"We ruled that he did not re-establish himself back in bounds, that he went out on his own. He was not forced out,"
"If he had (re-established himself in-bounds) and would have been the first to touch, it would have been a foul for illegal touching of a pass,"
"The penalty enforcement for that would be the exact same as an incomplete pass. It's loss of down at the previous spot. Had we ruled what we ruled or the other way, the result of the play would have been the exact same thing."
Officials ruled Darnell Mooney did not re-establish himself in-bounds because he went out of bounds on his own and was not forced out. A receiver must get both feet down in-bounds to re-establish, but even if Mooney had been ruled to re-establish and touched the ball first, that would have been illegal touching. The penalty for illegal touching is enforced the same as an incomplete pass, resulting in loss of down at the previous spot. A coach challenge could only have contested whether the receiver was out of bounds, and it would not have converted the play into a touchdown.
Read at The Falcoholic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]