Steve Czban on Art Monk

Did you actually read my post?

I went back and watched the replay (I have a DVD of the game). He was out, but the whole drive belonged to him. I'm sure that if he had Montana, Aikman, or Brady throwing to him he would have had plenty of TD catches... but that was not his job. His job was to move the chains.

He wore down defenses by moving the chains, the same way running backs do. Having Art Monk meant that the offense could keep the ball. Keeping the ball meant that they always had the advantage at the end of the game. This advantage led to more wins.

I'm sick of the guys looking for the showboats who make a couple of sexy catches.

Football isn't supposed to be sexy.

OK, I'll explain this one more time as I'm obviously not making my point clearly enough.

Imagine a receiver running a route to the back of the endzone, he leaps, makes the catch and comes down with the toes of both feet in bounds while the rest of his feet are still off the ground, his heels then come down out of bounds. This will be given as a TD everytime because it is deemed that as soon as his toes land in bounds he has both feet in regardless of where his heels eventually land.

My argument is that the heel of Art Monk's second foot came down in bounds while his toes were still in the air so he should have been deemed to have both feet in bounds at that moment.

Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist mentality, but I doubt Monk, Grimm, Green or anyone else who played primarily for the Skins will make the HOF while Danny owns the team. National media and most other locales are haters because we have an owner who passionately wants to win and will spend any amount of money to do so (unfortunately not intelligently enough to do so).
I petition Mr. Snyder to open a true HOF in Ashburn and take artifacts from Riggins, Baugh, Gibbs and all other Skins out of Canton.
Give em their due since nationally we are hated.
BTW, Monk is the king of the 8 yd out and never was shy about going over the middle then Riggins, Byner or Riggs would score.

I'm guilty of not having fully supported Monk in the past, but I agree the HOF is becoming a popularity contest. Was Chris Carter a better receiver than Monk? Debatable, but I remember watching Inside the NFL when Carter first got to Minnesota and he was excited cuz the Vikings were going to use the Skins offense and he was going to play the "Art Monk" role.

Monk's brilliance transcended stats, he was a money player, never got hurt, never brought attention to himself, and that consistency manifested itself in a then NFL record 940 catches. Is it his fault that the rules changed to open up the passing game? The HOF voters who use the "signature catch" argument are idiots. Has any of them written or reported on a "signature story?"

Did you actually read my post?

Yes, I did and you're wrong. It was a correct call. Both FEET have to be in bounds. Last time I checked, the toes are attached to the feet. Therefore, the heel and the toes along with everything in between must be in bounds for a completion.

OK, I'll explain this one more time as I'm obviously not making my point clearly enough.

Imagine a receiver running a route to the back of the endzone, he leaps, makes the catch and comes down with the toes of both feet in bounds while the rest of his feet are still off the ground, his heels then come down out of bounds. This will be given as a TD everytime because it is deemed that as soon as his toes land in bounds he has both feet in regardless of where his heels eventually land.

My argument is that the heel of Art Monk's second foot came down in bounds while his toes were still in the air so he should have been deemed to have both feet in bounds at that moment.

This is simply not the case. I have a tape of the game, I've seen it and his toes are not "in the air" while his heel is down. One half of his foot comes down before the white line, while the other half (including his toes) comes down in the white. That's not a catch no matter how you try to explain it.

In your example, where the toes come down on end while the receiver's momentum carries him out -- as long as possession is confirmed, that's a catch because no part of his feet are touching any part of the white paint while he has the ball. In that instant, it's a catch and a touchdown. In his complete step, Monk's heel was in the endzone while his toes were out.

It's just not a catch.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then Beemnseven, my tape clearly shows his heel land first.

At least I got the point I was trying to make across. :)

Maybe this is just my conspiracy theorist mentality, but I doubt Monk, Grimm, Green or anyone else who played primarily for the Skins will make the HOF while Danny owns the team. National media and most other locales are haters because we have an owner who passionately wants to win and will spend any amount of money to do so (unfortunately not intelligently enough to do so).
I petition Mr. Snyder to open a true HOF in Ashburn and take artifacts from Riggins, Baugh, Gibbs and all other Skins out of Canton.
Give em their due since nationally we are hated.
BTW, Monk is the king of the 8 yd out and never was shy about going over the middle then Riggins, Byner or Riggs would score.


If Green doesn't get in, I'll probably have a stroke

This is simply not the case. I have a tape of the game, I've seen it and his toes are not "in the air" while his heel is down. One half of his foot comes down before the white line, while the other half (including his toes) comes down in the white. That's not a catch no matter how you try to explain it.

In your example, where the toes come down on end while the receiver's momentum carries him out -- as long as possession is confirmed, that's a catch because no part of his feet are touching any part of the white paint while he has the ball. In that instant, it's a catch and a touchdown. In his complete step, Monk's heel was in the endzone while his toes were out.

It's just not a catch.

If my memory serves me right I believe it should have been ruled a TD because Monk was pushed out but the ref failed to make the correct call.

If my memory serves me right I believe it should have been ruled a TD because Monk was pushed out but the ref failed to make the correct call.
you can more of a case for this, then the heel thingy