Bubba in...

[AtlPackFan]

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[3irty1]

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

??? What's the second thing the official should look for? Or the other thing?

[Rastak]

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

So how does the official know he would have come down in bounds? It might have been really obvious in this case but usually the guy is being pushed and already heading that way and his momentum might or might not have carried him out anyway....what a stupid rule.

[packers11]

what a stupid rule.

no way... that rule should stay...

lets say im covering you and I KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN...

If there is no rule, fk you, ill just push you out... Sorry only one foot in, no catch...

A lot more defenders would use the sideline to their advantage and push people out every second... There would be no more sideline catches in the air because people will just get pushed out...

I like the rule, it defiantly needs to stay...

[Lurker64]

I'd like the rule removed. In general, I'd like to see the DBs be able to mug the WRs a little bit more than the current way things are done. Right now, the guy touches you and it's a penalty.

[billy_oliver880]

I'd like the rule removed. In general, I'd like to see the DBs be able to mug the WRs a little bit more than the current way things are done. Right now, the guy touches you and it's a penalty.

Could you imagine how that would change the game? Mugging receivers would certainly lead to bigger stats for dbs.

[Rastak]

I'd like the rule removed. In general, I'd like to see the DBs be able to mug the WRs a little bit more than the current way things are done. Right now, the guy touches you and it's a penalty.

Could you imagine how that would change the game? Mugging receivers would certainly lead to bigger stats for dbs.


Umm, don't defenders already hit recievers after they catch the ball? This is removing a rule that requires the ref to have a crystal ball. Same as the uncatchable pass rule. THAT is also a stupid rule. The ref CAN'T know what would have happened, so why base a rule on it.

[Rastak]

what a stupid rule.

no way... that rule should stay...

lets say im covering you and I KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN...

If there is no rule, fk you, ill just push you out... Sorry only one foot in, no catch...

A lot more defenders would use the sideline to their advantage and push people out every second... There would be no more sideline catches in the air because people will just get pushed out...

I like the rule, it defiantly needs to stay...


How if the flying hell would I "KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN" in real time at real speed? Further more, since the ref hasn't a fucking clue weather you'll get your feet down I can blast you out of bounds and hope the 50/50 call goes my way.


I do agree though that the sideline catch would be harder. But I think defenders already hit players on the sidelines. I doubt they are afraid of the pushout rule in the heat of battle. Offense has enough advantages over the years. I say scrap it.

[Carolina_Packer]

Rastak, I agree about the crytal ball thing; guessing whether or not a guy would come down with their feet inbounds. In your book, does the receiver have a "right" to try and establish possession by getting his feet down?

If you disagree with the "pushout rule" which protects the receivers right to try and come down with their feet inbounds, what would you say to this ridiculous scenario? What if a receiver is jumping up to make a catch in the middle of the field and a defender grabs him before his feet hit the ground and carries him over and sets him out of bounds? Granted, it would take a strong dude and the whistles probably would have blown by that point, but why? If it's OK for a defender to push a guy out of bounds before his feet can come down after a sideline catch, then why is it not OK to grab him in mid jump bear hug him and run over to the sidelines and set him down and call it no catch because he couldn't get his feet down?

In the case of the Franks catch, the defender wasn't even turned back to properly defend the ball, he was just pushing Franks out of bounds. I would denitely have no problem with a defender playing the ball, but I don't like the idea of just being able to play the man and shove a guy out of bounds before he can get his feet down. That makes it harder for the defender, I know, but you gotta play the ball.

[Guiness]

I think the rule needs to stay as well - too easy to knock a guy out, especially in the back of the end zone. I would like to see the DB's allowed to do a bit more mugging, but more than that I would like to see more offensive pass interference calls made.

BTW I think Harris got away with a push out in the Vikings game - Williamson had him by a step, with Harris chasing him down, watching him. TW put his hands up to catch the ball, so Harris kind of turned and jumped. TW came down with the ball, but AH's back made contact with TW's chest in the air and he ended up just barely out of bounds.

[Rastak]

Rastak, I agree about the crytal ball thing; guessing whether or not a guy would come down with their feet inbounds. In your book, does the receiver have a "right" to try and establish possession by getting his feet down?

If you disagree with the "pushout rule" which protects the receivers right to try and come down with their feet inbounds, what would you say to this ridiculous scenario? What if a receiver is jumping up to make a catch in the middle of the field and a defender grabs him before his feet hit the ground and carries him over and sets him out of bounds? Granted, it would take a strong dude and the whistles probably would have blown by that point, but why? If it's OK for a defender to push a guy out of bounds before his feet can come down after a sideline catch, then why is it not OK to grab him in mid jump bear hug him and run over to the sidelines and set him down and call it no catch because he couldn't get his feet down?
In the case of the Franks catch, the defender wasn't even turned back to properly defend the ball, he was just pushing Franks out of bounds. I would denitely have no problem with a defender playing the ball, but I don't like the idea of just being able to play the man and shove a guy out of bounds before he can get his feet down. That makes it harder for the defender, I know, but you gotta play the ball.





1) If you can pull that off, incomplete it is!

2) It isn't that easy. It's only easy when the reciever has to leave his feet. Players adapt. If you know that's the rule you don't throw it high and soft, you throw it hard and low.

[MadtownPacker]

I cant believe these asswipe refs admitted they screwed the Pack out of 7pts.

[AtlPackFan]

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

??? What's the second thing the official should look for? Or the other thing?

There are, according to Pereira, three things:
1. Would the receiver have come down in bounds
2. Is shove overt enough to be called a force out. In other words was the contact a result of the defender trying to break up the pass or was his intent to force the player out of bounds and hope for the best.
3. Did the receiver come down with possession.

Pereira said it is the hardest thing for an official to judge because there are three things to consider and doesn't want it to be reviewable because of the call's difficulty.

He said they tell officials that if their is a question of whether or not the receiver came down with both feet or if its a force out, just call the force. Because if the official does rule both feet and then it is reversed in the booth, the force out aspect isn't reviewable. I guess that happened in the Dallas/New England game on a pass to Owens. Interesting.

[Rastak]

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

??? What's the second thing the official should look for? Or the other thing?

There are, according to Pereira, three things:
1. Would the receiver have come down in bounds
2. Is shove overt enough to be called a force out. In other words was the contact a result of the defender trying to break up the pass or was his intent to force the player out of bounds and hope for the best.
3. Did the receiver come down with possession.

Pereira said it is the hardest thing for an official to judge because there are three things to consider and doesn't want it to be reviewable because of the call's difficulty.

He said they tell officials that if their is a question of whether or not the receiver came down with both feet or if its a force out, just call the force. Because if the official does rule both feet and then it is reversed in the booth, the force out aspect isn't reviewable. I guess that happened in the Dallas/New England game on a pass to Owens. Interesting.


Great post AtlPackFan!


That is very interesting. In my mind it reinforces my position but it's very interesting stuff. Thanks!

[MJZiggy]

[
Pereira said it is the hardest thing for an official to judge because there are three things to consider and doesn't want it to be reviewable because of the call's difficulty.



This is the part that I don't get. I would think that the more difficult the call is to make, the more reviewable it should be, not to second-guess the ref but to admit it's a tough call and make sure the correct call was made. Seems like they're trying to save the line judge's pride over making the correct call.

[Merlin]

The rule is fine, he got one foot in and then got pushed out. The official made the wrong call. What should be changed is whether or not it is reviewable.

[Rastak]

The rule is fine, he got one foot in and then got pushed out. The official made the wrong call. What should be changed is whether or not it is reviewable.


Why? It's the same damn thing as live....you DON'T KNOW in most cases if he would or not. You might in this case, I didn;t see the play buy usually the guy is ALREADY HEADING OUT.

[AtlPackFan]

[
Pereira said it is the hardest thing for an official to judge because there are three things to consider and doesn't want it to be reviewable because of the call's difficulty.



This is the part that I don't get. I would think that the more difficult the call is to make, the more reviewable it should be, not to second-guess the ref but to admit it's a tough call and make sure the correct call was made. Seems like their trying to save the line judge's pride over making the correct call.

I think the point is that its a judgement call. You can never know 100% sure the receiver would have come down in bounds, you can never know the intent of the defender.

However, for example a "both feet in bounds call" there is something concrete to look at. Your not surmising were both feet in bounds, you can see it. Of course there are always going to be calls that you can't tell...they are either too close even for close ups and slo-mo -or- the view is obscured but their is no surmising, no assuming. Either he has both feet down or he doesn't.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you MJ, I just think that is the NFL's thinking.

If you want to see the interview, go to NFL.com/videos, select "Official Review" and then click the Oct. 17 clip.


So...what is it everyone? Would Bubba have come down in bounds. I played that clip over and over again and I'm not sure (of course I old and feeble and can't see very well anymore :mrgreen: ). IMO, it certainly was an overt push (defender never turned back for the ball). In fact, I though Bubba was mugged and they could have called interference. And, the third criteria of coming down with possession certainly was satisfied.

Obviously, it doesn't matter...whats done is done. Just curious what everyone thinks.

[mraynrand]

what a stupid rule.

no way... that rule should stay...

lets say im covering you and I KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN...

If there is no rule, fk you, ill just push you out... Sorry only one foot in, no catch...

A lot more defenders would use the sideline to their advantage and push people out every second... There would be no more sideline catches in the air because people will just get pushed out...

I like the rule, it defiantly needs to stay...

Even further, why not just do what Favre is doing to Driver in your avatar - any time you can, when the receiver goes up in the air, just carry him out of bounds without letting him come down - sorry you didn't touch both feet inbounds - no catch!

[Rastak]

what a stupid rule.

no way... that rule should stay...

lets say im covering you and I KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN...

If there is no rule, fk you, ill just push you out... Sorry only one foot in, no catch...

A lot more defenders would use the sideline to their advantage and push people out every second... There would be no more sideline catches in the air because people will just get pushed out...

I like the rule, it defiantly needs to stay...






Even further, why not just do what Favre is doing to Driver in your avatar - any time you can, when the receiver goes up in the air, just carry him out of bounds without letting him come down - sorry you didn't touch both feet inbounds - no catch!



So don't hang the damn thing up in the air on the sideline, right?

[KYPack]

This from JSO:

The official that ruled tight end Bubba Franks out of bounds on a fourth-quarter reception in the end zone against the Washington Redskins on Sunday was "really wrong," according to Mike Pereira, the vice president of NFL officiating. With 10:06 left and the Packers leading, 17-14, quarterback Brett Favre threw a pass to the right corner of the end zone from the 8-yard line intended for Franks.

He caught the ball but was only able to get one foot in bounds before Redskins cornerback Fred Smoot pushed Franks out of bounds. The official ruled the pass incomplete because, in his view, Franks would not have gotten two feet down inbounds without contact.

"Clearly Bubba Franks would have come down in bounds and it would have been a catch," Pereira said Wednesday night on the NFL Network. "I think we were really wrong in making that judgment."

What does this get ya? There should be some kind of penalty for crews that err like this!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Everybody already knows I hate the rule. As an official, I couldn't imagine having to make that call. To me, if the defender is close enough to a receiver to push him out (after he catches the ball, he can't do it before because that would be interference), then I say great defensive play.

[LEWCWA]

Like I posted in another thread. Get rid of the rule. If your in the air and the DB can knock you out of bounds, tough shit. your out! The O gets all the rules in their favor anyhow. This takes all judgement out of the call. Either your in or you aint!!!!

[LEWCWA]

I agree with Harvey and we all know he is always right! :lol:

[mraynrand]

So don't hang the damn thing up in the air on the sideline, right?

Uh, no. What if the receiver goes up for the ball five yards from the sideline, catches it in traffic and is prevented from putting two feet down by the defender(s) who carry him out of bounds? Would you then argue that a scrum should ensue with offensive players trying to drag their guy to the ground before the other team can carry him off the field? It seems absurd, but that's what the rule is for - to prevent obvious cases that would appear to any fan as being grossly 'unfair.' Of course with any judgment rule there will be gray areas - in this case, as the catch gets closer to the sideline, judging the call becomes more difficult.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Uh, no. What if the receiver goes up for the ball five yards from the sideline, catches it in traffic and is prevented from putting two feet down by the defender(s) who carry him out of bounds? Would you then argue that a scrum should ensue with offensive players trying to drag their guy to the ground before the other team can carry him off the field? It seems absurd, but that's what the rule is for - to prevent obvious cases that would appear to any fan as being grossly 'unfair.' Of course with any judgment rule there will be gray areas - in this case, as the catch gets closer to the sideline, judging the call becomes more difficult.

College has the rule. How often do you see this play?

[LEWCWA]

If your carrying a guy the play is called dead not too difficult.

[HarveyWallbangers]

From the JSO:


Forceouts are not open to replay review. If it were up to Pereira, forceouts would not be allowed at all. He feels that if a player is forced out of bounds, regardless of whether they would have come down or not, the pass should be incomplete.

"It's the toughest call we have to make because there are so many variables," Pereira said.

[mraynrand]

Uh, no. What if the receiver goes up for the ball five yards from the sideline, catches it in traffic and is prevented from putting two feet down by the defender(s) who carry him out of bounds? Would you then argue that a scrum should ensue with offensive players trying to drag their guy to the ground before the other team can carry him off the field? It seems absurd, but that's what the rule is for - to prevent obvious cases that would appear to any fan as being grossly 'unfair.' Of course with any judgment rule there will be gray areas - in this case, as the catch gets closer to the sideline, judging the call becomes more difficult.

College has the rule. How often do you see this play?

That was an extreme example to illustrate a point. If the guy was being carried, then it would be a judgment call by the ref whether he was being carried (ply is dead) or pushed (play is live) out of bounds. At some point, a guy catching the ball in bounds who is pushed/carried out will be subject to a judgment call by a ref - and on the borderline of this judgment, fans will complain, just as they do with pass interference.

BTW, what is the college rule you refer to?

[4and12to12and4]

You know the funny thing about all this discussion? It doesn't matter if he was pushed out or not, because the defender had his back to the ball facing Bubba and jumped up and pushed him in the chest just before the ball was caught. That's called interference. This hasn't even been discussed. There was blatant interference on that play. He shoved him before the ball arrived. I don't like the force out rule in general, but if you didn't see the play, Bubba was going straight up, he was not heading out of bounds and would've for sure got his second foot down, he was legitimately pushed out. But, at least we won, just remember, if we got that TD, the one to JJ on the bs holding call, and Crosby hits the two field goals he missed, we win 37-14. As bad as our offense looked, we still almost blew them out. That's crazy.

[3irty1]

You know the funny thing about all this discussion? It doesn't matter if he was pushed out or not, because the defender had his back to the ball facing Bubba and jumped up and pushed him in the chest just before the ball was caught. That's called interference. This hasn't even been discussed. There was blatant interference on that play. He shoved him before the ball arrived. I don't like the force out rule in general, but if you didn't see the play, Bubba was going straight up, he was not heading out of bounds and would've for sure got his second foot down, he was legitimately pushed out. But, at least we won, just remember, if we got that TD, the one to JJ on the bs holding call, and Crosby hits the two field goals he missed, we win 37-14. As bad as our offense looked, we still almost blew them out. That's crazy.

That was my reaction when I saw it too. We didn't get either call.

[Carolina_Packer]

Simle solution for a rule change. All end zone plays where a force out is in question, do an official review. Keep it non-challengeable by the teams/coaches by making it an official review situation.

The official who has to observe 1) would the player have come down in bounds (if not for the contact) 2) Is the contact overt enough to force him out of bounds and 3) did the receiver possess the ball when he landed out of bounds Seems like a lot for an official to have to observe. Replay is in place. Why not use it, but make them all official "booth" reviews when they are involving the end-zone? Plus, as someone astutely noted, and is evident if you look at the replay http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8035ec83 Smoot made contact with Franks prior to the ball being caught, with the official standing at a good angle to see that. It's such a bang, bang play that I don't fault the official for not seeing all three things above, plus the possibility of pass interference. That's why an official "booth" review should be the rule for all end-zone force out plays. Let's get the calls right.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Simle solution for a rule change. All end zone plays where a force out is in question, do an official review. Keep it non-challengeable by the teams/coaches by making it an official review situation.

I don't see that this helps. It still comes down to a sometimes virtually impossible judgement ruling.

[woodbuck27]

I cant believe these asswipe refs admitted they screwed the Pack out of 7pts.

At least they are admitting that they screwed us after just another one of so many times of doing just that.

I have come to never expect a big game changing call to go the Packers way.

NFL REFs NOT down with Green Bay (question mark) and I am not crying foul, but it really seems that way over the years.

GO PACK GO !

[Rastak]

Simle solution for a rule change. All end zone plays where a force out is in question, do an official review. Keep it non-challengeable by the teams/coaches by making it an official review situation.

I don't see that this helps. It still comes down to a sometimes virtually impossible judgement ruling.


Exactly.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I cant believe these asswipe refs admitted they screwed the Pack out of 7pts.

I would rather they admit a mistake than make up a ridiculous excuse to cover their behind and say they are always right.

[BlueBrewer]

Rastak I can understand why you don't like the rule.....Tyrone Poole. I can't believe that GB gave him the key to the city. That was the king of the push out call.

[run pMc]

Personally, I like the rule. I do agree it could/should be refined so that it's reviewable.

The refs have to make LOTS of judgement calls during a game...I don't think eliminating this rule eliminates all judgement calls. I don't think removing all the "judgement call" rules would be good for the game.

If I throw a fly along the sideline to a WR and the DB forces him out, that should be a catch.

If he's running parallel to the sideline, it should be a reasonably easy judgement call to make...although making it reviewable would help. If the receiver is running on some angle where he will intersect the sideline, it's a little trickier. It's geometry, people. I'd hope even Jeff Tripplett could figure it out.

[Carolina_Packer]

Simle solution for a rule change. All end zone plays where a force out is in question, do an official review. Keep it non-challengeable by the teams/coaches by making it an official review situation.

I don't see that this helps. It still comes down to a sometimes virtually impossible judgement ruling.


Exactly.

The existing condition to me is that they are "in between", meaning, there isn't a lot of consistency to their calls, so they review their calls after the fact and even have someone come out and say the call was blown. That really makes my case for having it be reviewable. It may be a virtually impossible judgment ruling as you say, but the video review is not necesarily to try and change the call made, but to make sure the call was right. I think that's especially important for plays in the end-zone. If an official goes under the hood, can see multiple angles slowed down, that would be a lot more effective than making it entirely the judgement call of an official in real time when there are the three stated factors for calling a pushout a catch. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

To me it's as bad as interference to simply push a guy out so he can't get his feet down. He should have the ability to try and get his feet down. If the defender can knock the ball out and keep him from maintaining possession, that's defense, not a pushout. Heck, any defender can just push a leaping receiver out of bounds, but if your back is to the QB (facing the receiver) and you put your hands up not knowing where the ball is, that's interference, plain and simple.

[HarveyWallbangers]

To me it's as bad as interference to simply push a guy out so he can't get his feet down. He should have the ability to try and get his feet down.

I haven't heard a good reason why? To me, if the defender is close enough to push the receiver out of bounds, that's a good defensive play. Just like in college.


Heck, any defender can just push a leaping receiver out of bounds

I don't think so. He was close enough to push the guy out of bounds. It doesn't happen that often. When it does, I think it's good defense.

[fan4life]

You know the funny thing about all this discussion? It doesn't matter if he was pushed out or not, because the defender had his back to the ball facing Bubba and jumped up and pushed him in the chest just before the ball was caught. That's called interference. This hasn't even been discussed. There was blatant interference on that play. He shoved him before the ball arrived. I don't like the force out rule in general, but if you didn't see the play, Bubba was going straight up, he was not heading out of bounds and would've for sure got his second foot down, he was legitimately pushed out.That's the way I see it, too.

[Rastak]

Rastak I can understand why you don't like the rule.....Tyrone Poole. I can't believe that GB gave him the key to the city. That was the king of the push out call.

I am being 100% honest when I say I hated the rule long long before that play.

[Rastak]

Simle solution for a rule change. All end zone plays where a force out is in question, do an official review. Keep it non-challengeable by the teams/coaches by making it an official review situation.

I don't see that this helps. It still comes down to a sometimes virtually impossible judgement ruling.


Exactly.

The existing condition to me is that they are "in between", meaning, there isn't a lot of consistency to their calls, so they review their calls after the fact and even have someone come out and say the call was blown. That really makes my case for having it be reviewable. It may be a virtually impossible judgment ruling as you say, but the video review is not necesarily to try and change the call made, but to make sure the call was right. I think that's especially important for plays in the end-zone. If an official goes under the hood, can see multiple angles slowed down, that would be a lot more effective than making it entirely the judgement call of an official in real time when there are the three stated factors for calling a pushout a catch. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

To me it's as bad as interference to simply push a guy out so he can't get his feet down. He should have the ability to try and get his feet down. If the defender can knock the ball out and keep him from maintaining possession, that's defense, not a pushout. Heck, any defender can just push a leaping receiver out of bounds, but if your back is to the QB (facing the receiver) and you put your hands up not knowing where the ball is, that's interference, plain and simple.


I completely disagree. It's like when a player catchs a punt and gets drilled, should he be given the opportunity to run? When a guy makes na catch should a defender be allowed to hit him before he gets a chance to run?


It's called a good play. How about when a defender drills a reciever over the middle as he catches the ball. One could argue the defender didn't give him a fair chance to catch the ball....


Again, I call it a good defensive play and move on.


Uncatchable pass and force out rule require the ref to guess at things that might have happened and that's just dumb in my opinion.

[cpk1994]

Rastak I can understand why you don't like the rule.....Tyrone Poole. I can't believe that GB gave him the key to the city. That was the king of the push out call.

I am being 100% honest when I say I hated the rule long long before that play.
And it was Nate Poole, not Tyronne.

[cpk1994]

This from JSO:

The official that ruled tight end Bubba Franks out of bounds on a fourth-quarter reception in the end zone against the Washington Redskins on Sunday was "really wrong," according to Mike Pereira, the vice president of NFL officiating. With 10:06 left and the Packers leading, 17-14, quarterback Brett Favre threw a pass to the right corner of the end zone from the 8-yard line intended for Franks.

He caught the ball but was only able to get one foot in bounds before Redskins cornerback Fred Smoot pushed Franks out of bounds. The official ruled the pass incomplete because, in his view, Franks would not have gotten two feet down inbounds without contact.

"Clearly Bubba Franks would have come down in bounds and it would have been a catch," Pereira said Wednesday night on the NFL Network. "I think we were really wrong in making that judgment."

What does this get ya? There should be some kind of penalty for crews that err like this!There is a penalty, its called "you most likely will got get to officiate a playoff game which means you cost yourself extra money".

[swede]

This from JSO:

The official that ruled tight end Bubba Franks out of bounds on a fourth-quarter reception in the end zone against the Washington Redskins on Sunday was "really wrong," according to Mike Pereira, the vice president of NFL officiating. With 10:06 left and the Packers leading, 17-14, quarterback Brett Favre threw a pass to the right corner of the end zone from the 8-yard line intended for Franks.

He caught the ball but was only able to get one foot in bounds before Redskins cornerback Fred Smoot pushed Franks out of bounds. The official ruled the pass incomplete because, in his view, Franks would not have gotten two feet down inbounds without contact.

"Clearly Bubba Franks would have come down in bounds and it would have been a catch," Pereira said Wednesday night on the NFL Network. "I think we were really wrong in making that judgment."

What does this get ya? There should be some kind of penalty for crews that err like this!There is a penalty, its called "you most likely will got get to officiate a playoff game which means you cost yourself extra money".

...along with the "you'll be seeing a lot of Green Bay, Cincinnatti, Cleveland, and Chicago in December" penalty.

[swede]

I completely disagree. It's like when a player catchs a punt and gets drilled, should he be given the opportunity to run? When a guy makes na catch should a defender be allowed to hit him before he gets a chance to run?


It's called a good play. How about when a defender drills a reciever over the middle as he catches the ball. One could argue the defender didn't give him a fair chance to catch the ball....


Again, I call it a good defensive play and move on.


Uncatchable pass and force out rule require the ref to guess at things that might have happened and that's just dumb in my opinion.

Oh hell, if you're going to go there then why not just allow the defenders to tackle the receivers before the ball arrives. We'll call it a good defensive play.

In the situations that this call is likely to be made receivers have already created a favorable position for themselves on the field. Defensive backs could make a play on the ball if they wish to make a "good defensive play". The game would change for the worse if you gave defensive backs permission to take the lazier and less-skilled tactic of simply hammering offensive receivers with the thought of knocking an in-bounds receiver out of bounds.

I don't agree with making the call reviewable, but I do think the rule makes sense as a judgement call. This guy got this call wrong imo. Sucks for Bubba and the Pack, but we'll continue to live our lives as best we can.

[woodbuck27]

I completely disagree. It's like when a player catchs a punt and gets drilled, should he be given the opportunity to run? When a guy makes na catch should a defender be allowed to hit him before he gets a chance to run?


It's called a good play. How about when a defender drills a reciever over the middle as he catches the ball. One could argue the defender didn't give him a fair chance to catch the ball....


Again, I call it a good defensive play and move on.


Uncatchable pass and force out rule require the ref to guess at things that might have happened and that's just dumb in my opinion.

Oh hell, if you're going to go there then why not just allow the defenders to tackle the receivers before the ball arrives. We'll call it a good defensive play.

In the situations that this call is likely to be made receivers have already created a favorable position for themselves on the field. Defensive backs could make a play on the ball if they wish to make a "good defensive play". The game would change for the worse if you gave defensive backs permission to take the lazier and less-skilled tactic of simply hammering offensive receivers with the thought of knocking an in-bounds receiver out of bounds.

I don't agree with making the call reviewable, but I do think the rule makes sense as a judgement call. This guy got this call wrong imo. Sucks for Bubba and the Pack, but we'll continue to live our lives as best we can.

We struggle but moreso struggle on !

Too bad it seems that LIFE continues to get just weirder.

Day to day we cannot expect too much and on the good days we see our rainbows. :)

PACKERS FOREVER !!