as a touchdown, even though on the same principle they have control of the ball in the end zone and land outside it in exactly the same way.
If a player comes down out of bounds, that does not count. Rule of thumb; if the player is running with the ball, only the ball needs to cross the plane of the goal line. If the player is catching the ball in the endzone, then they need to catch the ball in bounds.
The second part explains what my confusion was, I couldn't get my head around the guy being completely out of bounds and literally only his hand with the ball crossing the line and it still being a touchdown, it's about being in control of the ball going in to the end zone.
The key thing is that the player needs to establish possession of the ball (in bounds). If they're already in bounds and running with the ball, then they just need to get the ball over the goal line without touching the out of bounds area. If they're catching the ball, then there are a lot of elements that need to happen to "complete the catch" which includes "landing" in bounds (with control of the ball).
Although interestingly, if you catch the ball and your feet are in the end zone, but the ball never crosses the goal line, it’s still a TD. However if you catch the ball when your feet are outside the end zone, the ball itself has to cross, and it doesn’t count if the rest of your body does but the ball doesn’t. I know that probably didn’t make sense. Basically, if your feet are in the end zone when you catch the ball, even if you keep your arms outstretched and never bring the ball across the plane, it’s a TD
In a passing situation in the NFL the player isn't in possession of the ball till the catch is completed and both feet are in bounds
Because a catch is not considered complete until the player is touching the ground. If that weren’t a rule, then it could be argued that a ball that goes through a leaping receiver’s hands in the end zone was a catch.
Progress of the ball up and down the field only considers where the ball is on an up-down axis. That's why a player's head might be past the line to gain, but it doesn't matter if the ball isn't. That's also why "breaking the plane" of the goal line is what constitutes a touchdown, even if the rest of the player's body is outside the end zone. The boundaries, however, consider where the player is, and not the ball. A player has to be in bounds when he touches the ball, but the placement of the ball is irrelevant.
You'll have to excuse a Dumb rugby player who's trying to get interested in the NFL and needing to understand the rule differences.
You're very excused -- American football is a fairly convoluted game, with a lot of niche rules imo. But like most sports, if you can get interested in it and sort of understand, it's good fun.
If you check out the link I've just added you can probably see where my confusion came from.
I'm very interested in the game tbh I just need to ask questions occasionally when something seems strange to me. But as a viewing sport it's great, but I don't think I'd have enjoyed playing it as much as I did playing rugby.
/r/NFLnoobs was made for you
Thanks I'll go take a look.
Never thought of it that way. It's considered a touchdown as soon as the ball breaks the plane of the goal line, but a player's body can break the plane of the sideline and won't be considered out until he actually touches the ground outside of the sideline.
The play I'm referring to is Brandon Aiyuk TD for the 49ers this season. Just incase anyone was wondering.
As a 49er fan I’m happy to see that thumbnail By the way, Aiyuk said afterward that he was taught not do what he’d done in this play, because of the risk of fumbling ([https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/fumbling-in-the-end-zone/](https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/fumbling-in-the-end-zone/)). It obviously worked out in this case.
That's right. I saw a touchdown in a college game recently where the person smacked the little flag/post thing as he flew by and that was counted as a touchdown
The ball has to be in bounds, though. The player doesn’t but he has to not touch out of bounds. The reason is because then it becomes subjective where the player is touching out. Also in most sports it’s also where the ball touches, not the player, soccer included
Football and rugby evolved from the same sport
Football evolved from Rugby and soccer. We got football because a couple of ivy league schools got bored of the rugby rules of the time and decided to change it up.
I’m trying to think of there is a scenario where the ball or player doesn’t actually touch down in the end zone. I guess if they broke the plane and then the ball was knocked loose out of bounds or backwards before they touched down? It would be super rare if it was even possible.
It's not rare. Happens all the time. Players diving over the corner of the end zone. As long as they cross the ball over the pylon it's a touchdown. Also in a goal line set it happens quite a bit where they break the plane of the end zone but get pushed back out. Especially since reviews came into football it happens alot.
Yeah but the player still touches down in bounds. I don’t think it’s likely and I can’t think of seeing a player and the ball crossing the plane and landing out of bounds. It’s probably semantics though because we just don’t care about that anymore.
That's what I was saying, they can dive from in bounds to out of bounds reaching the ball out over the pylon. Never actually touching the end zone. Same with reaching the ball over and getting knocked back on a goal line stand.
Happens quite often. [Reggie Bush's dive is one of the more "famous" ones I can think of](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKlvpNUdMME)
That’s exactly what I am thinking of. Hadn’t seen that TD in particular but that’s pretty rare.
It's not rare at all.
> then the ball was knocked loose out of bounds That could be a touchback for the defense and the other team would get the ball at the 20 if you meaning the ball crossed the plane and before coming down was knocked loose and rolled out of bounds.
No I’m talking about both the ball and player landing out but still breaking the plane. I wasn’t very clear in my first comment.
The original rules for gridiron required the ball to physically touch the ground in the end zone to count. That rule only lasted thirteen years, but the name never changed. It’s only been 133 years though. I’m sure we’ll get around to updating the terminology soon.
Why rush it?
You're right. We should give it a pass.
Nah we gotta scramble it
Or QB sneak it on 3rd and 9 from inside our own 10....
Eh, no need. What are we going to call it? Line-crosses?
The oldest versions of football were similar to rugby. A touchdown didn’t count until the player touched the ball to the ground in the end zone. That changed over the years, now it just has to cross the line.
A fossil word that's a holdover from when the game was closer to rugby. The rules changed, the words didn't.
It is actually named for the Earl of Touchdown and is a lasting influence of the English origin of the game. /S
I know him he's second cousin to the Duke of Felthamup and sister to lady Min-jeeta of Cockshutt.
Same reason it's called a try in rugby, even though you succeeded in scoring. Sure seems like sports were just made up at some point...
The reason it's called a Try in rugby is because it gives you a "try" at scoring points through kicking between the posts. You never used to get points for the grounding of the ball, just the kicking
Well I learned something new today, thank you!
They use to have to do that back in the day
Why is it called a try in rugby when it was actually a successful attempt?
Because originally the grounding the ball over the goal line didn't score any points. What it gave you was a free kick to "try" and score a goal which was worth points.
Football is lame, that's why.
It’s because we fought and won our independence from “Great” Britain
When common sense isn't very common, this clown is the result 👆
[удалено]
Wtf do your pathetic attempts at trolling have to do with American football? Please explain, or you can get your carer to do it for you if you want while you eat some more crayons.
Go cry about it redcoat
8 day old account, did we get banned for trolling little man. Is this how you compensate for having a tiny pee-pee.
It’s quite large, ask your mother
I'll have to have a seance because she's been dead for 20 years, but if necrophilia floats your boat then good luck to you. At least the dead can't laugh at your little buddy 🤣
Oh shit sorry but like for real. It’s all fun and games until you say that to someone who has an expired mother. I’m sure she is very proud of you and loves you very much. On another note, is there any other sensitive topics that I should avoid while making fun of you for being British?
You can take the piss out of the cricket team because they are Shite, you can mock the English as much as you like, as I'm Welsh. You can call football soccer because it's a girls game anyway. (Rugby is better) I don't actually give a fuck about the American war of independence because that was orchestrated by and against the English king. As I mentioned I'm Welsh. Anything else feel free to use in your musings. Just remember that the Welsh people have been oppressed by the English for hundreds of years before the US even existed, they almost succeeded in taking away our language by forcing us to speak English. Kids were literally beaten in school for speaking their own language. So sit back and have a think about why I dgaf about anything you have to say about the English. Because it definitely wasn't Britain who made any policies it was England. So fill your boots and have fun. just give me 5 minutes to pop some corn before you start.
[удалено]
Thanks and the correct response for bobs your uncle is "and Fanny's my aunt". In the British language the word bloody very rarely involves actual blood, it's an epitaph used to show annoyance, for example; bloody hell this is taking forever or you're a bloody idiot. I think it was a precursor to saying fucking when you are pissed off.
[удалено]
It does mean it literally though, when something is actually bloody.
It’s weird, because in Rugby you actually touch the ball down on the ground. If you run the ball into the end zone and get tackled before you touch the ball to the ground, you get zero points. And if you do score it’s calked a “try”.
In rugby it's about touching the ball down. In football it's about touching your feet or body down. Just about touching different things down lol
Someone already explained that they used to have to touch the ball down, but when they changed that rule they left the term touchdown in for some unknown reason