Ref's screwing us less

[bobblehead]

Although its getting more even, can anyone explain how Jennings DIDN'T have a TD on the play that was reviewed??

[RashanGary]

I thought it was a TD. He caught it, didn't fall for three steps, then fell.

If he was falling in the act of catching, I can see how it's upheld, but shit, how long do you have to hold it before it's a TD?

I see what the ref was thinking though. It did happen fast. Baltimore got shittier calls than that last week against us. Sometimes it's not perfect.

[mraynrand]

It was a TD. He wasn't falling in the act of catching the pass. He caught the pass, took two steps down and then had the ball knocked out as he was being tackled - after the catch. Had it not been in the Endzone, it would have been a catch and a fumble, just like Driver's fumble last week. They got the call wrong.

[pbmax]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

[mraynrand]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

[MichiganPackerFan]

The ball was ripped out post catch, post possession, post two-steps. He wasn't going to the ground until the defender hit him post catch. It was a bad call. If the defender can knock it out anytime after the catch and possession is established to nullify a catch, there are no more legitimate receiving TD's in the league. That official deserves to be snapped in the nuts with a wet towel.

[bobblehead]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

[RashanGary]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

[bobblehead]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

Judgement calls are NOT changeable and therefore this explanation isn't valid. Either it was a TD or not, if it was judgement we should not have been allowed to challenge it.

[swede]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

This, to me, is like the infamous "tuck" call when Woodson hit Brady, or the Palomalu interception. I'm thinking either the rules are operating at some insane level of complexity or the ref is simply insane.

If Jennings makes that play in front of the end zone by catching the ball, taking two steps in the field of play, breaking the plane, and THEN having the ball hammered out by a horse-collaring tackler it would have been a touchdown--yes?

I don't see how it's different at the back of the end zone.

And as for the judgement, isn't that what the replay is there to check? You either allow a challenge or you don't. You overturn on evidence or you don't. If this was an accurate application of a rule, as PBMax suggests, then I simply don't get the rule.

Catch, step, step, hammered AFTER he was out of bounds. Touchdown.

[mraynrand]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

Judgement calls are NOT changeable and therefore this explanation isn't valid. Either it was a TD or not, if it was judgement we should not have been allowed to challenge it.

Of course you can challenge it. The refs use their judgment when they say the receiver got two feet down in bounds too -and that can be challenged. All I was arguing was how the league will support the ref. If Mike Pereira talks about this on NFLN, he will undoubtedly say that the ref had determined that the receiver was going to the ground and that wasn't overturned on review. That's my bet. However, I maintain my original argument about the call itself.

[sheepshead]

That play was something. On the field of play it would have been a completion. In the endzone where the possession rules are somewhat more liberal, it was clearly a TD. Either Ditka or Stevie Wonder were in the booth at that point.

[mraynrand]

My understanding is the rule is for a player 'going to ground while making the catch.' The league will support the ruling based on the thinking that the ref was making a judgment call regarding whether the player was going to the ground while making the catch. They got the call wrong. Jennings made the catch before 'going to the ground.'

That's my understanding too and I agree with others above, the league can stand by this one. It was a judgment call. If it were my judgment call, I would have made it differently, but I can see his point too. It happened very fast. If they called it a TD, I don't think it would have been overturned just as if it were called a drop, it wouldn't be overturned. It's a judgment call and was close enough that the judgment should have held up.

This, to me, is like the infamous "tuck" call when Woodson hit Brady, or the Palomalu interception. I'm thinking either the rules are operating at some insane level of complexity or the ref is simply insane.

If Jennings makes that play in front of the end zone by catching the ball, taking two steps in the field of play, breaking the plane, and THEN having the ball hammered out by a horse-collaring tackler it would have been a touchdown--yes?

I don't see how it's different at the back of the end zone.

You're right about what happened. If you think about it, it was no more a fumble than when a receiver catches the ball takes two steps and tosses it to the ref. The key was that the ref decided that he was in the process of going to the ground while catching the pass. If he were catching while going to the ground, the call would have been correct. He was not, but the refs will argue that he was and the league will support them.

[gbgary]

The ball was ripped out post catch, post possession, post two-steps. He wasn't going to the ground until the defender hit him post catch. It was a bad call. If the defender can knock it out anytime after the catch and possession is established to nullify a catch, there are no more legitimate receiving TD's in the league. That official deserves to be snapped in the nuts with a wet towel.

this!! they review complete/incomplete all the time and reversals are made. this should have been reversed also. it's a very good thing it didn't matter in the end.

[mraynrand]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

He has to make a 'football move' for it to count as a catch/possession.

[Packers4Ever]

I thought it was a TD. He caught it, didn't fall for three steps, then fell.

If he was falling in the act of catching, I can see how it's upheld, but shit, how long do you have to hold it before it's a TD?

I see what the ref was thinking though. It did happen fast. Baltimore got shittier calls than that last week against us. Sometimes it's not perfect.


I saw exactly what JH saw, Greg caught it but he didn't fall until after
the 3rd step = TD

[swede]

Okay, mraynrand's last explanation started clearing it up. But now I'm wondering if the ref goes under the hood trying to get it right or trying to protect the call. Does his brother official talk to him on the field and mention the "going to the ground" rule? Does the official view the replay with the mindset that the player IS "going to the ground" and the replay is only checked for consistency with the "going to the ground" rule. Or does he have, if he wishes, the ability to reverse the judgement of his brother official on that issue and see the replay with fresh eyes as it were.

Anyway--great catch by Greg.

[red]

i thought it was a horrible call on the field, and even worse after the review

he has the ball, and takes three steps in bounds, while in total control of the ball

mike carey sucks as a ref. he's always been one of the absolute worst

[gbgary]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

He has to make a 'football move' for it to count as a catch/possession.

two steps and nearly a third isn't a football move?

[sheepshead]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

He has to make a 'football move' for it to count as a catch/possession.

Not in the end zone.

[pbmax]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

He has to make a 'football move' for it to count as a catch/possession.
Nope. Football move and two feet down (other than for in bounds) do not count for a catch anymore. Its gotten much more complex.

[Pugger]

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a letter from NY telling us the officials screwed up on that play. If I were MM I'd write or call the league office and get an answer. It won't change the play but it might help keep these inferior officiating crews out of post season games! :!:

[mraynrand]

My bet is that the League stands by this, unless they clarify how many steps before OOB renders the new rule unapplicable. He caught the ball, was hit and tackled OOB. He didn't go to the ground and keep control. The rule says in the endzone this is not a catch.

The problem is that this rule was probably not meant for players that had just taken three steps after the catch, then went out of bounds.

So next time a player catches a ball standing still we should make sure we absolutly blow him up even if its three seconds later. should he drop the ball we can claim it was while he was being tackled.

He has to make a 'football move' for it to count as a catch/possession.

Not in the end zone.

In this case I wasn't talking about endzone and I wasn't talking about catching while going to the ground. Take the Driver fumble last week. That wasn't too complex. Two feet down and he made a football move and got stripped of the ball. Simple. Fumble. Jennings: was not going to the ground making his catch - two feet down and possession in the endzone: TD. It doesn't matter what happens after he has possession in the endzone if he isn't 'going to the ground during the catch' - he could get vaporized by a laser instantaneously after possession and two feet down and it's still a TD.

[sharpe1027]

Nope. Football move and two feet down (other than for in bounds) do not count for a catch anymore. Its gotten much more complex.

Maybe, but there has to be some line. Where is it? Once the whistle is blown? That's circular because the Ref shouldn't blow the whistle until the WR goes down to the turf, since there's not TD until then...

There has to be some point that the new rule does not apply. Where is it? Three steps should be enough.

[swede]

Three steps should be enough.

Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, Mister, gimme three steps to the door...

[Fritz]

The thing is, the referees were consistent later when they ruled that Cutler's 2nd-and-18 or 22 pass for a first down was incomplete. I thought it was the same play. To me, it looked like the Bears' receiver caught the ball, had possession, was tackled, and when he hit the ground the ball popped out.

I thought that was a catch. But they said no.

Honest to gosh, I think the NFL has made it almost impossible for a guy to make a catch. Cripes, a receiver makes the catch and some 190 pound guy is ripping at it while another 210 pound guy is smashing into the receiver, yet the guy is hanging on to the ball as he goes out of bounds - but if the referee sees so much as a little wriggle - less than you'd see on a flat woman's chest - it ain't a catch.

I don't get it any more.

[mraynrand]

I don't get it any more. You sound like you've been married twenty years.

:rs:

[Fritz]

19, if you add both my marriages together.

[swede]

SC has been married for about 60 years if you add all of his marriages together.

[mraynrand]

19, if you add both my marriages together.

Heading down the Scott Campbell path are you?

[RashanGary]

In this case I wasn't talking about endzone and I wasn't talking about catching while going to the ground. Take the Driver fumble last week. That wasn't too complex. Two feet down and he made a football move and got stripped of the ball. Simple. Fumble. Jennings: was not going to the ground making his catch - two feet down and possession in the endzone: TD. It doesn't matter what happens after he has possession in the endzone if he isn't 'going to the ground during the catch' - he could get vaporized by a laser instantaneously after possession and two feet down and it's still a TD.


I think you have the issue pretty much summed up.

I would have called it differently, but it did happen fast. I can see how you could say he was going down with the catch, but I disagree. In slow motion, I think you'd be more likely to agree with you but in super fast football motion, I can definitely see the judgment call going the other way. I disagree with the call, but I understand how and why it was made and I don't expect an apology by the league on it. This year and last year there have been some inexplicably horrible calls (first Viking game standing out). This game was a damn good called game, to the point where we're almost getting the refs in our pocket for a change in the last two weeks. Even this call, the worst of them was decent. I've seen way worse than this.

[RashanGary]

I remember us getting a fricking taunting (the only taunting I've seen in years) call for Chillar talking shit to AP after a tackle, then a few plays later, our guy got tackled 3 yards out of bounds and there was no call on the late hit.

Then the ticky tack call on Woodson in the endzone.

What made it stand out as particularly bad was the Vikings having like zero penalties all game and us having 10 or 15 of them. That game was just bull shit. Every ticky tack thing went against us and was never called on them. I couldn't believe it. For a change, the Bears were getting penalties called on them too. That's what really stands out to me, that teams just weren't getting penalties when they played us during certain games and we were getting a ton of them. It felt so blatant and obvious that the refs were either trying to drive home a point like Daunahey talks about in his book or following an order (more doubtful).

Whatever the case, the chip seems to be off the refs shoulders and we're taking advantage of it with wins. Let's just be respectful to them, stop complaining and hope this trend continues. Nothing good ever comes from complaining like little bitches and that starts with MM and trickles through the players. A person can't help but want to passive-aggresively get back at a bitch. Read that book by the NBA ref. It's exactly the type of shit they do.

[Pugger]

The thing is, the referees were consistent later when they ruled that Cutler's 2nd-and-18 or 22 pass for a first down was incomplete. I thought it was the same play. To me, it looked like the Bears' receiver caught the ball, had possession, was tackled, and when he hit the ground the ball popped out.

I thought that was a catch. But they said no.

Honest to gosh, I think the NFL has made it almost impossible for a guy to make a catch. Cripes, a receiver makes the catch and some 190 pound guy is ripping at it while another 210 pound guy is smashing into the receiver, yet the guy is hanging on to the ball as he goes out of bounds - but if the referee sees so much as a little wriggle - less than you'd see on a flat woman's chest - it ain't a catch.

But in the Jennings situation he didn't hit the ground or lose the ball until AFTER he was out of the back of the end zone. :?

I don't get it any more.

[gbgary]

I don't get it any more. You sound like you've been married twenty years.

:rs:


i think you mean 5 years.

:rs:

[RashanGary]

refs said it was a good call. I understand it. It's a judgment call made during a very fast game.

[ThunderDan]

refs said it was a good call. I understand it. It's a judgment call made during a very fast game.

Then what the hell is instant replay and challenges for? :lol: To slow the game down and allow the refs to get the right call.

Once again my issue is he got a third foot down before going to the ground and the fumble was caused by the Bear defender not the ground.

Do you have a link to the NFL's explaination of the call saying it was good?

[Patler]

I agree with those who have said that on Drivers fumble last week he had possession even a shorter time than Jennings did. A fumble requires possession. Once possession occurs in the endzone, its a TD.

McCarthy said yesterday they would submit this play to the league for clarification.

[pbmax]

I agree with those who have said that on Drivers fumble last week he had possession even a shorter time than Jennings did. A fumble requires possession. Once possession occurs in the endzone, its a TD.

McCarthy said yesterday they would submit this play to the league for clarification.
Good, because no other site has this on their radar except locally. I haven't even seen it in the papers outside of the blogs on JSO or GBPG.

Our other hope for clarification is a program that runs on NFL Network called Official Review on Wednesdays. It'll be on the web by Thursday.

[RashanGary]

Pretty much, he caught the ball, got three steps in, but was going to the ground with the catch by the ref's subjective point of view. By not maintaining possession through his fall, the rule states it is an incomplete pass.

Based on the refs subjective view of what happened (falling to the ground with the catch), by rule, he made the right call.


Clearly there's some grey area. How quickly does a guy have to fall for it to be considered "falling to the ground during a catch"?

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

There have been some games taht I am certain something was going on with how bad the calls were. This was not even close. If anything, the last two games, we've gotten all the calls to go our way. Maybe they want a Favre vs Packer prime time matchup to boost ratings again because if anything, I'd say we've had the refs on our side with worse calls than this the last couple weeks. This one was close and understandable.

[Smidgeon]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

[ThunderDan]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

GJ 3rd foot hit the ground before going down to the ground. How many do you need? 4? 8? A Lambeau Leap with the ball?

[RashanGary]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

GJ 3rd foot hit the ground before going down to the ground. How many do you need? 4? 8? A Lambeau Leap with the ball?

The question isn't, "was he in bounds". The question is two part and has to do with whether or not he caught the ball at all by rule of a falling catch:

1. Was the pass catcher falling to the ground in the act of catching the ball and if so,
2. Did the pass catcher maintain possession through the fall

From the refs point of view, Jennings was catching the ball, but was falling as he was catching it so now the "falling while you catch" rule applied.

He did not maintain possession through the fall so by rule he never caught the ball.


Being it was in the endzone never entered into the equation because he'd have to first have possession of the ball. By rule of a falling catch, he never even had possession.

I disagree with it, but I see how it was made and it wasn't that bad IMO. Was he falling or wasn't he? It happened pretty fast. I understand one persons view differing from mine in something so close.

[ThunderDan]

I disagree with the officials view of Jennings, "falling to the ground during the catch". I'd say he made the catch and then fell. That said, it happened fast and I can see how someone would have a different view. It's not like he caught the ball, ran a few circles and then fell down, losing the ball. He caught it, was running very fast so got a few quick steps in bounds and immediately fell. It was close enough for me to not be upset about.

It may have happened quickly, but instant replay should have slowed it down enough to make an accurate decision.

GJ 3rd foot hit the ground before going down to the ground. How many do you need? 4? 8? A Lambeau Leap with the ball?

The question isn't, "was he in bounds". The question is two part and has to do with whether or not he caught the ball at all by rule of a falling catch:

1. Was the pass catcher falling to the ground in the act of catching the ball and if so,
2. Did the pass catcher maintain possession through the fall

From the refs point of view, Jennings was catching the ball, but was falling as he was catching it so now the "falling while you catch" rule applied.

He did not maintain possession through the fall so by rule he never caught the ball.


Being it was in the endzone never entered into the equation because he'd have to first have possession of the ball. By rule of a falling catch, he never even had possession.

I disagree with it, but I see how it was made and it wasn't that bad IMO. Was he falling or wasn't he? It happened pretty fast. I understand one persons view differing from mine in something so close.

Once again, so 3 steps before going down is "in the process of going down"? How many steps do you need? 4? 6? That's my question to the NFL.

If I can get 3 steps on the ground (in bounds or out) that sure as hell is not "going to the ground."

[SkinBasket]

I disagree with it, but I see how it was made and it wasn't that bad IMO. Was he falling or wasn't he? It happened pretty fast. I understand one persons view differing from mine in something so close.

Not sure how you can classify it as "not bad" or even "close" for that matter. You say it happened real fast, but I'm pretty sure they slow it down in the replays, so that's no excuse. It was absolutely clear that he did not start "falling down" until after the ball was dislodged which was clearly after the receiver had demonstrated clear possession and taken two steps.

Blowing a call, then the replay, that costs a team a touchdown, is bad no matter what the circumstances. About as bad can get in a football game.

[red]

the nfl needs to make these rules crystal clear and not leave it to the refs "interpretation"

that can lead to some very shady things

a ref can pretty much throw a game and say later on he called the thing the way he saw it. the nfl will shrug their shoulders, and we'll all be screwed

there needs to be clear rules, and massive fines if the refs then don't follow those rules

and don't think the nfl refs are above throwing a game, just ask the nba

[mraynrand]

the nfl needs to make these rules crystal clear and not leave it to the refs "interpretation"

There will always be interpretation/judgment calls. The refs judged that Jennings was going to the ground. They were wrong twice. If you want perfection, you are not going to get it in a game involving humans.

[swede]

Bedard talked about it on WTMJ radio last night. He had heard the league's explanation.

If Jennings is not touched by the defensive player it is a TD.

If the defensive player touches the offensive player BEFORE the second foot is down the "going to ground" rule applies. At that point the offensive player MUST maintain possession...but for how long wasn't clear to me. Perhaps until contact with the ground and then again he may have to maintain possession until the line judge runs up and says, "One, Two, Three, Four...I declare a catch and score!"

But seriously, how many steps would the receiver have to carry the defensive back before possession could be affirmed? By this interpretation of the rule the receiver could catch the ball, be leaped upon by a D back before the second foot is down, carry the ball and D back for thirty-two yards, cross the goal line, have the ball hammered out before falling down out of bounds, and lose the touchdown because the "going to ground" rule applies.

Maybe, in this somewhat ridiculous yet entirely possible scenario, the officials would say, "The receiver scored the touchdown before losing the ball while going to the ground after going out of bounds so the ruling is: touchdown!"

But if they could say that then they should be able to say, "According to Patler's first law of gridiron ruleage, possession of the football in the end zone = touchdown. This law overrules all others. Green Bay is awarded the touchdown."

So, and I promise this is my last word on the matter, I think the league has successfully defended the call based on a logical application of a stupid, unnecessary, and problematic rule.

[Patler]

We should not confuse the leagues public explanation with what they really thought of the call. They admit officials mistakes only in the very high profile situations when they can't "explain it away". The Jennings play has received little or no national attention that I am aware of. Other than a few GB fans, no one was anxiously waiting for their explanation (other than maybe Brian Billick). The NFL is not about to generate the negative attention itself by waiving a flag and proclaiming; "Look, our officials screwed up."

It has been implied by many, including the Packers at times, that often the league very quietly agrees with the complaining team and admonishes the crew even while issuing an explanation to the public of why the decision went as it did. They don't always admit that, while the ruling was correct if the facts were as the ref explained, a basic fact was actually different. In short they say the decision was correct, but fail to acknowledge that the perception upon which it was based was wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Bedard talked about it on WTMJ radio last night. He had heard the league's explanation.

If Jennings is not touched by the defensive player it is a TD.

If the defensive player touches the offensive player BEFORE the second foot is down the "going to ground" rule applies. At that point the offensive player MUST maintain possession...but for how long wasn't clear to me. Perhaps until contact with the ground and then again he may have to maintain possession until the line judge runs up and says, "One, Two, Three, Four...I declare a catch and score!"

But seriously, how many steps would the receiver have to carry the defensive back before possession could be affirmed? By this interpretation of the rule the receiver could catch the ball, be leaped upon by a D back before the second foot is down, carry the ball and D back for thirty-two yards, cross the goal line, have the ball hammered out before falling down out of bounds, and lose the touchdown because the "going to ground" rule applies.

Maybe, in this somewhat ridiculous yet entirely possible scenario, the officials would say, "The receiver scored the touchdown before losing the ball while going to the ground after going out of bounds so the ruling is: touchdown!"

But if they could say that then they should be able to say, "According to Patler's first law of gridiron ruleage, possession of the football in the end zone = touchdown. This law overrules all others. Green Bay is awarded the touchdown."

So, and I promise this is my last word on the matter, I think the league has successfully defended the call based on a logical application of a stupid, unnecessary, and problematic rule.

So let me get this straight. A WR catches the ball 1 yard deep in the endzone with a defender in contact. The defender falls down. The WR continues through the back of the endzone taking 10 steps, does an endzone celebration where he falls to the ground and send the ball rolling. No touchdown.

BS ruling.

[RashanGary]

Makes complete sense to me. It's not a catch if you're falling and fail to maintain possession through the fall. Jennings was going down during the catch and failed to maintain possession of the ball. Becasue of this, Jennings never had possession, therefor never had possession in the endzone, therefor it was not a touchdown. Seems clear to me.

It was definitely in the grey area of "what defines falling to the ground during a catch" but as the rules stand, it's more than reasonable that the ref made that judgement.

And the refs are pretty good about admitting when they're dead wrong. It just so happens they stand behind judgement calls pretty strong and I agree with that. There is no way to make it perfect, sometimes there's some grey area. At some point you can't nitpick every call or non call. It's not black and white.

[sharpe1027]

Makes complete sense to me. It's not a catch if you're falling and fail to maintain possession through the fall. Jennings was going down during the catch and failed to maintain possession of the ball.

It was definitely in the grey area of "what defines falling to the ground during a catch" but as the rules stand, it's more than reasonable that the ref made that judgement.

And the refs are pretty good about admitting when they're dead wrong. It just so happens they stand behind judgement calls pretty strong and I agree with that. There is no way to make it perfect, sometimes there's some grey area. At some point you can't nitpick every call or non call. It's not black and white.

According to their explanation, "during the catch" occurs anytime a defender touches a WR before the second step. So, my hypothetical situation above is not a touchdown. Absurd. I think they left out an important part of the explanation on purpose because the rule wasn't meant to cover Jennings-type situations..

[RashanGary]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Bottom line, if a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a ball and does not maintain possession through the fall, it's incomplete.

The only debate is whether Jennings was going to the ground in teh act of catching the ball and in taht case, I say ti's a subjective judgement call and an example of you disagreeing with the ref on shades of grey.

Not a bad call. And I like this rule. It's too easy to call everythign a catch if you just jump up, get two hands on it and then fall down, losing possession. I like the way this rule works, always liked it.

[Patler]

I would still be willing to bet that had it occurred outside the endzone, it would have been ruled a fumble, just like the Driver fumble a week ago. If it's a fumble at the 20 yard line, it should be a TD if everything happens in in the endzone. Jennings had the ball tucked away for two complete strides, and almost a third.

The feeble explanation that the hit occurred before the second foot hit the ground makes absolutely no sense. Does contact from the defender negate the first foot touch? Since when is there a requirement for two foot touches after contact?

I see a lot of smoke screening their actual review of this play. Way too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies for me to accept this one at face value.

Willingness to admit their mistakes? - Only for the high profile ones as I have said. A head coach got in some hot water a year or two ago for summarizing what the league told them, which contradicted the league's official public statement supporting a call. I suspect that stuff happens a lot, to avoid publicly undermining officials credibility with the fans.

[Patler]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Bottom line, if a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a ball and does not maintain possession through the fall, it's incomplete.

The only debate is whether Jennings was going to the ground in teh act of catching the ball and in taht case, I say ti's a subjective judgement call and an example of you disagreeing with the ref on shades of grey.

Not a bad call. And I like this rule. It's too easy to call everythign a catch if you just jump up, get two hands on it and then fall down, losing possession. I like the way this rule works, always liked it.

I still dsiagree with the explanation based on what really occurred. The question is really, did he catch it before the ball came loose? Going to the ground was irrelevant, in my opinion. I think Billick had it right when he said there was no question of going to the ground while making the catch. The catch was complete while he was on his feet striding. Heck, he finished his third stride while upright, and the ball was sliding loose by then.

Everything occured before he went to the ground. He didn't loose it while going to the ground, he went down after losing it.

I see a cover-up. Don't fall for it JH!! :lol: :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Bottom line, if a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a ball and does not maintain possession through the fall, it's incomplete.

The only debate is whether Jennings was going to the ground in teh act of catching the ball and in taht case, I say ti's a subjective judgement call and an example of you disagreeing with the ref on shades of grey.

Not a bad call. And I like this rule. It's too easy to call everythign a catch if you just jump up, get two hands on it and then fall down, losing possession. I like the way this rule works, always liked it.

No doubt there is a subjective component. The point we have been trying to get across is that three full steps in a fully-upright position is outside of any reasonable argument of "going to the ground."

The league's explanation was that if there is contact before two steps, then the WR must maintain possession to the ground. Well, by that explanation even if the WR takes ten steps after contact and only then goes down (maybe he's doing a lambeau leap), it could still be a fumble. Absurd.

[Patler]

Besides, he went to the ground well outside of the endzone. Since when does hitting out of bounds count for anything? If there is a question of regaining control, its not when he hit the ground, but when he crossed the endline of the endzone. Again, their explanation does not wash!

COVER-UP! COVER-UP! I demand a congressional investigation!

[ThunderDan]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."



Once again getting 3 feet on the ground before any other body part hits the ground is considered "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass"? To me that is running.

How many feet do I need?

This opens up all sorts of issues. If I am a DC of a team I tell all of my players to knock the opponent off their feet in the end zone. Late or not if the WR doesn't maintain its incomplete.

[Patler]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."



"whether in the field of play or the end zone" It doesn't say anything about out of bounds. If that is their ruling, they should have explained it as needing to regain control before crossing the endline.

Regardless, I can't justify a ruling of an incomplete pass for Jennings and a fumble for Driver. If Jennings' was incomplete, so was Driver's. If Driver's was a fumble, Jennings' was a touchdown.

[swede]

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book states: "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Okay, thanks for actual rule.

Bedard seemed completely satisfied with the league's explanation last night, but the way he explained it doesn't jive with this rule. This rule seems to be in place to deal with the "ground can't cause a fumble" clause.

A ball carrier with possession is down when he contacts the ground and cannot lose possession even if the ball squirts away at the moment he hits the ground.

A receiver can't achieve possession in the air and then benefit from the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule.

I get why they'd need the "going to ground" rule now. But where oh where does it say that a defender touching a receiver takes away that receiver's right to establish possession by taking two steps with the ball under control?

My new take: the league could flipping care less and successfully obfuscated with a plausible collection of words that seemed to give some assurance that everything was okay and there was nothing to see here.

[Pugger]

Unless my memory is failing, didn't the ball come out AFTER Jennings made 2 or 3 steps and didn't Jennings hit the ground after he was past the back the end zone??? :?: Man, I would really like to see a replay of that...

[CaptainKickass]

I didn't record the game.

Anyone have a link to the video of the catch plus the review?

I'd love to re-watch it after this thread's wealth of insight.

[Patler]

Unless my memory is failing, didn't the ball come out AFTER Jennings made 2 or 3 steps and didn't Jennings hit the ground after he was past the back the end zone??? :?: Man, I would really like to see a replay of that...

Yes and yes. I had it on Tivo, and re-watched it in stop action ad nauseum.

I described it in another thread like this:


I replayed it advancing "frame" by "frame". The ground level camera had a great unobstructed view of it.

- he stretched, caught it in his hands mid-stride, with both feet in the air.
- there was no bobble or juggle at all, it "stuck" in his hands.
- he began pulling it in to his body and nearly had it there as his first foot hit the ground.
- the ball was up against his chest as his second foot hit the ground.
- the ball stayed there as he went into his 3rd stride.
- just before the first foot hit for the second time, the ball started coming out.

[pbmax]

Go to NFL.com and then to the Video section. Then go to the Packer videos. Both the Game Day highlights and the normal highlights have the play in them. They are each around 3-4 minutes long.

[sharpe1027]

Go to NFL.com and then to the Video section. Then go to the Packer videos. Both the Game Day highlights and the normal highlights have the play in them. They are each around 3-4 minutes long.

Upon further review, it is a goddamn catch. :lol:

[pbmax]

If the defensive player touches the offensive player BEFORE the second foot is down the "going to ground" rule applies.
This doesn't help, as the rule specifically applies regardless of whether there is contact by a defensive player or not. Now there is an amendment that requires different circumstances if a defensive player is involved.

[swede]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bO_HDn8K90U/R5zY0_dO4zI/AAAAAAAAABE/A7T1IRTXOWU/s320/zax_bypass.jpg

I feel as if I'm better informed but no closer to understanding whether the situation is a bad rule correctly applied or if it is a good rule applied to the wrong situation.

[Fritz]

The bottom line is that if we're getting screwed less by the refs, we're not getting as much sex.

[sharpe1027]

The bottom line is that if we're getting screwed less by the refs, we're not getting as much sex.

Assuming we don't get screwed more by someone else.

[ThunderDan]

Just watched the replay again. GJ is up for 3 steps and then gets horsecollared down out of bounds. 3 steps up right not even close to going to the ground.

[pbmax]

Just watched the replay again. GJ is up for 3 steps and then gets horsecollared down out of bounds. 3 steps up right not even close to going to the ground.
You might have to factor the bobble? He double-clutches it I think, before losing it on the hit. Or perhaps dementia has finally settled in.

But if he bobbles it, then possession wouldn't have been established and then the hit is before two steps. On Tuesdays. Between the hours of 5:15 and quarter after five.

[gbgary]

just watched nfl total access and our play wasn't even discussed by the head of officials. shit!!

edit: it wasn't discussed on the "bonus coverage" on nfl.com either. :roll:

[MJZiggy]

I've decided. We may be getting screwed less OFTEN, but now we're getting screwed worse.

[swede]

I've decided. We may be getting screwed less OFTEN, but now we're getting screwed worse.

I can get that at home. Football is supposed to be my diversion. :(

[Patler]

Just watched the replay again. GJ is up for 3 steps and then gets horsecollared down out of bounds. 3 steps up right not even close to going to the ground.
You might have to factor the bobble? He double-clutches it I think, before losing it on the hit. Or perhaps dementia has finally settled in.

But if he bobbles it, then possession wouldn't have been established and then the hit is before two steps. On Tuesdays. Between the hours of 5:15 and quarter after five.

No bobble, no double clutch. I wrote the following after watching the replay on my DVR in stop action, advancing "frame by frame":



I replayed it advancing "frame" by "frame". The ground level camera had a great unobstructed view of it.

- he stretched, caught it in his hands mid-stride, with both feet in the air.
- there was no bobble or juggle at all, it "stuck" in his hands.
- he began pulling it in to his body and nearly had it there as his first foot hit the ground.
- the ball was up against his chest as his second foot hit the ground.
- the ball stayed there as he went into his 3rd stride.
- just before the first foot hit for the second time, the ball started coming out.


He had two hands on it at all times from first contact with it through pulling it against his chest, and completing two and a half strides. What looked like a bobble at regular speed was just him stretching to snatch it with his hands and pull it against his body. It never left his hands until it fell to the ground two and a half strides later.

[RashanGary]

Here's what I can't stand:

5 ticky tack holds that kill drives
3 ticky tack PI's
2 ST's holds
1 stupid taunting penalty (don't think I've ever seen a taunting penalty for a guy talking shit after a hit)
1 Shitty call on a TD that should have been called in but was a judgement call sort of and they called it out

0 penalties on the opposition (not even one holding anywhere all game)
1 non call on a late hit out of bounds
3 non calls on borderline PI


All in one game


When that shit happens, I'm fucking livid. You can hardly contain me in my seat. I have to chill out so I don't offend the company. Shit, I have to chill out so I don't scare my brothers. And there have been games like this over the last two years. It's been really bad at times (finally getting better the last two weeks).


This one bad call in a game where I don't recall one other shitty call going against us, I don't know, I'm not upset at all. That was one of the best officiated games I've ever watched because it felt honest, even if it wasn't perfect.

[Guiness]

I get a kick out of the taunting penalty, and was pretty pissed at Chillar when it happened - he's a vet, and shouldn't lose control like that.

Did anyone see it? Was it warranted? You generally only see that if a tackler stands over a guy he just tackles and does a little dance or something.

[Fritz]

Do you think a player would get a taunting penalty if he stood over another player, put his thumbs up against his ear holes, wiggled his fingers, and said "Nah-nah-nah-na-poo-poo"?

[mraynrand]

Do you think a player would get a taunting penalty if he stood over another player, put his thumbs up against his ear holes, wiggled his fingers, and said "Nah-nah-nah-na-poo-poo"?

I'd like to hear John Facenda narrate that.

[Guiness]

Ok, I finally got a copy of the game, and watched the Jennings catch.

No way that was not a catch.

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.

I agree with others here. I think from now on, when there's a pass thrown for a TD, the whole DL should turn around and take a run at the guy that just caught it. Ball pops out, no TD.

[Patler]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.


No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

[gbgary]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.


No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

yup...catch, two steps and nearly a third, ball batted out of his hands, and then tackled.

statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.

[pbmax]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.


No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

yup...catch, two steps and nearly a third, ball batted out of his hands, and then tackled.

statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.
Here it is: http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=488451#488451

Essentially, if Bedard had it right, the fact that he got hit and knocked down invoked the "control it to the ground" rule, whether he had possession prior to that wasn't discussed. Which leaves open the question of how many steps a WR could possibly take, get hit, lose control of the ball while hitting the ground, and fail to score.

The only logical explanation, for a WR going out of bounds, is that the hit occurred before the third step. Because for the out of bounds plays, the rule envisions a catch, two feet and falling/being pushed out and losing or keeping control while hitting the ground. Or alternatively, Patler could be right that they are justifying the call and that it should have been decided differently.

[sharpe1027]

Essentially, if Bedard had it right, the fact that he got hit and knocked down invoked the "control it to the ground" rule, whether he had possession prior to that wasn't discussed. Which leaves open the question of how many steps a WR could possibly take, get hit, lose control of the ball while hitting the ground, and fail to score.

The only logical explanation, for a WR going out of bounds, is that the hit occurred before the third step. Because for the out of bounds plays, the rule envisions a catch, two feet and falling/being pushed out and losing or keeping control while hitting the ground. Or alternatively, Patler could be right that they are justifying the call and that it should have been decided differently.

Why does it matter if the hit occurred before the third step? If Jennings had done a Lambeau leap and lost the ball to a fan in the process it would therefore be an incomplete pass? The hit would have still occurred before the third step, Jennings would have still went to the ground (in the stands) and lost the ball. Ridiculous.

None of the explanations has yet addressed the real issue.

[bobblehead]

Horseshit rule, the NFL is encouraging late bone jarring hits in the endzone with such an ill defined rule....sign them up for congress, maybe they can help with the health care bill.

[pbmax]

Essentially, if Bedard had it right, the fact that he got hit and knocked down invoked the "control it to the ground" rule, whether he had possession prior to that wasn't discussed. Which leaves open the question of how many steps a WR could possibly take, get hit, lose control of the ball while hitting the ground, and fail to score.

The only logical explanation, for a WR going out of bounds, is that the hit occurred before the third step. Because for the out of bounds plays, the rule envisions a catch, two feet and falling/being pushed out and losing or keeping control while hitting the ground. Or alternatively, Patler could be right that they are justifying the call and that it should have been decided differently.

Why does it matter if the hit occurred before the third step? If Jennings had done a Lambeau leap and lost the ball to a fan in the process it would therefore be an incomplete pass? The hit would have still occurred before the third step, Jennings would have still went to the ground (in the stands) and lost the ball. Ridiculous.

None of the explanations has yet addressed the real issue.
Correct, the league has not defined when possession occurs for a catch in the endzone except for telling us when it does not. The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.

So, and I am inferring, because its entirely possible that this rule actually doesn't apply in this case, at a minimum for this call to have been made, Jennings was acknowledged to have two feet down and to have caught the ball. If that is the case, then the open question is how many steps before the catch, possession and TD is complete regardless of hit or falling out of bounds? Essentially, when does the "act of catching the ball" end?

I am suggesting it is possible the league is saying its the third step with possession. Its just a guess off an inference of the rule. Nothing more. And the league has not come close to saying it. My guess is they will not, since its easier to define what is not a catch than what is a catch.

[sharpe1027]

Correct, the league has not defined when possession occurs for a catch in the endzone except for telling us when it does not. The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.

So, and I am inferring, because its entirely possible that this rule actually doesn't apply in this case, at a minimum for this call to have been made, Jennings was acknowledged to have two feet down and to have caught the ball. If that is the case, then the open question is how many steps before the catch, possession and TD is complete regardless of hit or falling out of bounds? Essentially, when does the "act of catching the ball" end?

I am suggesting it is possible the league is saying its the third step with possession. Its just a guess off an inference of the rule. Nothing more. And the league has not come close to saying it. My guess is they will not, since its easier to define what is not a catch than what is a catch.

Exactly, and I didn't mean to infer you meant anything different, so no problems there.

I think they will eventually need to clarify, and they may have already done so internally. If they do not clarify, there will continue to be cases that leave the announcers scratching their heads and us throwing something through the TV.

[sharpe1027]

The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.


Hypothetically speaking, had Jennings maintained his feet it would have been a touchdown even though everything else was identical up until AFTER the ball came out? Makes no sense that something (falling to the ground) that happens AFTER the fumble will change the ruling. Poor call, poor explanation and poor job putting together the rule and educating the officials and fans.

[ThunderDan]

The only affirmative we have is that if you catch the ball, get two feet down and then go the ground and maintain control, its possession and a touchdown.


Hypothetically speaking, had Jennings maintained his feet it would have been a touchdown even though everything else was identical up until AFTER the ball came out? Makes no sense that something (falling to the ground) that happens AFTER the fumble will change the ruling. Poor call, poor explanation and poor job putting together the rule and educating the officials and fans.

It's hard to stay up when being horsecollared from behind!

[Patler]

Patler, you said the ball was coming out as he entered his second stride, but what I'm looking at is more why the ball came out. Looks to me like the db punched it out. And it was punched out after he had possession and both feet down. I doubt Jennings goes down if not tackled.


No, I said the ball was against his body through out the second stride and into the third stride. I said it started to come out just before his first foot hit for the second time, i.e. just before completing his third stride (first foot, second foot, first foot.)

I agree the ball came out because it was punched by the defender, or because his arm was pulled down; but I don't really see why that matters; although the NFL apparently does form their statement.

yup...catch, two steps and nearly a third, ball batted out of his hands, and then tackled.

statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.



statement? what statement? haven't seen any links to anything.

The following includes a quoted statement attributed to an NFL spokesman.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/79309772.html

[ThunderDan]

OK, after last week no touchdown, which sucked. I can't understand how 4 steps down with the ball isn't a catch and how Big Ben's fumble wasn't a fumble.

I guess I am going to have to read the NFL rules again this week to understand why I have no fucking clue what any call might or might not be.

[red]

OK, after last week no touchdown, which sucked. I can't understand how 4 steps down with the ball isn't a catch and how Big Ben's fumble wasn't a fumble.

I guess I am going to have to read the NFL rules again this week to understand why I have no fucking clue what any call might or might not be.

the first thing i thought of when i saw that play happen was "tuck rule" i knew it was gonna go against us somehow

IMO that was a horrendous call

i mean, that call was reversed, he had to have absolute proof that the call on the fiels was wrong. for the life of me i don't see how he can make that call

nfl needs to start doing something to penalize these refs when they clearly screw up a call like this one

[pbmax]

OK, after last week no touchdown, which sucked. I can't understand how 4 steps down with the ball isn't a catch and how Big Ben's fumble wasn't a fumble.

I guess I am going to have to read the NFL rules again this week to understand why I have no fucking clue what any call might or might not be.

the first thing i thought of when i saw that play happen was "tuck rule" i knew it was gonna go against us somehow

IMO that was a horrendous call

i mean, that call was reversed, he had to have absolute proof that the call on the fiels was wrong. for the life of me i don't see how he can make that call

nfl needs to start doing something to penalize these refs when they clearly screw up a call like this one
That was one of those cases where his arm WAS moving forward but the ball was not. When you throw, there is a whip-like delay and this rule doesn't envision it. So refs can go either way. Odd that they reversed it as they usually use the ambiguity to confirm the call. But his arm was moving. Matthews got the ball out before it moved I think.

[red]

OK, after last week no touchdown, which sucked. I can't understand how 4 steps down with the ball isn't a catch and how Big Ben's fumble wasn't a fumble.

I guess I am going to have to read the NFL rules again this week to understand why I have no fucking clue what any call might or might not be.

the first thing i thought of when i saw that play happen was "tuck rule" i knew it was gonna go against us somehow

IMO that was a horrendous call

i mean, that call was reversed, he had to have absolute proof that the call on the fiels was wrong. for the life of me i don't see how he can make that call

nfl needs to start doing something to penalize these refs when they clearly screw up a call like this one
That was one of those cases where his arm WAS moving forward but the ball was not. When you throw, there is a whip-like delay and this rule doesn't envision it. So refs can go either way. Odd that they reversed it as they usually use the ambiguity to confirm the call. But his arm was moving. Matthews got the ball out before it moved I think.

i saw the exact same thing pb. it was the elbow that looked like it was going forward, while the ball might still have been going backwards

it was absolutely the whip motion that screwed us on that one. IMO it should be the ball moving forward, not the arm, because it is possible for the elbow to be going forward while the ball is still being cocked

[mraynrand]

Ben: Empty hand - a fumble every time - except yesterday.

Pittsburgh O-lineman on the last play: no empty hand - full of Jolly Jersey - holding every time except yesterday in Pittsburgh.

Packers got a massive referee pole jammed up their arses yesterday.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I always feel a bit guilty when I blame the refs for a slough of bad calls because it feels like an excuse. But between the first Min game and this one, there have been some really one-sided calls that affected the outcome of the game. I am still f-ing pissed.

[mngolf19]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Oh you're certainly right there. 10 less drops, better pass defense and a competent kicker would have beaten the PIT+refs team. There were bad and no calls each way, but the timing of each and magnitude was not the same. Did you see Rodgers get drilled with helmet to helmet? No one put an illegal shot like that on Roethlisberger

[ND72]

I'm going to jump on the refs screwing us bandwagon yet again after finding out that Mike Wallace ran into the front pylon when he ran his route...which makes him out of bounds, which means he cannot be the first person to touch the ball once it leaves the QB's hand. (NFL Network)

[Bossman641]

I'm going to jump on the refs screwing us bandwagon yet again after finding out that Mike Wallace ran into the front pylon when he ran his route...which makes him out of bounds, which means he cannot be the first person to touch the ball once it leaves the QB's hand. (NFL Network)

Are you sure? I need to watch the play again, but I was looking pretty closely to see whether he had stepped out of bounds and didn't see anything.

[ND72]

I'm going to jump on the refs screwing us bandwagon yet again after finding out that Mike Wallace ran into the front pylon when he ran his route...which makes him out of bounds, which means he cannot be the first person to touch the ball once it leaves the QB's hand. (NFL Network)

Are you sure? I need to watch the play again, but I was looking pretty closely to see whether he had stepped out of bounds and didn't see anything.

I didnt' see it either, but as I was getting ready for school this morning I heard the NFL Network guys going off about the last score of the Packer Steeler game, and how the refs blew 2 calls against us.

[mraynrand]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

You are wrong on multiple fronts. A blown call is a reason we lost the game. Jolly was held on the final play. Had it been called properly, the Packers win. This is unquestionably true. There are other things the Packers could have done to win the game without having to rely on the officials properly calling the game, but they would have won had the officials called the last play correctly. It is indisputably true.

Next, we do not have to overcome it. We are fans and, being fans, are entitled to remain bitter and unconsolable for the remainder of our lives. I plan to remain this way about this game. Due to anger mismanagement and atherosclerosis, my remaining life should be blissfully short.

[ThunderDan]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Weren't you the Viking fan screaming a few weeks ago that you were 1 leg-whip ref screw job away from a perfect season so far?

[mngolf19]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Oh you're certainly right there. 10 less drops, better pass defense and a competent kicker would have beaten the PIT+refs team. There were bad and no calls each way, but the timing of each and magnitude was not the same. Did you see Rodgers get drilled with helmet to helmet? No one put an illegal shot like that on Roethlisberger

The helmet to helmet is hard to say. In the last slo mo they showed the initial contact into AR's chest and then slide up into his chin. Now the question would be, is that helmet to helmet based on the rule? I don't know but could see it considered either way.

[ThunderDan]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Oh you're certainly right there. 10 less drops, better pass defense and a competent kicker would have beaten the PIT+refs team. There were bad and no calls each way, but the timing of each and magnitude was not the same. Did you see Rodgers get drilled with helmet to helmet? No one put an illegal shot like that on Roethlisberger

The helmet to helmet is hard to say. In the last slo mo they showed the initial contact into AR's chest and then slide up into his chin. Now the question would be, is that helmet to helmet based on the rule? I don't know but could see it considered either way.

Leading with your helmet no matter where you hit is 15 yards!!

[mngolf19]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Weren't you the Viking fan screaming a few weeks ago that you were 1 leg-whip ref screw job away from a perfect season so far?

Screaming no. I mentioned that Dungy thought it was a bad call. And therefore an "objective" source thought that might have cost the Vikes. And that was in the context of saying that refs make bad/non calls for all teams, not just the Pack. I still say the Vikes needed to overcome that.

[mngolf19]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Oh you're certainly right there. 10 less drops, better pass defense and a competent kicker would have beaten the PIT+refs team. There were bad and no calls each way, but the timing of each and magnitude was not the same. Did you see Rodgers get drilled with helmet to helmet? No one put an illegal shot like that on Roethlisberger

The helmet to helmet is hard to say. In the last slo mo they showed the initial contact into AR's chest and then slide up into his chin. Now the question would be, is that helmet to helmet based on the rule? I don't know but could see it considered either way.

Leading with your helmet no matter where you hit is 15 yards!!

Isn't that only on QBs or WRs that are defenseless? No way you see a RB running the ball and getting hit with a helmet first called for a penalty.

[ThunderDan]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Weren't you the Viking fan screaming a few weeks ago that you were 1 leg-whip ref screw job away from a perfect season so far?

Screaming no. I mentioned that Dungy thought it was a bad call. And therefore an "objective" source thought that might have cost the Vikes. And that was in the context of saying that refs make bad/non calls for all teams, not just the Pack. I still say the Vikes needed to overcome that.

So now that the NFL network has mention we got screwed twice, can we continue our bitching?

[ThunderDan]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Oh you're certainly right there. 10 less drops, better pass defense and a competent kicker would have beaten the PIT+refs team. There were bad and no calls each way, but the timing of each and magnitude was not the same. Did you see Rodgers get drilled with helmet to helmet? No one put an illegal shot like that on Roethlisberger

The helmet to helmet is hard to say. In the last slo mo they showed the initial contact into AR's chest and then slide up into his chin. Now the question would be, is that helmet to helmet based on the rule? I don't know but could see it considered either way.

Leading with your helmet no matter where you hit is 15 yards!!

Isn't that only on QBs or WRs that are defenseless? No way you see a RB running the ball and getting hit with a helmet first called for a penalty.

It's called spearing!

[mngolf19]

So now that the NFL network has mention we got screwed twice, can we continue our bitching?

Well didn't you say the last word was the NFL office? If they call it bad, then... But unless we're all going to complain to the commisioner's office and they take action on it, we're all going to have to overcome it.

[mngolf19]

It's called spearing!

You'll never see spearing called unless the player is on the ground or was held up by another player. It probably is more about intent at this point than just leading with your helmet. Which then becomes a judgement call.

[sharpe1027]

The helmet to helmet is hard to say. In the last slo mo they showed the initial contact into AR's chest and then slide up into his chin. Now the question would be, is that helmet to helmet based on the rule? I don't know but could see it considered either way.

Not hard to say:


Using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures.

What about the first helmet-lead tackle/no-call that happened only a few plays earlier?

[mngolf19]

The helmet to helmet is hard to say. In the last slo mo they showed the initial contact into AR's chest and then slide up into his chin. Now the question would be, is that helmet to helmet based on the rule? I don't know but could see it considered either way.

Not hard to say:


Using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures.

What about the first helmet-lead tackle/no-call that happened only a few plays earlier?

So based on that I would agree it should have been called.

[sharpe1027]

So based on that I would agree it should have been called.

Pretty much. It should be called in other instances too, like you mentioned, but they give more leeway when a RB or WR is in full-stride or juking and the defender is trying to tackle them. When a QB is just standing in the pocket and taking the hit, there's not as much of an excuse.

[Fritz]

We used to go spearing pike in the ditches by our house when I grew up.

[mngolf19]

We used to go spearing pike in the ditches by our house when I grew up.

Did anyone drown? :lol:

[Cheesehead Craig]

We used to go spearing pike in the ditches by our house when I grew up.
Did the DNR make some bad calls when they came by to see what you were doing?

[Fritz]

The DNR accepted it as a fact of life in St. Clair County.

[Fosco33]

Had this debate in the game thread. Some questionable calls both ways - but they were consistent. The non-calls on QB hits were good (both ways).

Refs are always harsher on Def holding than Oline holding. For a few reasons (there's a clear buffer, it's one-one generally and in the wide open ; rather than a 1 on 2 in a mass of 10-12 players on a line). Plus I think the NFL just wants more offensive production. If they wanted to - they could call holding on most every play.

Packers had 4 or 5 chances to end that game before Jolly/Jenkins no hold calls on the last drive.

[bobblehead]

We used to go spearing pike in the ditches by our house when I grew up.

Did anyone drown? :lol:

or get fined?

[LEWCWA]

I hate to go here, but with the NBA in the state they are in, I don't have much faith that any of this shit is on the up and up. Just too much money involved! If it goes on in the NFL, this game stinks to high heavan.

[channtheman]

Guys after watching this game, there were alot of bad/non calls both ways in my opinion. And it's not the reason you lost. Gotta stop with the "refs are screwing us" and just realize that all teams have to deal with it along with the Pack's tendency to get penalized anyway. I've seen few games this year where there was a cleanly reffed game all the way through. Gotta overcome it.

Weren't you the Viking fan screaming a few weeks ago that you were 1 leg-whip ref screw job away from a perfect season so far?

Screaming no. I mentioned that Dungy thought it was a bad call. And therefore an "objective" source thought that might have cost the Vikes. And that was in the context of saying that refs make bad/non calls for all teams, not just the Pack. I still say the Vikes needed to overcome that.

So now that the NFL network has mention we got screwed twice, can we continue our bitching?

Did they say on NFL gameday final that we got robbed there? I remember after the first Chicago game someone mentioned how bad the illegal contact penalty was. I was too disappointed to watch the show this week though.

[channtheman]

I'm going to jump on the refs screwing us bandwagon yet again after finding out that Mike Wallace ran into the front pylon when he ran his route...which makes him out of bounds, which means he cannot be the first person to touch the ball once it leaves the QB's hand. (NFL Network)

Are you sure? I need to watch the play again, but I was looking pretty closely to see whether he had stepped out of bounds and didn't see anything.

I didnt' see it either, but as I was getting ready for school this morning I heard the NFL Network guys going off about the last score of the Packer Steeler game, and how the refs blew 2 calls against us.

What? I am gonna go watch this right now and see for myself.


I couldn't really see it. The camera angles provided don't show anything. Whatever.

[MichiganPackerFan]

If anyone can find a frame of him hitting the pylon, I would love to see it. It was REALLY hard for me to clearly focus on the replays through my tears.

[mraynrand]

Merry Chirstmas, Officials!

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/JollyChristmas.jpg

http://www.etftrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/coal_400x266.jpg

[mraynrand]

If anyone can find a frame of him hitting the pylon, I would love to see it. It was REALLY hard for me to clearly focus on the replays through my tears.

It was close, but I don't think he hit the pylon

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/nopylon.jpg

[Maxie the Taxi]

If anyone can find a frame of him hitting the pylon, I would love to see it. It was REALLY hard for me to clearly focus on the replays through my tears.

It was close, but I don't think he hit the pylon

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/nopylon.jpg

No, it's obvious he hit it. I can see it vibrating!

[Jimx29]

errrumm........

[Jimx29]

...

[Freak Out]

:lol:

[Jimx29]

:lol:Can't remember to put pants on most days, but I can remember threads like this :oops:

[Freak Out]

That Fitz play to score was brutal.

[sharpe1027]

Tuck rule, incomplete pass. Need to at least review.

[Smidgeon]

1. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald when he walked into the endzone. Not called.
2. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald in the endzone on his one handed catch. Not called.
3. Roughing the passer on the second to last play, defensive player leading with helmet. Not called.
4. Defensive facemask on the last play of the game. Not called.

Okay, that first one might be wishful thinking--maybe--but I think the others were "write to the NFL and get an official apology" worthy. Which cost GB the game. (I'm upset with the loss, give me space.)

[SkinBasket]

1. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald when he walked into the endzone. Not called.
2. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald in the endzone on his one handed catch. Not called.
3. Roughing the passer on the second to last play, defensive player leading with helmet. Not called.
4. Defensive facemask on the last play of the game. Not called.

Okay, that first one might be wishful thinking--maybe--but I think the others were "write to the NFL and get an official apology" worthy. Which cost GB the game. (I'm upset with the loss, give me space.)

1 through 3 are valid. Especially 3 given the situation and the "roughing" Warner got called earlier. Fuck the NFL.

[Freak Out]

1. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald when he walked into the endzone. Not called.
2. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald in the endzone on his one handed catch. Not called.
3. Roughing the passer on the second to last play, defensive player leading with helmet. Not called.
4. Defensive facemask on the last play of the game. Not called.

Okay, that first one might be wishful thinking--maybe--but I think the others were "write to the NFL and get an official apology" worthy. Which cost GB the game. (I'm upset with the loss, give me space.)

1 through 3 are valid. Especially 3 given the situation and the "roughing" Warner got called earlier. Fuck the NFL.

Our defense sucked huge donkey balls but that herd of Zebra's were playing bukake ball with the Packers.

[packerbacker1234]

ALl that matters to me is what happened in OT. Forget the rest, we were lucky to even be there.


OT

1. Helmet to Helmet hit on Rodgers, no call.
2. Facemask on Rodgers, play that he fumbled
3. Not at least a review to see if A. His arm was moving forward (it was so close, no way to tell with the naked eye), or B. if it qualifies as teh tuck rule.

Want proof of tuck rule?

"The tuck rule is an exception to this rule. It applies if the quarterback brings his arm forward in a passing motion, but then changes his mind and tries to keep hold of the football rather than making a pass. In this situation, if the quarterback loses the ball while stopping his passing motion or bringing the ball back to his body, it is still considered a forward pass (and thus an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule

[SkinBasket]

ALl that matters to me is what happened in OT. Forget the rest, we were lucky to even be there.


OT

1. Helmet to Helmet hit on Rodgers, no call.
2. Facemask on Rodgers, play that he fumbled
3. Not at least a review to see if A. His arm was moving forward (it was so close, no way to tell with the naked eye), or B. if it qualifies as teh tuck rule.

Want proof of tuck rule?

"The tuck rule is an exception to this rule. It applies if the quarterback brings his arm forward in a passing motion, but then changes his mind and tries to keep hold of the football rather than making a pass. In this situation, if the quarterback loses the ball while stopping his passing motion or bringing the ball back to his body, it is still considered a forward pass (and thus an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule

That would be awesome if the ball had ever hit the ground...

[packerbacker1234]

ALl that matters to me is what happened in OT. Forget the rest, we were lucky to even be there.


OT

1. Helmet to Helmet hit on Rodgers, no call.
2. Facemask on Rodgers, play that he fumbled
3. Not at least a review to see if A. His arm was moving forward (it was so close, no way to tell with the naked eye), or B. if it qualifies as teh tuck rule.

Want proof of tuck rule?

"The tuck rule is an exception to this rule. It applies if the quarterback brings his arm forward in a passing motion, but then changes his mind and tries to keep hold of the football rather than making a pass. In this situation, if the quarterback loses the ball while stopping his passing motion or bringing the ball back to his body, it is still considered a forward pass (and thus an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule

That would be awesome if the ball had ever hit the ground...


Official ruling was a fumble, and that is the final stat at NFL.com. Worst case, it should of been reviewed. If it's ruled a fumble, and upstairs reviews it. It could also be incurred that before the pass occured, rodgers was hit in teh helmet, etc. Many ways to look at that review to make sure it was legal. Facemask, int or fumble, was rodgers illegally touched before the "int/fumble", etc.

If it was Peyton Manning, it would of most likely been reviewed and deemed his helmet was hit before the pass, meaning hte penalty overrides the pick.

[ThunderDan]

ALl that matters to me is what happened in OT. Forget the rest, we were lucky to even be there.


OT

1. Helmet to Helmet hit on Rodgers, no call.
2. Facemask on Rodgers, play that he fumbled
3. Not at least a review to see if A. His arm was moving forward (it was so close, no way to tell with the naked eye), or B. if it qualifies as teh tuck rule.

Want proof of tuck rule?

"The tuck rule is an exception to this rule. It applies if the quarterback brings his arm forward in a passing motion, but then changes his mind and tries to keep hold of the football rather than making a pass. In this situation, if the quarterback loses the ball while stopping his passing motion or bringing the ball back to his body, it is still considered a forward pass (and thus an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule

That would be awesome if the ball had ever hit the ground...


Official ruling was a fumble, and that is the final stat at NFL.com. Worst case, it should of been reviewed. If it's ruled a fumble, and upstairs reviews it. It could also be incurred that before the pass occured, rodgers was hit in teh helmet, etc. Many ways to look at that review to make sure it was legal. Facemask, int or fumble, was rodgers illegally touched before the "int/fumble", etc.

If it was Peyton Manning, it would of most likely been reviewed and deemed his helmet was hit before the pass, meaning hte penalty overrides the pick.

I don't believe they can call helmet to helmet or facemask on review.

[mngolf19]

And as was said, it never hit the ground. Should have been called an INT so no tuck rule.

[MichiganPackerFan]

1. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald when he walked into the endzone. Not called.
2. Offensive PI on Fitzgerald in the endzone on his one handed catch. Not called.
3. Roughing the passer on the second to last play, defensive player leading with helmet. Not called.
4. Defensive facemask on the last play of the game. Not called.

Okay, that first one might be wishful thinking--maybe--but I think the others were "write to the NFL and get an official apology" worthy. Which cost GB the game. (I'm upset with the loss, give me space.)

Just wanted to put that in bold.

I don't get as pissed on a missed call as I do when they have called the exact same thing one way and don't call it the other. Warner was protected by the officials all day. Rodgers was at their mercy. There was a early 15 yd penalty for a shove in the back, but when it happened the other way only a couple plays later, nothing. I have a theory that a team can only overcome a limited net number of a combination of major errors committed and bad calls by the officials. Maybe that number is -5. (-2 turnovers, -3 major bad calls/no calls) This is the playoffs, and the officials have no business changing or affecting the outcome of the game. The NFL should have a policy of thoroughly reviewing their work and terminating/ suspending officials rather than thoroughly defending and making excuses for them.

Tuck rule didn't apply, but if Warner had taken a helmet to helmet like that, there would have been an immediate flag. And even if they didn't see it, there would have been a late flag.

[Patler]

And as was said, it never hit the ground. Should have been called an INT so no tuck rule.

Apparently, the MJS contacted the NFL for clarification, and received a response, stating:

- If the ball had hit the ground, it could have been reviewed re:tuck rule.
- Since it didn't hit the ground, tuck rule is irrelevant.
- Fumble is the proper ruling in this situation, not interception.

[Smidgeon]

The thing that gets me after reading the media's explanation of the last facemask is that they're all looking at the rulebook in the section marked "Facemask" instead of the section called "Roughing the QB". They say that since Adams didn't move the facemask, it wasn't a facemask. But--correct me if I'm wrong--hands to the face of the QB is roughing the passer. That part nobody's talking about.

[sharpe1027]

And as was said, it never hit the ground. Should have been called an INT so no tuck rule.

Apparently, the MJS contacted the NFL for clarification, and received a response, stating:

- If the ball had hit the ground, it could have been reviewed re:tuck rule.
- Since it didn't hit the ground, tuck rule is irrelevant.
- Fumble is the proper ruling in this situation, not interception.

Wah? So it's not a forward pass until it hits the ground? Must be from the same hidden rulebook that negated Jennings TD earlier in the year.

[Patler]

And as was said, it never hit the ground. Should have been called an INT so no tuck rule.

Apparently, the MJS contacted the NFL for clarification, and received a response, stating:

- If the ball had hit the ground, it could have been reviewed re:tuck rule.
- Since it didn't hit the ground, tuck rule is irrelevant.
- Fumble is the proper ruling in this situation, not interception.

Wah? So it's not a forward pass until it hits the ground? Must be from the same hidden rulebook that negated Jennings TD earlier in the year.

Sort of, but not really.
The tuck rule is to distinguish between a fumble and an incomplete forward pass resulting from the QB bringing the ball back to his body. If the ball does not hit the ground, it can't be incomplete, therefore the tuck rule never enters into it.

They seem to be saying that in that situation, with the ball out of the QB's hands you assume fumble. Thereafter, if it hits the ground, you have to determine if his arm was moving forward to throw and the ball therefore an incomplete pass, or if the QB was pulling it down after an aborted throw (tuck rule) which is also incomplete. If the defensive player pulls it out of the QBs hand, or catches it in the air, the ball does not hit the ground, play continues and fumble rules.

You never really get to the question of distinguishing between a fumble and an interception.

[sharpe1027]

Sort of, but not really.
The tuck rule is to distinguish between a fumble and an incomplete forward pass resulting from the QB bringing the ball back to his body. If the ball does not hit the ground, it can't be incomplete, therefore the tuck rule never enters into it.

They seem to be saying that in that situation, with the ball out of the QB's hands you assume fumble. Thereafter, if it hits the ground, you have to determine if his arm was moving forward to throw and the ball therefore an incomplete pass, or if the QB was pulling it down after an aborted throw (tuck rule) which is also incomplete. If the defensive player pulls it out of the QBs hand, or catches it in the air, the ball does not hit the ground, play continues and fumble rules.

You never really get to the question of distinguishing between a fumble and an interception.

I understand their application, just not the justification. If it is a forward pass...it should be a forward pass. That seems pretty simple. My take is that the rule is so odd and contrary to common sense that they can't figure out how to properly explain or apply it.

[ThunderDan]

The thing that gets me after reading the media's explanation of the last facemask is that they're all looking at the rulebook in the section marked "Facemask" instead of the section called "Roughing the QB". They say that since Adams didn't move the facemask, it wasn't a facemask. But--correct me if I'm wrong--hands to the face of the QB is roughing the passer. That part nobody's talking about.

No it was a facemask period!!! Look on packers.com at their picture of the play. It is probably .25 seconds later and Arod's helmet is yanked all the way to his nose. He can't even see at that point. Didn't move the facemask my ass.

[Smidgeon]

The thing that gets me after reading the media's explanation of the last facemask is that they're all looking at the rulebook in the section marked "Facemask" instead of the section called "Roughing the QB". They say that since Adams didn't move the facemask, it wasn't a facemask. But--correct me if I'm wrong--hands to the face of the QB is roughing the passer. That part nobody's talking about.

No it was a facemask period!!! Look on packers.com at their picture of the play. It is probably .25 seconds later and Arod's helmet is yanked all the way to his nose. He can't even see at that point. Didn't move the facemask my ass.

I agree with you, but the point I was bringing up is even if Adams didn't move the facemask the mere fact that his hand was in Rodgers face on the helmet should have been a penalty based on the way the rules have been emphasized this season.

[ThunderDan]

The thing that gets me after reading the media's explanation of the last facemask is that they're all looking at the rulebook in the section marked "Facemask" instead of the section called "Roughing the QB". They say that since Adams didn't move the facemask, it wasn't a facemask. But--correct me if I'm wrong--hands to the face of the QB is roughing the passer. That part nobody's talking about.

No it was a facemask period!!! Look on packers.com at their picture of the play. It is probably .25 seconds later and Arod's helmet is yanked all the way to his nose. He can't even see at that point. Didn't move the facemask my ass.

I agree with you, but the point I was bringing up is even if Adams didn't move the facemask the mere fact that his hand was in Rodgers face on the helmet should have been a penalty based on the way the rules have been emphasized this season.

Sorry, I think that came across wrong. I was really yelling at the "talking heads" saying the facemask wasn't moved not you.

[Smidgeon]

The thing that gets me after reading the media's explanation of the last facemask is that they're all looking at the rulebook in the section marked "Facemask" instead of the section called "Roughing the QB". They say that since Adams didn't move the facemask, it wasn't a facemask. But--correct me if I'm wrong--hands to the face of the QB is roughing the passer. That part nobody's talking about.

No it was a facemask period!!! Look on packers.com at their picture of the play. It is probably .25 seconds later and Arod's helmet is yanked all the way to his nose. He can't even see at that point. Didn't move the facemask my ass.

I agree with you, but the point I was bringing up is even if Adams didn't move the facemask the mere fact that his hand was in Rodgers face on the helmet should have been a penalty based on the way the rules have been emphasized this season.

Sorry, I think that came across wrong. I was really yelling at the "talking heads" saying the facemask wasn't moved not you.

I got that. I was just re-emphasizing my particular point.

[gbgary]

Ref's screwing us less


they made up for it.

[Smidgeon]

Ref's screwing us less


they made up for it.

You knew the respite wasn't going to last for long...