hitting the pylon

[dch]

One of the recent NFL games had a unusual play at the goal line.  I would like to change it up slightly and discuss how it should be ruled for NFHS games.
Pass near the intersection of the goal line and side line  -- A86 (running toward the goal line) jumps from the 2 yard line.  While airborne he secures control of the ball - then brushes the pylon with his left foot.  His right foot then lands inbounds in the endzone and he falls to the ground out of bounds while maintaining control of the ball.
What is the ruling?

[HLinNC]

He's OOB when his foot hit the pylon.

[Derek Teigen]

where was the ball when his left foot brushes the Pylon? If the ball had crossed the plane of the endzone before the brushing of the pylon it would not matter and it would be ruled a touchdown.

[js in sc]

where was the ball when his left foot brushes the Pylon? If the ball had crossed the plane of the endzone before the brushing of the pylon it would not matter and it would be ruled a touchdown.

Not if he had not touched the ground inbounds following the catch prior to touching the pylon.  In NFHS, the player must touch the ground inbounds to complete the catch.  He touched the pylon, out of bounds.  Incomplete pass.

[Derek Teigen]

Not if he had not touched the ground inbounds following the catch prior to touching the pylon.  In NFHS, the player must touch the ground inbounds to complete the catch.  He touched the pylon, out of bounds.  Incomplete pass.

I've been thinking about this (over and over), and I don't like it because by automatically declaring the receiver out of bounds by touching the pylon you have not given him the benefit that had the pylon NOT been there he might have been able to bring that foot down in bounds, or at least get the other foot down in bounds before that first foot touched out of bounds.

Because the pylon is a couple of feet tall it interferes with the receiver.   Had the play been on the sideline it would most likely have a completion because there would have been no pylon to brush against and the receiver would have gotten one foot down in the field of play.

Does this make sense?

[bossman72]

I've been thinking about this (over and over), and I don't like it because by automatically declaring the receiver out of bounds by touching the pylon you have not given him the benefit that had the pylon NOT been there he might have been able to bring that foot down in bounds, or at least get the other foot down in bounds before that first foot touched out of bounds.

Because the pylon is a couple of feet tall it interferes with the receiver.   Had the play been on the sideline it would most likely have a completion because there would have been no pylon to brush against and the receiver would have gotten one foot down in the field of play.

Does this make sense?

Yes.  The technical explanation to the offense for this ruling would be "Tough $h!t". 

Pylon is OOB.  If a fumble hits the pylon then bounces back into the field of play, we're not going to keep that alive.  Same concept.

[Derek Teigen]

Yes.  The technical explanation to the offense for this ruling would be "Tough $h!t". 

Pylon is OOB.  If a fumble hits the pylon then bounces back into the field of play, we're not going to keep that alive.  Same concept.

Except on a running play if a player is extending and the ball touches the pylon while in possession (arms extended) and touches the pylon before coming to ground that is a touchdown correct?

[dch]

and the coach of the out-of-bounds pass play says "but you gave them a touchdown when they hit the pylon in the first half". 

I like the explanation of the NFL rule that John Parry gave better than our pylon rule.

I will answer the test question as out-of-bounds per our definitions in Rule 2. 
On the field      --- doesn't matter for me as I've been retired for quite a while.

[PAREF]

Here is link to a video that Matt Sumstine put together which illustrates the NFHS pylon rule along with comparisons to the NCAA and NFL rules. I think it explains the rule very well.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXuB1_36_d4 . I hope that works, never tried to add a link before.

[Legacy Zebra]

and the coach of the out-of-bounds pass play says "but you gave them a touchdown when they hit the pylon in the first half"

And you give them the simple explanation of the difference. “Coach, in that situation, their ball carrier had already established possession and therefore scored a touchdown when the ball crossed the goal line. Your player had not established possession yet because he had not touched the ground in bounds. When he touched the pylon, that made him out of bounds just like if he had landed on the sideline making this an incomplete pass.”

It’s really that simple.

[bossman72]

Except on a running play if a player is extending and the ball touches the pylon while in possession (arms extended) and touches the pylon before coming to ground that is a touchdown correct?

Correct.  The ball is in player possession, so if it hits the pylon, the theory is that the ball had to have broken the plane of the goal line a millisecond before it hit the pylon out of bounds.  Therefore, touchdown.  The touchdown makes the ball dead and the score counts a millisecond before the ball becomes out of bounds by touching the pylon.

[bossman72]

Here is link to a video that Matt Sumstine put together which illustrates the NFHS pylon rule along with comparisons to the NCAA and NFL rules. I think it explains the rule very well.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXuB1_36_d4 . I hope that works, never tried to add a link before.

I show this to everyone I can as it's a great video.

Here is a working link (you just have to post the link with no tags):

https://youtu.be/QXuB1_36_d4

[Derek Teigen]

This is a great video.  I'm going to watch it many times..very helpful.  Thank you!

[NVFOA_Ump]

As always, great stuff from Matt Sumstine.  Thanks for posting.