Tebow's pick not a pick?

[TimBuff10]

I may not be totally up on the rules her so correct me if I am wrong...

When Tebow threw that pick early on today, I think it was to Matt Willis, the reciever was laying down with half of his body out of bounds and his legs or lower body in bounds. The DB who picked it off was in bounds but jumped in the air and the first thing he clearly came in contact with with his foot stepping on Matt Willis who was out of bounds.

Does this part of the player that the DB touched first count as being out of bounds? I was always under the impression it did but no one brough it up.

[Day1BroncoFan]

I may not be totally up on the rules her so correct me if I am wrong...

When Tebow threw that pick early on today, I think it was to Matt Willis, the reciever was laying down with half of his body out of bounds and his legs or lower body in bounds. The DB who picked it off was in bounds but jumped in the air and the first thing he clearly came in contact with with his foot stepping on Matt Willis who was out of bounds.

Does this part of the player that the DB touched first count as being out of bounds? I was always under the impression it did but no one brough it up.


No idea about your question but I am wondering why Willis was laying on the ground. Never did find out the answer to that. Did he slip or what?

[wayninja]

Interesting question. I suspect it doesn't matter, but still interesting.

[sneakers]

Tebow throws no interceptions.

[BroncoWave]

It was definitely a pick. Got both feet down, was a great play.

[wayninja]

It was definitely a pick. Got both feet down, was a great play.

Well, the question wasn't weather or not he got both feet down in bounds, obviously he did, the question was weather or not he touched Willis first, who was out of bounds. Oh, and also, does that mean anything.

[BroncoWave]

Well, the question wasn't weather or not he got both feet down in bounds, obviously he did, the question was weather or not he touched Willis first, who was out of bounds. Oh, and also, does that mean anything.

Oh I see. If that's a rule I've never heard of it. Wouldn't really make sense to me if that is a rule though.

[TimBuff10]

It was definitely a pick. Got both feet down, was a great play.

Both feet did come down in the field of play but first they came down on a player that was out of bounds thus the DB should have been ruled out and the pass incomplete.

[wayninja]

Oh I see. If that's a rule I've never heard of it. Wouldn't really make sense to me if that is a rule though.

I've heard some obscure rules about touching players who are out of bounds, so it wouldn't surprise me, but I just don't know the nuance.

Where is spikerman when you need him?

[Northman]

I dont think it matters that he touched Willis but i could be wrong.

[wayninja]

I dont think it matters that he touched Willis but i could be wrong.

It matters if he touched him in his naughty place.

[champbronc2]

I may not be totally up on the rules her so correct me if I am wrong...

When Tebow threw that pick early on today, I think it was to Matt Willis, the reciever was laying down with half of his body out of bounds and his legs or lower body in bounds. The DB who picked it off was in bounds but jumped in the air and the first thing he clearly came in contact with with his foot stepping on Matt Willis who was out of bounds.

Does this part of the player that the DB touched first count as being out of bounds? I was always under the impression it did but no one brough it up.

Well think about it this way: If this rule were true, then a player could put one of his feet out of bounds when on defense and then touch an opposing team member and thus make him down by being out of bounds.

Short answer is no, this is not a rule and it was an interception.

[SM19]

Without having a rule to cite, I'm pretty certain the answer has to be no, Willis being out of bounds doesn't change the call. I say this because it's hard to imagine a rule that produces that outcome, but doesn't allow a receiver to negate a sideline interception simply by stepping out of bounds and touching the defender before he establishes possession.

Edit: Champ beat me to this argument, and with a more plausible example.

[wayninja]

Well think about it this way: If this rule were true, then a player could put one of his feet out of bounds when on defense and then touch an opposing team member and thus make him down by being out of bounds.

Short answer is no, this is not a rule and it was an interception.

I think you are right, but don't like the argument. I mean, you can push guys in the air out of bounds, but you still don't see it happen all that often. Being in that position would be a tough thing to do.

[wayninja]

Without having a rule to cite, I'm pretty certain the answer has to be no, Willis being out of bounds doesn't change the call. I say this because it's hard to imagine a rule that produces that outcome, but doesn't allow a receiver to negate a sideline interception simply by stepping out of bounds and touching the defender before he establishes possession.

But that would be unsportsmanlike. Right?

[SM19]

But that would be unsportsmanlike. Right?

Possibly, like going out of bounds and being the first to touch the ball. There's another thing, though: Why would we have a rule like this? (Other than as Broncos fans whose quarterback was intercepted, I mean.) Here, it would operate to rob a player of an otherwise legitimate interception. Is there a situation where it would actually produce a useful or fair result?

[BroncoTech]

I think this out of bounds thing only applies to kick offs. If a player is out of bounds when he first touches the ball then the kick is ruled out of bounds.

[jhildebrand]

It was definitely a pick. Got both feet down, was a great play.

It was an INT. He came down with two feet in bounds. Had he come down on Willis while Willis was out, it would have been ruled out of bounds. The broncos had that called in their favor in the end zone just a few weeks ago.

[Joel]

Dunno, didn't see his feet on Willis, but on the replay I was watching his feet on the sideline, because I was SURE he didn't get them in when I watched it live.

[TimBuff10]

It was an INT. He came down with two feet in bounds. Had he come down on Willis while Willis was out, it would have been ruled out of bounds. The broncos had that called in their favor in the end zone just a few weeks ago.

You need to go back and watch that play again. His foot first came down on Willis, who was out of bounds.

[rcsodak]

Tned and others lay claim to some rules that say the BALL has to come in contact with the oob player for it to also be oob.

I brought this play up in the "umm....catch?" thread if you want to see their justifications and mine.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Schnauzers]

Need 2 feet in bounds to be a catch. I makes no difference if the other guy he touches is partly out of bounds or not.

[Sinthor]

Need 2 feet in bounds to be a catch. I makes no difference if the other guy he touches is partly out of bounds or not.

Yeah, this was a good INT, but as for what Willis was doing, he was complaining to the refs after the play that he'd been shoved down. Was one of those plays where the receiver goes down (however he goes down) and the CB makes a play on the ball. If it was a shove, Tillman got away with one. If a slip or whatever, then it was just a good play. NBD in any case as fortunately, it didn't change the game too much I don't think.

[NightTerror218]

I heard the commentators talking about it. But I never heard a final word on it. Not the first time i heard about, but he did get feet in bounds like he is suppose after the catch.

[wayninja]

Yeah, this was a good INT, but as for what Willis was doing, he was complaining to the refs after the play that he'd been shoved down. Was one of those plays where the receiver goes down (however he goes down) and the CB makes a play on the ball. If it was a shove, Tillman got away with one. If a slip or whatever, then it was just a good play. NBD in any case as fortunately, it didn't change the game too much I don't think.

Willis definitely felt he was shoved down/out. But what pissed me off more than anything is that he started to plead his case before the play even ended instead of doing anything to prevent Tillman from making that catch. You gotta stay focused until the play is dead, man.

[Ravage!!!]

It was a fantastic pick. There is no doubt about that.

[weazel]

it couldnt be a pick... that would mean we would have to say tebow made a mistake.

[BroncoNut]

It matters if he touched him in his naughty place.

:lol: reading this thread and when i came to this post, I laughed. I laughed out loud

[BroncoNut]

Dunno, didn't see his feet on Willis, but on the replay I was watching his feet on the sideline, because I was SURE he didn't get them in when I watched it live.

you were at the game Joel? You should've hung out with us