Refs blow huge call..and no one cares.

[Pappy13]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Nobody ever claimed the regular refs were perfect.

[Brian Fein]

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

[Pappy13]

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.

[Brian Fein]

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

[Pappy13]

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.

[fyo]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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

[fyo]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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).

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.

[fyo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[fyo]

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

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".

[Spider-Dan]

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.