The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000090886/article/nfl-deangelo-williams-td-shouldnt-have-counted

Why isn't anyone ripping the refs today? They BLEW a big call. Correction, they actually BLEW the call TWICE. First they blew the whistle when they shouldn't have because Williams didn't go out of bounds, but then when they should have taken the TD away because of the inadvertant whistle they let it stand.

If the replacements had done this, the world would have been about to end.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The refs essentially "made up" for the first mistake (inadvertent whistle) with the second one (letting the TD stand).  Additionally, they also made a huge error in the PIT-NYG game, on the call where Ben was charged with a fumble when it should have been either an (incomplete) forward pass or a tuck rule incompletion.

That being said, the replacement refs were doing stuff like this all the time.

Nobody ever claimed the regular refs were perfect.

I disagree with Greg Rosenthal and whole-heartedly agree with Spider Dan

So 2 wrongs makes it right? Is that it? Not in my book it doesn't. 2 wrongs is twice as bad as 1 wrong.

In general, no.  However, in this case it is the right call, and everyone knows it.

I'm not so sure about that. There were Washington Redskin defenders that had a shot at catching Williams, but stopped chasing him when they heard the whistle blow and assumed that he had went out of bounds. The right call unfortunately would have been to give the Panthers a first down at the point where the referee blew the whistle. That wouldn't have been "fair" to the Panthers by any means, but it wasn't fair to the Redskins to blow the whistle and let him run into the endzone and call it a TD either.

Disagree. The ball was knocked loose before the arm came forward and as is the case with the tuck rule, the ball needs to be secured completely in order for possession to be reestablished. The refs reviewed it and there was just nothing there to PROVE Roethlisberger reestablished control. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Good call IMHO.

In the "what the heck constitutes a catch" category, I was completely baffled by the catch call in the Saints game. I've never seen anyone get a catch ruling with the ball scraping along the ground, with rubber pellets spraying everywhere, while the receiver was securing it.

It should have either been tuck rule or a forward pass.

Why? Neither apply.

Tuck rule is: when a forward pass is begun, by definition there is no longer any control, so regardless of what happens, the only way it can become a fumble is if possession is reestablished. By rule, that requires completely securing the ball, which means that "the process of tucking it" is not sufficient (it has to be completely tucked).

Forward pass could be argued, but only if you dispute that the ball was knocked lose. As I saw it, the ball was clearly knocked lose. If control was lost, in any way, possession has to be reestablished in order for there to be a forward pass (otherwise it's just the "empty hand" going forward). Roethlisberger did have his thumb on the ball, but as is the case with the tuck rule, reestablishing possession has a relatively high threshold and having a thumb on the ball wasn't enough -- at least to overturn.

Your interpretation of the tuck rule would necessarily negate/obsolete the rule.  The entire purpose of the tuck rule is for when a QB loses the ball in the process of tucking; if he has fully completed the tucking process, it is now a fumble.

Furthermore, Ben had a thumb and at least 3 fingers on the ball; you can see his hand forcibly snap shut as the ball leaves his hand while he tries to tuck it back in.  Looks like a pretty textbook example to me.

No, you're missing the point on the tuck rule. The rule is that the quarterback is deemed to have lost possession the second the arm starts moving forward. It now becomes a forward pass. If the quarterback aborts the pass and tries to tuck it, COMPLETE control has to be established, as is always the case when securing a lose ball (whether pass or fumble). In the specific case of the quarterback, the "tuck" has to be completed in order for possession to be reestablished. Until then, it's a forward pass.

This is completely in line with everything about "possession" in the NFL and the reason why the rule wasn't even present in the coaches version of the NFL Rulebook prior to 2002. I.e. it was a completely logical consequence of other rules and there was no need to specify this.



Again, you're missing the point. It CANNOT be a tuck rule. The tuck rule only comes into play on a FORWARD PASS. The ruling in this case was that the ball was knocked lose BEFORE the hand started moving forward. As is also the case with the tuck rule (and the securing of any lose ball), the ball has to be COMPLETELY secured before possession is ruled to have been reestablished.

Timeline of Roethlisberger situation:

1. Arm comes back.
2. Defender knocks ball lose.
3. Hand starts coming forward.

For tuck rule to apply, 2 and 3 need to happen in the reverse order. The ruling on the field was a completely classic "empty hand".

Now, you can certainly argue that either Ben never lost control (although the movement of the ball makes that unlikely) or that he reestablished possession while throwing. The latter is NEVER going to be the call by the refs. It just isn't. As I said before, reestablishing control has a very high threshold and with his hand moving forward -- even though he has three fingers on the ball and it stops moving around in his hand -- there's just no way a ref is going to rule that Roethlisberger had reestablished control.

PS: Just for the record, I'd like to point out that I hate the tuck rule. It's one of those rules that makes perfect sense on paper, but absolutely no sense on the field. IMHO, the best way to circumvent the issue is to redefine when the quarterback is deemed to have lost control of the football and instead rely on the direction the ball comes out. It does cause some issues wrt fumbles, but I still think it would work better on Sundays, even if it isn't quite as pretty on paper.

The ruling that the the ball was knocked loose before the pass was wrong and should have been reversed.  That's the point.

We've all seen dozens of plays where a play is ruled a fumble, they go back to the booth, you can see that the ball doesn't come out until after his arm is moving the ball forward, they reverse the call, and we move on.  To claim that a play in which the ball comes out halfway through the arm motion is a "forward pass," but a play in which the ball comes out at the end of his throwing motion is a fumble is simply NOT EXPLICABLE in a league where the tuck rule exists.  It simply is not.

Fine, but don't start with the tuck rule stuff. Not applicable.

All that said, I disagree. The ball is CLEARLY knocked lose in Roethlisberger's hand BEFORE he starts bringing it forward. Who cares when the ball comes out? This really is classic "empty hand".

The "tuck rule stuff" is applicable because if he has control, it's impossible for him to fumble until he completely resets after the pass attempt.

And the interpretation of "empty hand" you are using right now (in a case where the QB not only holds the ball through the entire throwing motion, but is gripping it so hard that his fingers snap shut when it comes out) would result in nearly every "arm moving forward" call I've ever seen being incorrect.

So either this call is wrong or practically every other "forward pass" call I've ever seen before is wrong.  I choose the former.

So are you saying the ball never gets knocked lose? It does,  IMHO,  and before the arm starts moving forward. Would you at least agree that IF that were the case, then the result of the play would have to be a fumble?


We're just not seeing the same thing. Empty hand is when the ball is knocked lose prior to the arm moving forward.  IMHO that's exactly the case here. I'm still not entirely sure what it is you're seeing.

What I'm saying is that once that ball is knocked lose initially, before the arm starts moving forward, it doesn't matter if Roethlisberger has an iron grip on the ball afterwards, while the arm is moving forward. It simply isn't possible to establish possession of a ball, by rule, in that manner.

Again, that interpretation of "empty hand" is strange, given that a) his hand was never anything close to "empty" through the entire passing motion and b) rather than presuming that he lost control and somehow regained an iron grip in a fraction of a second, wouldn't it be more reasonable to presume that he never actually lost control in the first place?  The ball was never touched by the defender.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyXoTgaYmdY

Just because a defender hits you on the arm, that doesn't mean you automatically lost control of the football.  The ball doesn't even shift within his grip until his arm is moving forward.

I hadn't seen the play till just now and after watching, I have to agree with Spider, that's an incomplete pass. There's no possible way that is a fumble. He only loses control of the ball when he attempts to stop his throwing motion, not before his arm is coming forward. It can't be a tuck rule because it's not knocked loose by a defender, he just loses control when he attempts to stop the throw.

Pappy13, it bears mentioning that the tuck rule specifically applies if you lose control when you attempt to stop a throw; that's the entire purpose of the rule.  If you are trying to tuck the ball away and you drop it, it's an incomplete pass, not a fumble.  (And it doesn't matter whether or not you're hit when you're trying to tuck the ball away.)

In my years of watching the NFL (and particularly since 2001, when the tuck rule became famous), I don't know that I've EVER seen a more concrete example of "QB is trying to abort a pass and loses the football" than the video I just posted.  Everything in that video, from Ben's hand position (fingers in front of path of travel) to his tight grip on the ball to his reaction when he loses it, screams loss-of-control-on-aborted-pass.  And that IS the tuck rule, to the letter.

I disagree. Look at the video. He gets hit, the ball rotates and I take the "iron grip" part back. He never regains anything resembling control. The ball isn't even pointed straight forward, but rather still rotating and slipping out of his hands.

another call was missed in the Broncos game, when they called a TD on a punt return when the guy lost control of the ball before he crossed the goal line.

Nobody ever said the refs were perfect.  That certainly wasn't a claim I heard last year.  But they are better than the replacement refs. 

How much better I think is the question.

From the Millers Anology Test---

replacement refs:regular refs::ryan leaf:dan marino. 

So in the detroit game, the rb is down, and the refs don't blow the whistle so the rb runs 60 yards to the end zone.  and schwartz throws the challenge flag.  but since it already going to be reviewed, it is a 15 yard penalty on schwartz, and they play doesn't get reviewed because he threw his flag.  Stupid refs blowing the original call and fuck the nfl for having such a stupid rule.

Yes, the refs made a mistake on the play, but bigger shame on Schwartz for not knowing the rule. 

I knew he the TD was going to stand because he threw the flag as soon as he did. 

Particularly being that Schwartz has been a benificary of this rule in the past. 

That's on Schwartz for not knowing the rules.  If he had, the system would have worked properly.

Although I do think it might be a better rule that if you illegally throw a flag you:

1) get a 15 yard penelty (regardless of outcome)
2) lose a challenge (regardless of outcome)
3) lose a timeout (regardless of outcome)
4) but the play is still reviewed.

rather than....

1) play is not reviewed
2) 15 yard plenelty
3) not charged a challenge
4) do not lose TO

Didn't it used to be that if the play was not reviewable, they just made you pick up the flag?  They should've just made Schwartz pick up the flag and reviewed the play.  Big big mistake by the refs here. 

The refs enforced the rule.  That is not a "big mistake."

Correct, the rule is a mistake. To penalize the coach and then not review the play is just wrong.

Not blowing the whistle when they should've was the big mistake.

No, it wasn't.  The directions the refs have gotten (and they make 100% sense) is that being turnover plays are automatically reviewable, if in doubt at all swallow the whistle, b/c if you blow the whistle and shouldn't have there is NO WAY to fix it.  But if you don't blow it and should have it will be automatically reviewed and fixed. And if the coach didn't throw the flag that is what would have happened.   

Well, it wasn't a turnover. It was simply a runner who was down by contact with multiple parts of his body, got up and continued running, so unless the refs were to somehow KNOW that the guy was going to score, the automatically reviewed aspect has no bearing on this play.

(Now, if -- as a ref -- you don't see the guy down, then by all means don't blow the whistle just because he MIGHT have been down... you've gotta call what you see.)

You may notice any questionable fumble is ruled a fumble on the field, because then it can be reviewed and they can get it right.  If they call it "down" on the field, they can't review for a fumble, and have got a lot of calls wrong like that.  Cause they blew the whistle early, and the play is not reviewable. 

That's the right way to do things.  When in doubt, rely on the video.  That's what the system is there for.

I agree with Hoodie's proposal to enforce the rule.  The play needs to be reviewed whether he threw the flag or not.

A down by contact rule can be reviewed and overturned. It has to be challenged, but it can be reviewed and overturned.

It's just a shitty rule.  It was called correctly on the field according to the rule book.  This needs to be addressed ASAP because the rule is pure and utter crap.  I'm having trouble understanding why it was adopted in the first place.

A penalty for throwing the flag is understandable, but to not review the play is insulting to the integrity of the game and everyone who watches it.

It can be reviewed and overturned, but the only thing that can happen is change of possession.  The opponent cannot advance the ball after a blown whistle.

This is why the refs "let them play."

The NFL appears to acknowledge that the rule is "shitty", with Goodell quoted as saying a change could come as soon as the playoffs.

Tampa Bay coach Greg Schiano throws a challenge flag on a play that can't be reviewed, and the refs don't penalize him 15 yards.  Why penalize Schwartz and not Schiano?

wasn't a scoring play

They need to just allow the coach to pick up the challenge flag if the play is not reviewable