For those watching on TV, did the runner step out of bounds?

And if he had been ruled out of bounds, would the horse collar penalty have stood?

If he was out of bounds wouldn't that have been unnecessary roughness?

In that case, it would have been late "hit". Same consequences.

I think it didn't happen because play was dead...refs just didn't know it.

No, he was in bounds by a fraction of an inch.

And no, if he had stepped out of bounds, the horsecollar would not have applied and neither would any other live penalty because it wouldve been considered dead when he stepped out. It would not have been unncecessary roughness because there was no whistle.

Grizz Air said:

---

No, he was in bounds by a fraction of an inch.

And no, if he had stepped out of bounds, the horsecollar would not have applied and neither would any other live penalty because it wouldve been considered dead when he stepped out. It would not have been unncecessary roughness because there was no whistle.

---

I'm going to disagree with this. I don't have any evidence but it just doesn't seem right.

Thanks.

I thought it was a good call by the rules, but a pretty weak collar since it had no effect.

The out of bounds was really close but I think he stayed in, or at least to the point where it couldn't be clearly proven out on replay.

Big_Pumpin said:

---

Grizz Air said:

---

No, he was in bounds by a fraction of an inch.

And no, if he had stepped out of bounds, the horsecollar would not have applied and neither would any other live penalty because it wouldve been considered dead when he stepped out. It would not have been unncecessary roughness because there was no whistle.

---

I'm going to disagree with this. I don't have any evidence but it just doesn't seem right.

---

The commentators said the same thing. If the play was overturned, the penalty wouldn't have existed.

I need rule book proof. It was a live ball and our guy broke the rules.

I mean are we saying that our guy could have thrown a chair at the player to knock him down and he wouldn't have been penalized if it was determined that he stepped out of bounds ealier?

I don't remember the play. From what I remember, Captain Morgan was being a very bad influence on me.

Big_Pumpin said:

---

I need rule book proof. It was a live ball and our guy broke the rules.

I mean are we saying that our guy could have thrown a chair at the player to knock him down and he wouldn't have been penalized if it was determined that he stepped out of bounds ealier?

---

That's unsportsmanlike conduct. That applies to dead or live ball plays.

Yep. Unsportsmanlike can be called whether there is a whistle or not. Horsecollar tackle? Not so much.

Grizz Air said:

---

No, he was in bounds by a fraction of an inch.

And no, if he had stepped out of bounds, the horsecollar would not have applied and neither would any other live penalty because it wouldve been considered dead when he stepped out. It would not have been unncecessary roughness because there was no whistle.

---

The officials rarely blow their whistle the instant the player steps out of bounds, but there are plenty of unnecessary roughness penalties called along the sideline right after a player steps out of bounds. Colt McCoy was good for drawing 2 to 3 of these calls a game when he was at UT. It is possible for it to have been unnecessary roughness even if the whistle wasn't blown if it was clear the player was out of bounds or going out of bounds. I'm not a rules expert, just offering another opinion from what I've seen called in the past.

His heel was out of bounds. The question was whether the heel and the foot parts closest to it were in the air and therefore not touching out of bounds.

The replay showed at least part of the heel was in the air, but no angle was conclusive that any foot part was touching down out of bounds. If not, incredible play by the ball carrier, because half his foot was clearly over the line but not clearly touching the ground.