Week 13 Game Thread
- Thread starter SawxSince67
- Start date
Bradford ran that two minute drill like a boss and then throws the biggest pass into the stands?
( Yes, blow to the head. )
( Yes, blow to the head. )
The NFL should literally be embarrassed. Like BB says, just make everything reviewable. They can't get it right any other way, and even then, they only get it right about 75% of the time.
When White went for the 2 point conversion, his foot stepped over the goal line and out of bounds. He never stepped into the end zone. That is why it got overturned.
In the photo above the foot is in the endzone.
Would anyone besides the back judge be in a position to make that call? And officials are (rightly) taught not to throw a flag unless they're sure a penalty occurred.
This is a rules problem, not a refs problem. Hits to the head should be reviewable. It will make games a tick longer, but that's how you get those hits out of the game.
It doesn't matter if his foot touches the end zone or not. The ball just has to cross the goal line. None of his body needs to, otherwise, every time a guy stretches to get the ball into the end zone, it wouldn't count. If the ball crossed the goal line, inside the pylon, it would be a two point conversion, as long as the ball crossed before his foot hit out of bounds. It was overturned because the ref claimed that they determined it didn't cross the goal line inside the pylon, it was outside the pylon.
What's unfortunate about Corrente tapping his shoulder (implying that Bradford was hit there instead of in the head) is that watching the QB was his responsibility. Old Fred would have considered that maybe he was blocked from full view, but post-election Fred doesn't give a fuck for details and will grab the ref by the testicles if he feels.
And yes, that Bryant play should not have been a touchdown. It is literally a joke that they didn't overturn that. The ball has to cross the goal line inside the pylons on when the ball carrier is running. Or the player has to establish possession of the ball in the end zone (ie. when they make a catch on a ball that is outside the field of play but they get two feet down). Bryant did neither.
If the Giants lose to Steelers they'll be playing to clinch the division next weekend against the Giants.
Actually I think it was the right call. It says in the rules that a player who crosses the goal line with the ball in his outside arm with the ball outside the pylon has scored a touchdown. The over or inside the pylon rule only applies to players who leave their feet before crossing the goal line.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/14_Rule11_Scoring.pdf
Refs also clearly missed a false start on the 2 point conversion. Play should have been blown dead before the blow to Bradford's head. Typical mess.
If that's the case, then the refs have literally gotten it wrong more than they've gotten it right over the years. If the Bryant play was a TD, then White's should have been good as well. White clearly crossed inside the goal line with his body before going out of bounds, and the ball was also in his outside arm. Under that rule, it wasn't even close, and probably shouldn't have required more than a 1 second review. The talk about whether or not there was enough evidence to overturn the call should have been rendered moot, because there was clear evidence to actually confirm the call on the field, and not just "let it stand."
The issue with White is that the ball didn't cross the plane (extended) until after he stepped out. In Bryant's case, the ball crossed the extended plane and then he stepped out.
I can't remember for sure but didn't White let his outside foot go out of bounds as he was crossing? That would probably be considered "leaving your feet" before crossing the goal line. Maybe someone has a GIF of the play. Because if he didn't then you're right. It shouldn't have been close.
You aren't kidding. Think about it this way. If you are running down the sideline, and have the ball on your outside arm, and the ball never passes inside the pylon, but you run into the end zone, and then run out, it's a touchdown.
However, if you are running down the sideline and the ball is in your outside arm, and you jump and reach for the goal line, you have to have the ball cross inside (or hit) the pylon.
I cannot figure out why there is a different rule for a runner who leaves his feet and one who doesn't in this context, and frankly, of the thousands of games I've watched, I don't think I can remember an instance of a runner being granted a td when the ball didn't pass inside or over the pylon, until the Bryant play tonight.
According to that rule just quoted, the ball never has to cross the plane, as long as he possesses the ball and runs into the end zone.
The key to the White play is in the Supplemental notes part of the rule, A.R. 11.2. As soon as White's body crossed the goal line, with the ball in his possession, the conversion should have been good. I don't think it even mattered if his foot came down out of bounds or in the end zone, because the ball is dead as soon as he crosses into the end zone while in legal possession of the ball, and the ball passes the goal line (either inside the pylon or outside of it).
I thought they did too. I thought the left tackle moved on the conversion attempt. I also thought the announcers missed the fact that it seemed like the center forgot to snap it on the false start before that. Not only did the right guard move, but so did Bradford and a couple of other lineman.
I'm trying to think about this some more, and I think you're probably right, although I still can't for the life of me figure out how they made that determination. When watching the play and a bunch of subsequent replays, I was focusing on whether or not the ball passed over the pylon before he stepped out. I thought the ball pretty clearly had crossed over the extended plane before he stepped out, and we certainly never saw anything definitive otherwise. The announcers certainly weren't talking about in that context, and if they were, I think everyone would have been even more confused by them overturning the call on the field.
I would assume it's so you can't dive at the 2 yard line and cross the extended goal line before landing OB. The diving vs running in distinction makes sense so long as the you are going to have a scenario where the ball need not cross the goal line inside the pylons.
This is 100% correct. All the bellyaching about the missed blow to Bradford's head (yes, they definitely missed that call) is moot because that play should have been whistled dead.
If Minnesota fans want to blame someone for losing that game, they need to direct their ire at Adam Thielen. There's your goat right there, not the referees. The officials were awful, no doubt about it, but that's not why they lost the game.
In conclusion, "lol boo hoo".
Cowboys got the shit end of two questionable calls earlier in the game that negated a turnover deep in MIN territory and a 43 yard Zeke run...so yeah, the officials are probably pretty far down the list of reasons the Vikings lost that game. Even if they call the Bradford head shot, Vikngs get half the distance to the 3.5 yard line. They are prob still less than 50/50 just to tie the game from there. Then they still have to actually win in OT if they make that conversion.
It was poorly officiated but both sides got screwed.
It was poorly officiated but both sides got screwed.
You can't tell anything from this photo because it's not perpendicular to the goal line. All it needs to be a touchdown is any part of the ball to be above the front edge of the goalline, and you can't rule that out with the camera being tilted on all three axis. The fact that you can "see air" doesn't matter - here, as there's all sorts of perpective distortion.
Not that it should have mattered, because he didn't leave his feet, and didn't actually need to get the ball in the endzone, because rules.
Just correcting for the fact that the goal line the ball is being compared to is further away removes almost all of the "space" - and that's not even dealing with most of the rotation issues.
There's just no way to even get close to being able to tell. That doesn't mean the ball was in the endzone, but it means that overturning the call was absolutely wrong.
His foot is out of bounds there too...so does that make the ruling different to the Dez Bryant TD? Dez had his foot down in the endzone. I'm wondering if White never established his body in the endzone before that still shot, so when his foot lands out of bounds there, it's the same as him "leaving his feet" before he reaches the goal line.
I also agree that if you assume that he "left his feet" and you are now using the ball the determine if the conversion was good, there isn't enough there to overturn the call. It looks like he might not have made it, but "might not have" is not good enough to overturn a ruling on the field.
I also agree that if you assume that he "left his feet" and you are now using the ball the determine if the conversion was good, there isn't enough there to overturn the call. It looks like he might not have made it, but "might not have" is not good enough to overturn a ruling on the field.
I can say for sure that he never stepped into the end zone. When his right foot was on the ground it was before the end zone. Then he crossed the end zone with his body but his left foot stepped out of bounds.
I cant say what that means in regards to the rule.
I cant say what that means in regards to the rule.
It depends on whether or not he'd established possession in the field of play. If he did, then it's about his body crossing the plane of the endzone - his feet don't matter at all. If his body crosses inside the pylon then its a TD.
The only correct ruling that leads to him not scoring, is that he hadn't yet established possession, and it wasn't a catch at all.
The only correct ruling that leads to him not scoring, is that he hadn't yet established possession, and it wasn't a catch at all.
The rule states that the part about the ball crossing the pylon "only applies to an airborne runner who lands out of bounds". I think the question is whether White is considered airborn because he never was in bounds while in the end zone. He is inbounds at the 1 and a giant step then lands out of bounds...do they consider this the same as diving or leaping forward? I believe they do not consider this has having possession in the end zone...at least in order to make a replay even necessary. There definitely seems to be some room for a bit of interpretation though in the rule book as they have written it. If White taking a running step from the 1 and then landing out of bounds means he was "airborne" then he would certainly fit the description in the rule book as "an airborne player who lands out of bounds" and thus the ball would have to cross over or inside the pylon.
If that photo isn't conclusive evidence, then we shouldn't have instant replay at all. I mean, there's blatant homerism, and then there's saying that ball might have crossed the plane.
Just correcting for the fact that the goal line the ball is being compared to is further away removes almost all of the "space" - and that's not even dealing with most of the rotation issues.
There's just no way to even get close to being able to tell. That doesn't mean the ball was in the endzone, but it means that overturning the call was absolutely wrong.
To the point about the rule, my understanding is that the location of the ball doesn't matter if the player has possession in the end zone (i.e., two feet plus football move, or knee down). That doesn't apply here.
