|
Post by timdaye on Oct 15, 2011 21:49:05 GMT -5
The key part of my statement was "makes no effort to do anything other than run off the field". Obviously if this 12th man stops or turns or anything like that, flag him. But he his head down heading to the sideline, then common sense should prevail. It really annoys me, even if it goes my team's way, when a review is requested and a player has 3 toes on the field and they are coming up and off the field as the ball is being snapped.
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Oct 19, 2011 9:46:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Oct 25, 2011 20:24:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Oct 25, 2011 20:30:42 GMT -5
Maybe a little light shed on the Ravens ejection:
Comment From Matt There were 2 punches to the face last night. One got a flag and ejection. The other...nothing. Why? 1:18 Hey, Matt.. That game was so bad last night it even was bad on radio. I listened to it while driving. I didn't see the second punch but in order to eject you would expect to see a closed fist and a wind up blow.
The Ravens player did wind up and bring it......it was just with an open hand. If you see the video of the incident (in the MNF observations) the overhead shows a definite windup. Still, open hand probably shouldn't have been ejection.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Nov 1, 2011 14:16:56 GMT -5
This week's chat was held and is available on the fox sports web site. To me,, as we discussed here, right at the end the question comes up with the last two plays of the Pitt game....he agrees that the Pittsburgh defender should have been called for the illegal batting of the ball which would have resulted in a penalty and NE retains the ball. He then tries to excuse the missing of the call as it happened so fast and was hard to see. Fine. I'll buy that.
But then the next question which I raised immediately on week 8 observations. Some guy pointed out that the ball had just about stopped when it was batted, illegally or not. Hence the impetus that put the ball through the end zone was the defending team. Under NFHS rules, according to this guy, it should have been ruled a touchback not a safety (which is what I said). Periiera had no answer other than they'll be discussing the play in NY this week. Forgetting whether the ball was legally or illegally batted, shouldn't it have been a touchback? NE's ball at the 20 6 seconds left down 6. Not a very good position but there's always a chance.....
But that leads to a further question. While granted the batting of the ball "penalty" was not subject to review, how about the idea of the new impetus by Pittsburgh in putting the ball through the end zone. After the review, could Carey have come out and ruled it was a touchback and not a safety?
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Nov 1, 2011 15:00:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kirby on Nov 1, 2011 17:40:14 GMT -5
cj-
You raise good points. With benefit of review, no question it should have been called an illegal bat. I will try to answer your question with regards to impetus with a caveat that I am not an NFL rules expert, but am decent with other rules codes.
Since they didn't call a foul for an illegal bat, by default, the ruling on the field is that the ball was muffed, because there is no such thing as a 'legal bat' in that situation (grounded fumble) with the ball going forward (relative to Team B). A muff does not create a new impetus unless the ball is at rest which I don't believe this ball was. Therefore, the impetus that put the ball in the end zone was Team A's fumble. That's the only way to arrive at a safety.
If they would have called the illegal bat, then the bat would have been the impetus and responsibility for the ball going into the end zone would have been charged to Team B, with the result of the play a touchback. Accepting the penalty would have resulted in 10 yards being marked off from the previous spot with Team A retaining possession.
|
|
|
Post by tuckerewell on Nov 1, 2011 17:48:08 GMT -5
The problem with changing the rule is that it is now a bright-line enforcement: either there are 12 men on the field or not. If you add in the "well, he's not really part of the play," then you've added subjectivity to the mix. The other team could counter with an argument that they were not sure that the player was not participating until he got outside of the numbers, and thus no chance to set their formation properly. And, good or bad, once it becomes subjective, it is no longer subject to replay review. I agree; but being a contrarian - this mentality should also ring true for PI on a Hail Mary pass - either there is PI or there is not (therefore great call by McAulay in footage shown in another strand - clearly the defender(s) were playing the receiver and not the ball). Also, regardless if the player "is not really a part of the play", the Oakland Raiders committed this exact situational 12-men on the field penalty in consecutive weeks. This behavior could easily be coached and/or corrected and it obviously wasn't and the league caught them not "yet" off the field twice - so, the crews and league should be applauded. The greater consistency the league/officials provides teams in enforcing the rules of the game the greater the game. The unordinary is that Tommy Moore (great eyes) was the official who threw the flag on Sunday, clearly following up his Super Bowl year with another Super Bowl caliber season. Hank, Applauded? For a proper call? I'll go with commended. It's a call they are expected to make. I agree with your statement that the greater consistency, the greater the game. The consistency of calls on various rules violations is a major issue. The big question is why? Why does the NFL allow such inconsistency? Officials strive to do their best. It's the NFL's responsibility to oversee this and correct it. I believe they choose not to. Heck, if it's in the rulebook as a penalty then call the penalty. How is it that the Raider player earlier in the season is flagged while others are not. Why are blows to the head and hits below the knees more accepted as part of the game by some crews but called appropriately by others? Not that it is just the Raiders being hit with these things, but Raider players have complained for years about the consistency of calls. I believe it was Tim Brown who said that one of the hardest things to deal with as a player was the inconsistency of various crews. The responses I read and have heard regarding players viewpoint of that particular rule was, Wow! They don't usually call that. There are a number of plays where rules applications can be inconsistent from crew to crew. The best thing the NFL could do regarding officiating is to have its officiating crews focus on consistency in how games are called. Every aspect of rules and plays should be called the same. The subjectivity of some rule interpretation will never change but calling the exact same play differently from crew to crew only hurts the integrity of the game. Excessive inconsistency not only allows for criticism of officials that in some cases isn't justified but also puts the NFL in a light that opens up itself for greater criticism with regard to the NFL's influence and control of games.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Nov 1, 2011 18:59:29 GMT -5
cj- You raise good points. With benefit of review, no question it should have been called an illegal bat. I will try to answer your question with regards to impetus with a caveat that I am not an NFL rules expert, but am decent with other rules codes. Since they didn't call a foul for an illegal bat, by default, the ruling on the field is that the ball was muffed, because there is no such thing as a 'legal bat' in that situation (grounded fumble) with the ball going forward (relative to Team B). A muff does not create a new impetus unless the ball is at rest which I don't believe this ball was. Therefore, the impetus that put the ball in the end zone was Team A's fumble. That's the only way to arrive at a safety. If they would have called the illegal bat, then the bat would have been the impetus and responsibility for the ball going into the end zone would have been charged to Team B, with the result of the play a touchback. Accepting the penalty would have resulted in 10 yards being marked off from the previous spot with Team A retaining possession. I believe this has happened in the past....Team A punts very close to the Team B goal line...The punt is muffed into the end zone and recovered by team A. Touchdown I think. But what if the muff goes through the end zone...I think but wouldn't swear to it that this play has occurred and the proper call is touchback not safety. I seem to remember a game where this was called and the fans went bonkers thinking the officials had blown it. I understand a muff cannot be advanced, only recovered by the other team. Somebody who knows NFL rules help me out. Also in the chat, it's just about the last question, Periera mentions that if a ball has come to a stop or a near stop then the attempt to recover the ball if unsucessful creates a new impetus leaving open the interpretation of what it means to a near stop. So...if I'm right (wouldn't stake my reputation on it), under NFL rules if it's not an illegal bat, then it's a muff (the attempt by Pittsburgh to recover the ball)....and since the ball was not recovered till it had gone through the end zone, then it should be a touchback. Help help. Any experts on NFL rules out there. Fascinating play in any event.
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Nov 1, 2011 21:45:56 GMT -5
I LOVE this exchange from the 11/1/11 chat:
Comment From Robert Lots of complaining by talking heads about too many flags slowing down games unnecessarily. Any comments?
I guess we should tell the teams not to foul. If they adhere to that we all would be happy. Officials do call a few that are not fouls but most all are. Don't foul! Thats a novel idea.
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Nov 8, 2011 14:08:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Nov 15, 2011 13:59:35 GMT -5
cj- I believe this has happened in the past....Team A punts very close to the Team B goal line...The punt is muffed into the end zone and recovered by team A. Touchdown I think. But what if the muff goes through the end zone...I think but wouldn't swear to it that this play has occurred and the proper call is touchback not safety. I seem to remember a game where this was called and the fans went bonkers thinking the officials had blown it. I understand a muff cannot be advanced, only recovered by the other team. Somebody who knows NFL rules help me out. Little late on the reply, sorry. This did happen on a kickoff in 1988, where the Cowboys muffed the opening kickoff at the 2-yard line, and the ball was recovered in the end zone for a safety. The replay official was Armen Terzian (who, as a field judge, was on the business end of a fan-thrown bottle after not calling pass interference on Roger Staubach's Hail Mary pass). Terzian was supposed to call the field and correct the error, and he did not. It wound up being the decisive two points in a 12-10 Cowboys loss. Pete Rozelle suspended Terzian, but Terzain opted to retire instead. The ruling should have been that the muffed catch did not add new impetus. Changing trajectory has nothing to do with it; the force behind the ball was from the kickoff, and the receiver did not add new impetus to the ball. Therefore, it should have been ruled touchback. I wrote a little more on that Hail Mary play for the 35th anniversary last year: www.footballzebras.com/2010/12/28/1454
|
|
|
Post by cj on Nov 15, 2011 16:03:26 GMT -5
cj- I believe this has happened in the past....Team A punts very close to the Team B goal line...The punt is muffed into the end zone and recovered by team A. Touchdown I think. But what if the muff goes through the end zone...I think but wouldn't swear to it that this play has occurred and the proper call is touchback not safety. I seem to remember a game where this was called and the fans went bonkers thinking the officials had blown it. I understand a muff cannot be advanced, only recovered by the other team. Somebody who knows NFL rules help me out. Little late on the reply, sorry. This did happen on a kickoff in 1988, where the Cowboys muffed the opening kickoff at the 2-yard line, and the ball was recovered in the end zone for a safety. The replay official was Armen Terzian (who, as a field judge, was on the business end of a fan-thrown bottle after not calling pass interference on Roger Staubach's Hail Mary pass). Terzian was supposed to call the field and correct the error, and he did not. It wound up being the decisive two points in a 12-10 Cowboys loss. Pete Rozelle suspended Terzian, but Terzain opted to retire instead. The ruling should have been that the muffed catch did not add new impetus. Changing trajectory has nothing to do with it; the force behind the ball was from the kickoff, and the receiver did not add new impetus to the ball. Therefore, it should have been ruled touchback. I wrote a little more on that Hail Mary play for the 35th anniversary last year: www.footballzebras.com/2010/12/28/1454As I remember, the party of the second part were New York Giants. I also think the referee was Pat Haggerty on that particular play and I'm not sure but I think it was his call. I think, forgive the timeline, the supervisor at the time was still Art <cMally and the blame on the play was placed on the replay official (ir was different then; no challenges) who after the release of the NFL statement that the call had been blown, quit not so much the on field official. At least, that's my recollection of that play.
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Nov 15, 2011 16:07:00 GMT -5
Haggerty was the referee. He had a down year that year and missed the playoffs for the first time in forever. His wife died that year, so one could see why his mind may not have been totally on the task at hand.
Haggerty returned to the playoffs the following year and was "retired" by Seeman after 1992. He died of cancer in 1994
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Nov 15, 2011 16:08:49 GMT -5
|
|