I saw mention of the Gesicki play in another post. This remains unclear to me.
The announcers during the game kept talking about the toe in but when the heel came down was it in or out. Presumably implying that if his heel came down out of bounds it was no catch. [Of course in a Michigan game a few years ago when the toe was in but the heel clearly out the call was a catch.]
Is there specific language about "toe then heel"? What puzzles me is that we all the time see a player make a catch with both feet off the ground, then manage to get only a toe down in bounds and drag it across the boundary. Great catch!!!! BUT, only his toe was down inbounds. So why would it be that if you catch a ball and your toe is down first, followed by your heel out of bounds, it is not a catch?
The announcers during the game kept talking about the toe in but when the heel came down was it in or out. Presumably implying that if his heel came down out of bounds it was no catch. [Of course in a Michigan game a few years ago when the toe was in but the heel clearly out the call was a catch.]
Is there specific language about "toe then heel"? What puzzles me is that we all the time see a player make a catch with both feet off the ground, then manage to get only a toe down in bounds and drag it across the boundary. Great catch!!!! BUT, only his toe was down inbounds. So why would it be that if you catch a ball and your toe is down first, followed by your heel out of bounds, it is not a catch?