‘I love rules and I love following them, unless that rule is stupid.’ — Anna Kendrick, Scrappy Little Nobody

Timeout: The break-the-plane
rule is under review

Our perspective: We love football. Think it’s a fantastic game.
We respect rulemakers and game officials. They have tough jobs
in a contentious, combative world where it’s impossible to please everyone.

But the break-the-plane rule really bugs us. In our view, it permits way too many sham touchdowns — cheap, unsatisfying scores where runners do not have to touch the end zone, just catch a wisp of its ethereal airspace with a wave of the ball. That’s football?

Bang-the-pylon TDs likewise drive us nuts. Strange but true: Pylons are positioned
out of bounds, yet if a ball carrier hits one, grazes one, or simply flies over one,
without ever touching the end zone, they get handed six points. How is this logical?

Both result in touchdowns by technicality — crafty, rule-exploiting shortcuts
that mock football’s otherwise rigorous standards.

How is it that a game that demands receivers to somehow keep both feet in bounds, or “survive the ground,” or maintain possession while getting hammered by defenders,
just to get credit for a catch, hands out six points when a quarterback bunny-hops
over their offensive line and touches nothing? In comparison to the feats receivers
are required to perform, airspace touchdowns are farcical to watch.

No-touch touchdowns run contrary to the game’s physical essence, where strength is rewarded and contact is fundamental to each play. Except, it seems, for touchdowns.

The game can do better. Our proposed rule can accomplish that.

Our position: To earn six points, football’s most valuable scoring play, a ball carrier should be required to 1) make physical contact with the end zone, however minimal
(knee, elbow, foot, hand, toe, fingernail, something) while the ball is under control,
is carried to or beyond the plane of the goal line, and 2) remains inside the pylon.

Merely breaking the plane (extending the ball across the goal line—briefly entering
the end zone’s airspace but never touching its surface) is insufficient for a score.
In brief: To be awarded a touchdown, a player must touch the end zone.

Q: In the NFL, what are the rules for a touchdown?

A: According to the 2024 NFL Rulebook,  the factors that determine a touchdown are explained in Rule 11 (Scoring), Section 2 (Touchdown), Article 1 (Touchdown Plays):

A touchdown is scored, and the ball becomes dead when:

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon

(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-4) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line

(e) the Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act.

Notes

(1) The ball is automatically dead when it is in legal possession of a player and is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line

(2) If a player attempts to catch a pass, the ball is not dead, and a touchdown is not scored, until the receiver completes the catch. See 3-2-7.

Q: What changes to the rule would make the game better?

A: We would rewrite (a), (b) and (c), and expand the explanation by inserting an additional paragraph, (d):

A touchdown is scored when:

(a) The ball is on or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play and made physical contact with the end zone

(b) a runner initially makes in-bounds contact with some portion of the end zone (goal line and beyond) and the ball in his control intersects the opponents’ goal line (extended) — provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of the player’s body, except his hands or feet, strikes the ground before he contacts the end zone

(c) a runner and/or the ball he possesses makes simultaneous contact with the end zone and the field of play in front of the goal line

(d) a runner first contacts the end zone before contacting a pylon, or simultaneously contacts the end zone while incidentally contacting a pylon

This would eliminate much of the subjectivity that comes with using TV replays to determine if a ball has broken an invisible plane during a scoring attempt. It’s easier, we believe, to first verify if a player makes contact with the end zone.

Q: The ball must still “intersect the goal line”? Really?

A: Yeah, what about that goal line business mentioned in the new version of (b)? Isn’t the objective of a new rule to eliminate the guesswork involved in break-the-plane judgment calls?

You are correct. Here’s our thinking:

At its essence, football is a turf war, won by the team more adept at exploiting an opponent’s defense and advancing through its territory. The ball serves as a token that marks an offense’s progress in this quest. The end zone is the destination where that effectiveness is recognized and the game’s biggest reward, six points, is earned.

To earn those points, we believe a player advancing a ball to the end zone should be required to 1) physically contact the scoring area in some way, however minimally, and 2) control the ball, that token, and transport it to or beyond the goal line, symbolizing the fulfillment of the mission.

It’s possible a ball carrier could run parallel to the end zone, get one foot on the goal line but have the ball in his opposite arm, outside of the end zone. That seems inadequate. A runner must, we believe, make in-bounds contact with the end zone and transport that progress marker, that token of achievement — the ball — to or beyond the goal line.

Must the ball be carried fully beyond the goal line in order to qualify for six points? Good question. That has been the subject of lengthy debate when creating the parameters of our rule. We decided no; just some part of the ball must intersect the goal line.

Our reasoning: Some goal line dives involve efforts that are so athletic and so driven by commitment and self-sacrifice that as long as first contact occurs on the goal line, those plays deserve to be rewarded with six points, even if every last grain of the ball’s exterior is not beyond the front edge — the plane — of the goal line.

Must the ball be grounded, as practiced in rugby to successfully complete a “try”? We say no; in this era of the game, a ball’s connection to the advancing player is sufficient. Besides, in these modern times when style points matter, being required to stoop and touch the ball to the ground would look so uncool,

Since every touchdown is reviewed by booth officials, break-the-plane replay scrutiny will still occur even with our rule in place. But it will eliminate end zone wave-overs and other airspace anomalies that, to us, have become an annoyingly persistent blight on an otherwise exciting sport. Our rule promotes a purer form of the game, rewarding touchdowns that we believe are achieved authentically, by “a football move.”

Q: How would implementing this rule impact the game?

A: Offensive goal line plays will have to be more aggressive. No more peek-a-boo touchdowns for runners who just springboard over their line hoping to poke the ball into the end zone’s airspace, but with no real intent of getting into the end zone. And no more just flopping on top of a pile of bodies at the goal line. You’re planning a goal line plunge? Make plans to contact the end zone, or in our world it’s not a score.

Thus we could anticipate more of this:

Fox Sports

And no more of the following:

CBS Sports

The mystery of the pylon will be solved. (Pylons are such oddities we offer a separate section on them.) No longer will runners be able to cut corners (literally) and just wave a ball over the corner of the end zone while they run wide and out of bounds to avoid tacklers — a rule distortion that grants them an extra-wide end zone at the goal line.

How have touchdown calls such as this ever been regarded as fair and logical?

CBS Sports

Pylons will be recognized, at long last, as out-of-bounds markers. Hit a pylon? In many cases, that will now provide proof that you’re out of bounds, Put the ball inside the 1 and run another play. Why? Because pylons are positioned in out-of-bounds territory.

For all these years runners who bump a 4″ x 4″ pylon have been benefiting from an extra-wide scoring area — a 4-inch extension at each end of the goal line. That inequity, resulting in hard-to-fathom outcomes such as the one seen here, will finally cease:

Fox Sports

Q: How might this proposal be received?

A: Just guessing:

  • Offensive coordinators will howl in dismay. QBs, too. Who could blame them? They love scoring easy TDs via the break-the-plane rule. If our proposal was ever seriously discussed for implementation, they might revolt and start a campaign: Save the BTP!
  • League officials, who understandably believe scoring = excitement, won’t be eager to embrace it, either. Already the annual number of touchdowns has fallen for two straight seasons. After 1,544 touchdowns were scored in 2020 (using a 16-game regular season, plus postseason), that number slipped to 1,494 in 2021 and 1,366 in 2022, both with 17-game regular-season slates.
  • Defensive coordinators and players should really like this idea. A LB who stops a QB cold during a goal line leap, or a DB chases down a runner at the pylon and keeps them from touching the end zone, will now get credit for delivering score-stopping heroics.  It’s the end of the cheap TD as we know it.
  • Fans. Maybe we’re delusional, but we believe most people will favor the change we propose. No doubt ardent enthusiasts of break-the-plane touchdowns will criticize our idea, perhaps vehemently. Fair enough. We’re not trying to pick a fight with anyone. We just think more will share our view that hard-won touchdowns are more satisfying to watch than lame goal line flops, airspace anomalies or pylon pokes.

Q: Is this new rule perfect?

A: Not a chance. Even we feel a few twinges of remorse because our rule would cause what these days appear to be innocent-looking scoring plays to be ruled non-touchdowns. (See the latter half of our 2022/Week 15 summary for some examples.) 

Challenges and disputes will inevitably arise. Coaches will work hard to use this rule to deny touchdowns that, by today’s expectations, seem acceptable. Long-term, though, our rule should simplify the yes-no question of “Is he in?” Everyone benefits, we believe, because it will be easier to determine if a ball carrier actually contacts the end zone than if a nub of the ball momentarily pierces the goal line’s Great Invisible Plane.

Plus, the game’s optics should enjoy a big upgrade. No more must we wince as we watch QBs trot off the field looking pleased with themselves after collecting an easy six points for a goofy-looking dive, some woeful forward pike, at the goal line.

Vince Lombardi: “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” Our rule, we believe, would nudge the game closer to excellence.

Q: How did the existing break-the-plane rule come to be accepted?

A: It’s tied to football’s forward progress rule, which the NFL Rulebook explains in Rule 3 (Definitions), Section 12 (Forward Progress), Article 1 (Forward Progress):

The forward progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward the opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent.

The term first appeared in the writing of Walter Camp, broadly acknowledged as the founding father of American football. As noted in this excerpt from the 2016 book On the Origins of Sports by Gary Belsky and Neil Fine, Camp included it in Spalding’s Official Foot Ball Guide for 1906 (which legalized the forward pass), in Rule 5, section (e):

A Down occurs when the Referee blows his whistle or declares the ball dead. The Referee shall blow his whistle or declare the ball dead: (1) When a player having the ball cries “Down”; (2) When any portion of his person, except his hands or feet, touches the ground while he is in the grasp of an opponent; (3) When he goes out of bounds; or, (4) Whenever he is so held that his forward progress has been stopped;

Forward progress is a subjective but sensible way of determining where a play ends.  Until footballs are equipped with chips and electronically tracked, forward progress will remain a judgment call entrusted to referees, usually the line judge or head linesman.

Q: How is it flawed?

A: This rule, 115-plus years old, works fine for the 100-yard field of play between the end zones. But not, we believe, when points are on the line. You can’t earn a touchdown in that 100-yard area between the end zones. But you can IN the end zones. Thus we believe end zones deserve a more demanding interpretation of forward progress.

We can’t pinpoint when, but we guess at some point in the last quarter of the 20th century, it dawned on some savvy soul that touchdowns could be had by simply waving the ball over the goal line.

Why bother battering your way into the end zone for six points when all you have to do is break some unseen plane? That’s one sweet shortcut, and touchdowns by technicality were born. Drew Brees mastered the craft in the 2000s, and to our dismay the Ugly Touchdown Era flourished.

We argue that end zones demand a more conclusive standard of forward progress. You want six points? Then earn them by finishing the play — by making contact with the end zone, not just dabbing its airspace. No wave-overs, no gouging some invisible plane. You want a touchdown? Then touch the end zone. For a contact sport, this seems so basic, so obvious. Bunny-hop TDs are inconsistent with the spirit of a physical game.

Q: How did the touchdown come to be known as a ‘touchdown’?

A: One of the better answers in circulation is found on Rugby Dome, the website of rugby enthusiast John Winter. On his page “History of Scoring in American Football” he writes:

“When the first football game occurred in 1869 [Rutgers over Princeton 6-4 on Nov. 6], the only way to score was to kick the ball in the opposing team’s goal.

“A match was made up of ten games, and a game was complete when one goal was scored. The team that won the majority of the ten games played was the winner of the match.

“In 1875, Harvard played two matches against McGill University in Montreal.

“One of these Harvard/McGill matches had been played using football rules. The other had been played using the rules of rugby.

“That year, Harvard and Tufts played a game under amended rules proposed by Harvard. The Harvard/Tufts rules were a melding of the rules used in these two games.

“This was the first time that a team could score a “try,” by grounding the ball in the opposing team’s in-goal area.

“This play later evolved into the touchdown and its name still implies grounding the ball, even though that is no longer necessary!”

Grounding the ball is still a fundamental part of rugby, but no source we’ve found identifies when it was no longer required in football. Grounding the ball is not necessary in modern football, but we do think grounding some part of the ball carrier, however minimal, would greatly enhance the game. Make a touchdown a touchdown.

Q: People are accustomed to airspace TDs. Could we have it both ways?

A: Maybe you already think our idea is nutty. Now size up this mad-scientist hybrid concept:

If airspace touchdowns are so ingrained in the mindset of most fans, let them continue to exist — BUT they only earn three points. And no point-after attempt. If three points is not what you need, then you get the ball on or inside the 1. Next down. Your choice.

Think how entertaining it would be to watch a coach on the sidelines sweat out that decision as the play clock winds down. That would be a barnstorming brand of football unlike anything we’re used to seeing. That’s a fun scene to imagine.

Q: Who might actually adopt this rule?

A: We look to the United Football League, the eight-team spring league that emerged in 2024 after the merger of the XFL and USFL. Those two leagues, particularly the XFL, had tied much of their independent identities around reshaping long-entrenched rules. We hope that line of thinking carries over into the UFL.

Or maybe a like-minded soul who carries some rulemaking clout in a Division II or Division III conference that’s looking to draw some attention to its league will give our concept more than a passing glance. We anticipate that NFL execs, if anyone would even acknowledge our proposal at all, would only gently pat us on our pathetic, pointy little heads and then shoo us away.

Or, maybe someone will surprise us and give our idea some thought. Fingers crossed.

NBC Sports

Fox Sports