|
Post by tuckerewell on Dec 18, 2017 22:59:43 GMT -5
Bill Schuster in for Ramon George in Cleveland Jim Howey in for Ed Camp in Buffalo Rick Patterson in for Tom Hill in East Rutherford Tom Hill in for Buddy Horton in Pittsburgh Why are these substitutions made? It' seems odd to me, with the exception of injury, that NFL would initiate a crew change at a critical juncture of the season.
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 18, 2017 23:53:58 GMT -5
Bill Schuster in for Ramon George in Cleveland Jim Howey in for Ed Camp in Buffalo Rick Patterson in for Tom Hill in East Rutherford Tom Hill in for Buddy Horton in Pittsburgh Why are these substitutions made? It' seems odd to me, with the exception of injury, that NFL would initiate a crew change at a critical juncture of the season. Schuster, Ferrell, Howey, and Patterson are swings so they work with different crews every week. With the Hill change I don't know why they did it, my guess would be they wanted a stronger FJ for a big game and Hill consistently rates at the top of his position.
|
|
|
Post by hank on Dec 18, 2017 23:59:03 GMT -5
The use of technology is causing many of these catches, that would have been catches 20-years ago in analog TV, to be incomplete now. As far as the measurement, the line to gain was the big stripe. The ball was on the big stripe. Bang it a first down and move on. I don't know why Gene brought in the chains. Not sure what you mean:
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 19, 2017 0:07:21 GMT -5
The ball was snapped from the 39 and a half. The first down is the 40 yard line. The referee spotted the ball right on the 40 yard line. They shouldn't have had to call for the chains.
|
|
|
Post by hank on Dec 19, 2017 0:21:17 GMT -5
The ball was snapped from the 39 and a half. The first down is the 40 yard line. The referee spotted the ball right on the 40 yard line. They shouldn't have had to call for the chains. Until you are behind the shield and in stripes on the field or peering at a huge monitor in a NY office - you can't say what they should or shouldn't..... Gene has great confidence in his decision making and bringing out the chains is affirming. Choosing to use the index card was visually reaffirming (see below), allowing the chains is commercially evident.
|
|
|
Post by hank on Dec 19, 2017 0:24:07 GMT -5
The ball was snapped from the 39 and a half. The first down is the 40 yard line. The referee spotted the ball right on the 40 yard line. They shouldn't have had to call for the chains. Also, if one wants to quibble, the play before was challenged and Gene overruled the mark and stated, the ball was "just beyond the 39 yard line". The mark should not have been the 39.5 yard line.
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Dec 19, 2017 1:21:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cj on Dec 19, 2017 7:37:08 GMT -5
Last thought on "the catch". On an interview on WFAN, Periera said the receiver must survive the ground. The Pittsburgh receiver caught the ball clearly and either was on the ground already or came down on his elbow or knee and still had the ball clearly and cleanly. How is that not "surviving the ground"? Then and only then he lunges for the goal line, clearly breaks the plan. At that point, the ball moved and hit the ground. So while some of the sentiment was stupid rule but correct call. Wrong. Even by their own silly rule and explanation, by their rules, the correct call was made on the field. Please somebody explain what I am missing.
|
|
|
Post by bfedje on Dec 19, 2017 11:59:41 GMT -5
Last thought on "the catch". On an interview on WFAN, Periera said the receiver must survive the ground. The Pittsburgh receiver caught the ball clearly and either was on the ground already or came down on his elbow or knee and still had the ball clearly and cleanly. How is that not "surviving the ground"? Then and only then he lunges for the goal line, clearly breaks the plan. At that point, the ball moved and hit the ground. So while some of the sentiment was stupid rule but correct call. Wrong. Even by their own silly rule and explanation, by their rules, the correct call was made on the field. Please somebody explain what I am missing. You don't fully understand what survive the ground means. Just touching the ground with the knee or other body part isn't the end of it. This is definitely still within that timeline. You are using your own definition which doesn't match any I've ever heard before.
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 19, 2017 13:15:46 GMT -5
Last thought on "the catch". On an interview on WFAN, Periera said the receiver must survive the ground. The Pittsburgh receiver caught the ball clearly and either was on the ground already or came down on his elbow or knee and still had the ball clearly and cleanly. How is that not "surviving the ground"? Then and only then he lunges for the goal line, clearly breaks the plan. At that point, the ball moved and hit the ground. So while some of the sentiment was stupid rule but correct call. Wrong. Even by their own silly rule and explanation, by their rules, the correct call was made on the field. Please somebody explain what I am missing. Completing the process of the catch does not end when a receiver is down. A receiver who goes to the ground still has to maintain possession of the ball the entire time. So just going to the ground like James did doesn't mean he is down because he still moved after having a knee down, was never touched, and lost the ball as he was diving into the endzone. The process of the catch does not end when he is down since he wasn't touched so his act of diving into the endzone still remains part of the process of the catch and since he lost possession it is an incomplete pass. It is very similar to the Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant plays really. What you are doing here is stopping the play once James is down but that is not how it works because he was never touched and lost possession of the ball during the process of the catch. Personally, I think the NFL makes catches way more complicated than they need to be. It is a diffcult rule to understand and a diffcult rule to interpret at times. But by rule, they were correct here but I don't like the rule as it is currently written.
|
|
|
Post by tuckerewell on Dec 19, 2017 14:32:21 GMT -5
So James catches the ball, goes to the ground on one knee and untouched by any defender, then lunges towards the end zone in a definite football move and breaks the plane of the goal line. Play is ruled a touchdown. Even with the ridiculous breakdown of the play into micro seconds there isn't indisputable evidence that he liost control of the ball. I don't see enough on the replays to overturn the call. Also, it has been reported that Corrente was in an extended, antimated conversation with NY during the review. It appeared argumentative to some. Plays and NFL rules like this, along with NFL administration interfering and dictating results of plays, is only going to speed up the NFLs decline and encourage more fans to the exits.
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 19, 2017 14:41:16 GMT -5
Last thought on "the catch". On an interview on WFAN, Periera said the receiver must survive the ground. The Pittsburgh receiver caught the ball clearly and either was on the ground already or came down on his elbow or knee and still had the ball clearly and cleanly. How is that not "surviving the ground"? Then and only then he lunges for the goal line, clearly breaks the plan. At that point, the ball moved and hit the ground. So while some of the sentiment was stupid rule but correct call. Wrong. Even by their own silly rule and explanation, by their rules, the correct call was made on the field. Please somebody explain what I am missing. Completing the process of the catch does not end when a receiver is down. A receiver who goes to the ground still has to maintain possession of the ball the entire time. So just going to the ground like James did doesn't mean he is down because he still moved after having a knee down, was never touched, and lost the ball as he was diving into the endzone. The process of the catch does not end when he is down since he wasn't touched so his act of diving into the endzone still remains part of the process of the catch and since he lost possession it is an incomplete pass. It is very similar to the Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant plays really. What you are doing here is stopping the play once James is down but that is not how it works because he was never touched and lost possession of the ball during the process of the catch. Personally, I think the NFL makes catches way more complicated than they need to be. It is a diffcult rule to understand and a diffcult rule to interpret at times. But by rule, they were correct here but I don't like the rule as it is currently written. So let's say James was touched while he had possession and his knee was down. If he lunges and everything else goes as it did would they rule down by contact? TD? or Fumble? My guess would be they would rule he was down by contact. But then I thought the replay was not conclusive enough to overturn the call on the field too.
|
|
|
Post by tuckerewell on Dec 19, 2017 17:38:30 GMT -5
Why are these substitutions made? It' seems odd to me, with the exception of injury, that NFL would initiate a crew change at a critical juncture of the season. Schuster, Ferrell, Howey, and Patterson are swings so they work with different crews every week. With the Hill change I don't know why they did it, my guess would be they wanted a stronger FJ for a big game and Hill consistently rates at the top of his position. What is the purpose of "swings" when there are complete crews in place? Why would there be such a need for an official to replace another so frequently. It doesn't appear that injuries or sickness area frequent problem. What happens with the referee who has been bumped?
|
|
|
Post by bfedje on Dec 19, 2017 17:55:58 GMT -5
The rule had actually been greatly simplified and much more consistent. By having to survive the ground if you are gong to the ground as part of the catch, you have eliminated all the other gray stuff people are discussing. So many of these plays used to be spot opinions among officials, but now they are much easier. It's not always black and white or obvious but much of the gray has been eliminated. All rule change suggestions I've seen here and other places usually adds a lot more subjectivity and ultimately inconsistency to the call.
You can definitely argue whether the evidence was clear enough to overturn this or even if the ball actually hit the ground. But if you feel the ball did hit the ground, how do you justify allowing it to be a catch. Then you get grilled for ignoring the rule.
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 19, 2017 22:02:28 GMT -5
The rule had actually been greatly simplified and much more consistent. By having to survive the ground if you are gong to the ground as part of the catch, you have eliminated all the other gray stuff people are discussing. So many of these plays used to be spot opinions among officials, but now they are much easier. It's not always black and white or obvious but much of the gray has been eliminated. All rule change suggestions I've seen here and other places usually adds a lot more subjectivity and ultimately inconsistency to the call. You can definitely argue whether the evidence was clear enough to overturn this or even if the ball actually hit the ground. But if you feel the ball did hit the ground, how do you justify allowing it to be a catch. Then you get grilled for ignoring the rule. But that ignores the need for indisputable evidence. The difference between they "felt" the ball hit the ground and actual physical evidence that it did. Without which they should not reverse a call. Period. Of course they said *this* was not enough evidence to reverse a call too...
|
|