[SWAdude]

That call being obviously wrong gave the refs the opportunity to overturn and create their own scenario. They missed that little touch of the ball while TGIII was OB. That should have killed the play.
That whole game was off. imo

After watching this play about fifty times in very slow motion I can't see how the refs could see with any certainty that Gurley was not touching the ball when he went out of bounds.

From what I know that ball was dead on the six inch line.

[69RamFan]

I did the slow motion too and at first I thought it wasn't a fumble....

But I kept reviewing the tape and there is a view with the camera showing from the top angle...

and it clearly shows his finger tips just slightly off the ball and his cleats above the OB

But what I don't get is the rule about the pylon being part of the goal line and inbounds... when it is clearly sits out of bounds on the goal line..

The rule states for a for a touch down to count, the ball must break the plane inside of the pylon,,,,

and from the top view,,, the ball was out of bounds in the air while it hit the pylon... and went back into Gurleys hands...

and base on what happen, they need to change the wording of the rule from being inside of the pylon for it to be a TD....

Because the ball did hit the pylon, but it never went inside of the pylon... IMO...

[Hacksaw]

The freaking pylon is a reference point and QB aide, AND IS NOT in the field of play. So how is it considered in the end zone. . ?

The goal line is part of the end zone, not the field. The pylon sits out of bounds placed within the width of the goal line stripe. This means that if you touch the pylon you would be OB. If you touch the outer corner of the pylon you would be OB .

If you need to get inside of the pylon to score the pylon should be placed with it's back edge at the goal line,, not the front edge. If you touch it, then you are out of bounds and turnover should have nothing to do with it.

Such a stupid reason to change the outcome of the game, not to mention the equally stupid rule to award the ball to the opposing team at the 20 yd line. They should at least have to start at the 1 yd line to make it more fair.

Blasphemy...

[dieterbrock]

2 stupid rules this season
1) "Off setting" penalties on a kick off return that netted the Rams the ball on the 2 yard line
2) The "fumble"

Methinks we should be due for one of these in our favor eh?

[Elvis]

The pylon is part of the end zone. Everybody knows this. If Gurley had maintained control of the ball and touched the pylon with it before going out of bounds it would've been a TD and we'd all be loving the pylon rule...

[Hacksaw]

The pylon is part of the end zone. Everybody knows this. If Gurley had maintained control of the ball and touched the pylon with it before going out of bounds it would've been a TD and we'd all be loving the pylon rule...

We know they rule it that way but where it is located is out of bounds.
The foot of a receiver can't be on the white side line during a catch or he is OB.
The pylon is completely on the white sideline so how is it not OB too? How can that be considered otherwise?

It also sits aligned with the front of the white goal line. If the grass behind the line is the beginning of the end zone, then its not in the end zone either. I believe it's the front of the line but that doesn't place it in the zone either.

I must be missing something..

[Kid Charlamagne]

It was ruled a td on the field and I didn't think it was conclusive that he wasn't touching it while he was ob.

[BobCarl]

.... if you touch the pylon you would be OB

I agree with you ... but the NFL doesn't agree with us.

Though the pylon is located "out of bounds" ... it is not considered part of the ground ... thus a player is not "out of bounds" until he or the ball touches the ground.

The ball is considered "in bounds" if part of the ball is inside of the pylon, even though the ball might hit the pylon, as long as part of the ball is inside, then it is considered as having crossed the goal line.

Here are a few screen grabs:

the 1st photo shows that Gurley clearly has firm possession of the ball... notice that between his thumb and forefinger there is no daylight

the 2nd photo shows that the ball begins to slip away ... daylight appears between his thumb and forefinger.

the 3rd photo shows that he has lost his grip on the ball and it is sliding away from his fingers ... and unfortunately for us ... Gurley's left foot hasn't quite stepped on the ground and at this point the NFL considers this as a loose ball that is still in play.

the last photo shows the loose ball hitting the pylon ... the pylon is now bent, showing that the ball has made contact ... based on the reflection of the pylon on the ball, it seems pretty certain that part of the ball is inside of the pylon. Thus the NFL considers the ball as having gone into the end-zone. The first of many bad breaks for us.

[Zen_Ronin]

And what about now?

[BobCarl]

And what about now?

The NFL claimed that Gurley lost control of the football before his foot landed on the ground (see photo #3 above)

I don't like the NFL's call, I think that merely touching the ball while his foot is out of bounds is enough for it to have been called 'out of bounds'