|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Jan 16, 2012 16:09:30 GMT -5
Many of you won't like it. Please remember BTFS posting standards. bit.ly/xg9CAf |
|
|
|
Post by nyasablue on Jan 16, 2012 16:37:20 GMT -5
As Col. Sherman T. Potter would say, HORSE HOCKEY!!! A less enlightened person MIGHT say that the NFL rules are written in a such complex, sometimes baffling way solely to give them wiggle room when one of their officials goofs up... A less enlightened person....  |
|
Brent
Division I White Hat
Posts: 164
|
Post by Brent on Jan 16, 2012 16:46:59 GMT -5
The out here is that the ruling on the field was down by contact. don't think it would have been reversed had it been ruled a fumble...so basically they can say, he did not see enough to overrule the ruling on the field and he'd be right about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 17:40:22 GMT -5
Guess this means Leavy wont be making a trip to NJ next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyasablue on Jan 16, 2012 17:59:00 GMT -5
Guess this means Leavy wont be making a trip to NJ next year. Not for a Giants game.... |
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Jan 16, 2012 18:29:13 GMT -5
But, remember, the Giants won as opposed to the Raiders losing the tuck rule and the Patriots losing the Sugar Bear Hamilton game.
But, you're right. Probably best to let things cool down for a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by zcr57 on Jan 16, 2012 19:26:24 GMT -5
Carl Johnson is spitting the bit on this one. Everyone in America knows that Leavy made a mistake. If this happened during the Pereira days, the league office would have admitted the error.
|
|
|
|
Post by I've been warned on Jan 17, 2012 7:09:35 GMT -5
Those of you who read my comments Sunday night before Fred edited them know how I saw this game.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jan 17, 2012 7:39:47 GMT -5
The problem I have with the logic of the explanation is that it means it is virtually impossible to overturn a down by contact ruling if a player is falling to the ground as he is fumbling because his back ankle or shin may be on the field and that view is usually obscured by the front leg on one side and a player on the other
|
|
|
|
Post by cj on Jan 17, 2012 8:08:55 GMT -5
Bear in mind that for a long time, down by contact was not reviewable period because the instant an official ruled down by contact, the whistle whether physically blown or not is considered to have blown and it would have to be treated as an inadvertent whistle which means the ball remains with whomever it was last possessed by (what an awkward sentence that was). Along with the Ed Hochulhi fiasco in Denver, pressure was brought to change the rule to allow replay to overrule down by contact provided the recovery by the other team was almost simultaneously made with the fumble and no advancement was allowed.
There is also the question of just when possession is terminated. Is it when the ball begins to move? Does it have to be 100% of the fumbler's body? Just what is possession in the first place?
In theory, once the officials on the field made the ruling down by contact, the replay has to be indisputable that the fumbler lost possession of the ball before any part of his body (except hands and feet) touched the ground so if there's part of the player's body obscured because the side of the camera doesn't show the other side, it's just too bad. The vast majority of these calls we argue over are so meticulously close that it's really hard to come out one way or the other. Also one must understand the hd televisions they use are 2 dimensional...the human eye is able to discern 3 dimensions.
A far saner approach would be simply to undo the rule about down by contact. Once the player is ruled down by contact (just like forward progress or the Victor Cruz special abandoning the play; if that call were made correctly in Arizona, the Gi9ants wouldn't even be here but that's another story) then there should be no replay as the whistle ends the play. And then we would go back to blaming the covering official rather than the referee who is being put in an untenable situation by an idiotic system anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by hank on Jan 17, 2012 13:36:29 GMT -5
Those of you who read my comments Sunday night before Fred edited them know how I saw this game. Sadly, I did not have the opportunity to read your comments before FredFan7 edited your post. |
|
|
|
Post by I've been warned on Jan 17, 2012 20:35:17 GMT -5
Those of you who read my comments Sunday night before Fred edited them know how I saw this game. Sadly, I did not have the opportunity to read your comments before FredFan7 edited your post. I sent you a PM. |
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Jan 18, 2012 15:07:54 GMT -5
I am not fishing for traffic (well, maybe a little), so if you don't mind the self promotion, I dissected that replay in a lengthy post over at Football Zebras.com refs.ws/b |
|
|
|
Post by BTFS Admin on Jan 18, 2012 21:53:07 GMT -5
I am not fishing for traffic (well, maybe a little), so if you don't mind the self promotion, I dissected that replay in a lengthy post over at Football Zebras.com refs.ws/b Since you contribute quite a bit here zebrablog, we'll allow it.  |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jan 19, 2012 6:46:36 GMT -5
The more I see I think it may have been Jeff Rice who overruled Rose/Hayward. On a YouTube clip likening NFL to NBA officials ( search Bill Leavy bad call to see it) you can see Rice coming into view late. Also on the SoundFX on NFL.com of the game you can hear Rice expressing skepticism to Giants LB Chase Blackburn as Chase was insisting that runner was not down by contact
|
|
