Week 4 NFL Game Thread
- Thread starter Section15Box113
- Start date
- Status
Ed Hillel said:
In the Sanchez vs. Pats play, there was not an option to decline a penalty. It was ruled a safety.
Ed Hillel said:
Sure, but the argument was that teams with possession can bat/kick the ball in (either) end zone. Possession doesn't make it legal. It's still illegal, just not worth it to the other side to accept.
Jim Daopoulos @RefereeJimD 12m12 minutes agoBergs said:
The bat does not need to be overt...it was illegally batted in the end zone and it's a foul and should have been flagged..period!
144 retweets108 favorites
Thank you. People are getting themselves twisted in knots on this "in the endzone" thing.
You can NEVER intentionally just swat a ball that is bouncing around, no matter where you are in the field. Hence the call in that Pats game.
It's a plain rule which is why you never see people do it - did you not get a weird sensation when you saw him swat it live or on immediate replay? Like a "huh that was weird that he did that" feeling?
It's not an obscure rule that we can say 'oh the refs and everyone missed it'. Like, the red saw it and decided it was going out anyway so he let the penalty slide. Since when are calls made like that?
You can NEVER intentionally just swat a ball that is bouncing around, no matter where you are in the field. Hence the call in that Pats game.
It's a plain rule which is why you never see people do it - did you not get a weird sensation when you saw him swat it live or on immediate replay? Like a "huh that was weird that he did that" feeling?
It's not an obscure rule that we can say 'oh the refs and everyone missed it'. Like, the red saw it and decided it was going out anyway so he let the penalty slide. Since when are calls made like that?
theapportioner said:
Prepare yourselves, it's going to get worse. This will be compared to other "controversial calls" in NFL history. Yes the Tuck Rule will be discussed. Yes, every Pats fan knows it wasn't controversial, it was the CORRECT CALL (just a stupid rule).
Trent Dilfer was making a fool of himself on SC, comparing it to uncalled holding plays, and saying that there was no intent to knock the ball out of bounds.
KJ Wright himself said that he was trying to knock the ball out of bounds.
KJ Wright himself said that he was trying to knock the ball out of bounds.
Dollar said:
I know very little about the corner cases of the NFL rulebook.
What is the result if the defender grabs a fumbled ball in the end zone and takes a knee? Would that have been a touchback? Safety?
Bergs said:
Bingo. Twice now with the Seahawks. Last time affected playoff seeding. It may again this time.
They don't want to accept his proposals because that would be admitting he is smarter than they areEd Hillel said:
NFL now admitting the refs blew the illegal batting call. Blandino says the ref didn't see it and the back judge thought it wasn't 'not an intentional act.' Great crew you got there, Dean.
LINK: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13819689/dean-blandino-refs-incorrectly-handled-crucial-end-zone-call-end-lions-seahawks
LINK: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13819689/dean-blandino-refs-incorrectly-handled-crucial-end-zone-call-end-lions-seahawks
This is not anti-Seahawks in the least, but the League is too tied up in ticky-tack crap and throwing lots of laundry to focus seriously on genuine penalties that can determine the outcome of games. Refs are human and did not suddenly become globally incompetent overnight. They are responding to incentives and commands from on high -- and like everything else coming from on high at Park Avenue, those incentives and commands are garbage.
I have no Seahawk friends who are trying to justify this as a legit play. When KJ Wright admitted he batted the ball any and all arguments stopped.
Seattle got lucky that it wasnt called a penalty but even if DET had scored the game was far from over.
Seattle got lucky that it wasnt called a penalty but even if DET had scored the game was far from over.
HriniakPosterChild said:
Touchback, assuming the fumbling motion isn't by the defender's own team from outside the end zone. For example, on that dumb punt return decision by the Lions, if I'm recalling the play correctly, the defender should have taken a knee even after muffing the punt, since the impetus that brought the ball into the end zone came from the kick.
Isn't Paul Allen by far the richest NFL owner? He seems to get a lot of game winning call fuck ups in his favor!! Microsoftgate!!!!!!wibi said:
Why is batting illegal? Just about everybody does it and it's rarely called. What's the point of having an unenforced rule?
Because of the Holy Roller.ifmanis5 said:
You can bat it backward, but not forward.
In the end zone, you can try to recover and muff it.
Take this scenario: you and an opponent are in the end zone. One of your teammates is close, but won't get to the ball. The opponent is diving for the ball in an attempt to recover at the same time you are. You can't intentionally tap it toward the teammate so he is in an advantageous position to recover for the score.
It's an extension of the same logic why you can't bat it forward into the end zone from the 1 if you're not confident you can recover, so a teammate might.
In this scenario, Wright could have fallen on it or grabbed at it, but he might have muffed it. He wasn't sure he could recover and batted it out so an opponent couldn't. Further extension of the same principle, albeit in the inverse.
NortheasternPJ said:
No, it is one of the many penalties / judgment calls that are not reviewable
I think what NPJ was saying is that all changes of possession are reviewed...except for this type apparently. Although they reviewed the fumble...just not how it left the end zone?tims4wins said:
Edit: although intentional batting can't be reviewed I guess... The only one who can judge intent is the ref on the field.
lars10 said:
They can review everything about the play except for the penalty aspect of it. The play was reviewable but the penalty was not.
So let me get this straight: Paul Allen is the co-founder of Microsoft; the NFL uses Microsoft tablets; and now they have gotten the benefit of multiple game-deciding calls? Fishy.
#trollinvolin
#trollinvolin
E5 Yaz said:
He's obviously wrong on the lack of intent.
Beyond that, I don't know if he meant to say that the rule is one that's always violated and only intermittently penalized, or if he's saying that just like a holding call doesn't excuse the other 10 defenders from making a play, the penalty here doesn't excuse Detroit from screwing up. The former obviously isn't the case here, but the latter rings true. It's bad that a missed call affected the outcome of a game, but I don't feel the outrage -- Detroit fumbled away the game, then didn't get a bailout call that they technically should have gotten.
In terms of making sure something like this doesn't happen again, the rules should allow the replay official to ask the referee to convene a conference on the field, even on a play that's not reviewable. I'm sure at least one official on the field last night saw the play correctly, but didn't want to overrule a colleague who in theory should have had a better view.
But then Seattle screwed up and was bailed out. Riddick was right there to recover the fumble and wasn't allowed to even try because of what Wright did. Why should Seattle benefit?maufman said:
There seem to be 100 flags/game but then when it comes down to the most crucial plays the NFL doesn't seem interested in getting calls right...or at least certain ones.
It was the right outcome even if it should have been a penalty under the rule. This result mostly just serves to highlight that the rule should probably be made more flexible for situations where the batting has no impact on the play.
Honestly, as an impartial observer I would have been furious if the Lions had gotten the ball back. Edit: Basically exactly what Bowiac says above. Right result, wrong call.wibi said:
I don't know how to change the ruling (maybe make it a safety instead?), and this only comes up occasionally, but the Seahawks deserved that one.
The Tate 'catch' wasn't close to being the worst call against the Packers in that game. There was a ridiculous roughing the passer call (Wilson running outside the pocket and hit just as he released the ball, which was intercepted) and a horrible DPI call (obvious OPI).SeoulSoxFan said:
That being said, rules that rely on "intent' - like did he intentionally bat the ball - instead of the actual physical act are begging to be blown. They got rid of trying to guess intent in the intenional grounding rule, correct? They should do that with everything. I feel the same way about umpires trying to determine intent on pitches at/near batters.
I don't see it that way. Fumbles are totally unpredictable, and Wibi's screen capture makes it clear that Riddick had a decent chance of recovering the ball if Wright failed to come up with it. The Lions made a great play to get the ball to the goal line and Chancellor made a great play to force the fumble. After that, no one "deserved" anything but a fair chance at a fumble bouncing in the end zone. Wright denied the Lions that and should have been penalized.
Yeah, but sports...very talented people make garbage money doing stats analysis for pro teams when they could definitely make more somewhere else.drleather2001 said:
You probably would need more than one person though, considering games are happening simultaneously.
- Status