ADVERTISEMENT

No exaggeration, ND had the worst QB room in ALL of P5.

You don’t have the intellect or the data to draw that conclusion.

Your a know it all legend in your own mind !

In addition, neither you nor anyone else explained the rationale explaining how an object that sits totally out of bounds, can be deemed in bounds.

If a player steps on the white line a millionth of an inch short or long of the pylon, he’s deemed to be out of bounds, but just one millionth of an inch longer or shorter when he comes into contact with the pylon, which sits out of bounds, he’s deemed in bounds.

So go ahead genius, explain the rationale, NOT the rule !

Prior to 1966, if a player touched the area where the pylon now sits, he was deemed out of bounds.
Netflix Seriously GIF by Stranger Things
 
Pylon pat

To date, You have failed to explain the rationale of how a pylon which sits entirely out of bounds can be deemed in bounds, especially in the context of pre and post 1966.

One could make the case that the inside surface of the pylon could be deemed in bounds, but the outside surface ?

Since all lines extend vertically upward, how does no TD in 1965 become a TD in 1966.

So go ahead genius, and explain the rationale, NOT the rule
 
To date, You have failed to explain the rationale of how a pylon which sits entirely out of bounds can be deemed in bounds, especially in the context of pre and post 1966.

One could make the case that the inside surface of the pylon could be deemed in bounds, but the outside surface ?

Since all lines extend vertically upward, how does no TD in 1965 become a TD in 1966.

So go ahead genius, and explain the rationale, NOT the rule
Pylon Pat
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sluggo69
Pylon Pat
I knew that you didn’t have a clue about the rationale for the location of the pylon and I knew that you didn’t have the intellect to answer the other questions I raised.

You’re intellectually dishonest and a fraud !
 
I knew that you didn’t have a clue about the rationale for the location of the pylon and I knew that you didn’t have the intellect to answer the other questions I raised.

You’re intellectually dishonest and a fraud !
Pylon Pat
 
Pylon Pat
Good to see that you and the other morons still don’t know the rationale behind the location of the pylon.

Shouldn’t it be located on the goal line, in bounds rather than out of bounds.

Why isn’t it ?
 
Buchner is horrible and many here wanted him back over Pyne. If they can’t get a quality QB in the portal then all the talent they return next year means little. Buchner has 3 career TD passes but 8 INT’s.
Big upgrades coming to south bend and DC. The empty gap at QB at ND was about as freighting as the dearth in talent at POTUS. Thankfully Hartman and Desantis will be taking over soon.
 
Good to see that you and the other morons still don’t know the rationale behind the location of the pylon.

Shouldn’t it be located on the goal line, in bounds rather than out of bounds.

Why isn’t it ?
Pylon Pat
 
Clearly I'm entering this debate very late, but according to the NFL
"The pylon is regarded as out of bounds when touched by any part of a player's body. If the ball breaks the plane or touches the pylon before a runner is out of bounds, it is a touchdown."
 
Clearly I'm entering this debate very late, but according to the NFL
"The pylon is regarded as out of bounds when touched by any part of a player's body. If the ball breaks the plane or touches the pylon before a runner is out of bounds, it is a touchdown."
Because the pylon marks the intersection of the sideline and the endzone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelso86
Because the pylon marks the intersection of the sideline and the endzone?
The sideline is out of bounds.

The pylon sits in an area that is totally out of bounds

I’m aware of the rule, pre and post 1966

i’m interested in the rationale behind how an object that sits entirely out of bounds can be deemed in bounds.

Think about an out of bounds post/pylon in golf.
It sits in an area that is out of bounds and the post/pylon is deemed to be out of bounds.

Shouldn't the pylon be located on the goal line, in bounds ?
 
You’re a hypocrite, you screamed for Buchner to replace Coan!

And now you’re trying to justify your horrendous decision.

You know nothing about football @nd even Lee’s @bout evaluating talent !
It's not a bad decision. Buchner needs reps.

You keep bitching about development but don't want to play guys to get them to develop. Buchner needed reps. We weren't winning a naty with coan, it's a viable argument to sya that Buchner would have been much better this year with multiple games under his belt.
 
TB would not start for any top 10 team in America. Those that want him to start don't prioritize winning. Hartman will make Buchner think twice about his future. I expect Minchey to start in 2024.
Yeah youre wrong about minchey starting. If he starts as a sophomore (not happening under Rees), that mean tb12 transferred. It also means cj Carr is supposedly going to sit for three years if minchey succeeds...and that is not happening. It is much more likely tb12 starts for two years then Carr takes over than minchey starts for three and Carr waits.
 
The sideline is out of bounds.

The pylon sits in an area that is totally out of bounds

I’m aware of the rule, pre and post 1966

i’m interested in the rationale behind how an object that sits entirely out of bounds can be deemed in bounds.

Think about an out of bounds post/pylon in golf.
It sits in an area that is out of bounds and the post/pylon is deemed to be out of bounds.

Shouldn't the pylon be located on the goal line, in bounds ?
It's on the border. If the ball touches the border it is a td. Pretty simple actually.
 
It's not a bad decision. Buchner needs reps.

You keep bitching about development but don't want to play guys to get them to develop. Buchner needed reps. We weren't winning a naty with coan, it's a viable argument to sya that Buchner would have been much better this year with multiple games under his belt.
I never bitched about development, you have me confused with someone else.

So it’s your position that we should offer scholarships to QB’s who are “works in progress”

And you would accept more losses by playing Buchner last year rather than Coan, HOPING that Buchner would improve the following year.

Keep your day job, that’s the dumbest strategy I’ve heard in months.

What coach says, “I won’t play my best QB this year, I’ll play a lesser QB in the hope that he’ll be better next year !”

That’s beyond stupid !
 
I knew that you didn’t have a clue about the rationale for the location of the pylon and I knew that you didn’t have the intellect to answer the other questions I raised.

You’re intellectually dishonest and a fraud !
The pylon does NOT represent the out of bounds line. The pylon represents the goal line. Besides a body part while touching out of bounds is ruled out, not touching a pylon which is considered part of the goal line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelso86
It marks the border, therefore a ball that strikes it crossed the goal line.

What part of this are you not getting?
The borders are marked by the white lines denoting the goal line and out of bounds which intersect with one another.

Pre 1966, if you touched the area where the pylon now sits you were deemed out of bounds.

So what’s the rationale behind making an area that is out of bounds ….. in bounds ?
 
The pylon does NOT represent the out of bounds line. The pylon represents the goal line. Besides a body part while touching out of bounds is ruled out, not touching a pylon which is considered part of the goal line.
The pylon sits on an area that is entirely out of bounds.

The goal line, that white stripe that extends across the field, represents the goal line.
 
The sideline is out of bounds.

The pylon sits in an area that is totally out of bounds

I’m aware of the rule, pre and post 1966

i’m interested in the rationale behind how an object that sits entirely out of bounds can be deemed in bounds.

Think about an out of bounds post/pylon in golf.
It sits in an area that is out of bounds and the post/pylon is deemed to be out of bounds.

Shouldn't the pylon be located on the goal line, in bounds ?

It's an issue where the pylon is considered out of bounds, however if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line as it hits the pylon it's a TD.

If for example a player gets turned around and the players backside hits the pylon but the ball has not crossed the plane of the goal line, the play is dead as the player is out of bounds.
 
The pylon sits on an area that is entirely out of bounds.

The goal line, that white stripe that extends across the field, represents the goal line.
All I can tell you now is google it. The explanation is better darn clear.
 
The pylon sits on an area that is entirely out of bounds.

The goal line, that white stripe that extends across the field, represents the goal line.
I think a better question you should ask is why on extra points and field goals when the holder catches the hiked ball, why isn’t he down at that spot?
 
I think a better question you should ask is why on extra points and field goals when the holder catches the hiked ball, why isn’t he down at that spot?
Because there’s no contact by any player on the opposing team in the NFL and you have to be down by contact in the NFL

In the NCAA, I don’t believe that the holder has possession long enough to be deemed down with the ball
 
Because there’s no contact by any player on the opposing team in the NFL and you have to be down by contact in the NFL

In the NCAA, I don’t believe that the holder has possession long enough to be deemed down with the ball
I’m not talking NFL. And there is no such thing as “long enough”. When the knee is down, the play is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelso86
I’m not talking NFL. And there is no such thing as “long enough”. When the knee is down, the play is over.
Only if you have possession of the ball !

Without possession your knee, elbow, head and shoulders can touch the ground and the play is still considered to be in progress.
 
I think a better question you should ask is why on extra points and field goals when the holder catches the hiked ball, why isn’t he down at that spot?
"I think a better question you should ask is why on extra points and field goals when the holder catches the hiked ball, why isn’t he down at that spot?"

In HS football -- that is the case. The holder can only catch the snap and set it on the tee for the kick try. The holder has the opportunity to raise up and get a high snap, and if he goes immediately down for the kick try, no issue. However, if the knee is down when he receives the snap, and then tries to get up and run/throw, the play is killed immediately.

In the NCAA -- it is a different animal.
 
The pylon sits on an area that is entirely out of bounds.

The goal line, that white stripe that extends across the field, represents the goal line.
That definiton makes the pylon completely useless. There is no need for monolith to mark the oob.
 
It’s interesting and indicative of just how many low IQ’s participate on this board, that no one can explain the rationale behind how an object that sits entirely out of bounds can be deemed in bounds.

I see lots of attempt’s at deflection, diversion and derision, but no attempts to explain the rationale behind the question.

I would seem that when you’re an ignorant moron that your strategy is to avoid a question that’s above your intellectual capacity and your comprehension skills by trying to divert attention away from your cerebral inadequacies.

I get it, the question is far above and beyond your ability to comprehend and address.

No need to constantly avoid addressing the issue, I don’t hold your lack of intelligence against you, it’s not your fault that you were born dumb !


OUCH !
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Golson5
ADVERTISEMENT