Week 4 NFL Game Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
35,080
drleather2001 said:
 
Anyone with the talent to do that successfully would memorize part of the tax code instead and make 10x that amount.
 
I know you're joking even thought there was no Boogie Nights reference, but for a kid out of college with a photographic memory who doesn't want to go to 3 years of law school, it wouldn't be a bad gig to watch games from a box with the rule book in his lap and buzz down any time something was overlooked or improperly applied.  Obviously, the 30k is an arbitrary figure, you'd have to think it'd be pretty valuable to a team to have someone like this.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
16,227
Philadelphia
bowiac said:
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, this is nonsense.  You play under the rules that exist and the "right" outcome has to involve a correct interpretation of the rules by the officials.  Otherwise everything just devolves into a subjective debate about the legitimacy of rules.  Should the Tuck Rule never have been enforced because a Brady fumble was the "right outcome?"  Should the Dez Bryant catch not have been overturned because, come on, he caught that ball?  Should this PI call not have been made because, hey there was another ineligible guy downfield and the Giants had kind of screwed up the game anyway?
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Pandemonium67 said:
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.
I hear what you're saying, but I think that's perspective fooling you.

Riddick isn't that close. After Wright taps it out Riddick jogs to a stop, turns around and throws his hands up, and he's still not all that close to Wright.

Still, yes, it shouldn't be legal, but I don't think giving them the ball 1st and goal at the 1 would have been a fair result, either.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,518
Here
dynomite said:
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.

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.
This is kind of where I am, but damned if I don't love me some Tuck Rule and I gots to bes consistent!

I also don't like the fact that this detracts from how stupid it was of Calvin Johnson to have the ball hanging out there and how great of a play it was by Kam, who I think is just an incredible player with a unique skillset.

Lions probably would have found a way to fuck it up and not score anyway.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
7,469
Tate could have easily recovered it as well, if he hadn't stopped at the goal line to flex his muscles and celebrate when Megatron was diving for the end zone.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,181
New York, NY
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Honestly, this is nonsense.  You play under the rules that exist and the "right" outcome has to involve a correct interpretation of the rules by the officials.  Otherwise everything just devolves into a subjective debate about the legitimacy of rules.  Should the Tuck Rule never have been enforced because a Brady fumble was the "right outcome?"  Should the Dez Bryant catch not have been overturned because, come on, he caught that ball?  Should this PI call not have been made because, hey there was another ineligible guy downfield and the Giants had kind of screwed up the game anyway?
I disagree that a rigid application of the rules is always the right outcome. I don't think that's true in football, nor do I think it's true in almost any other area of life.
 
But that's fine. I'm not trying to get dragged into a debate about that. I was mostly trying to suggest we should change the rule to allow for a judgment call by the ref in that case, as we allow with uncatchable balls, or intentional grounding.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
14,295
Why is it the right result out of curiosity?
He didn't know where anyone else was so he batted the ball out of the endzone to make sure an offensive player wouldn't recover for a TD. Now he didn't know that was a penalty, but he clearly intentionally batted it (a penalty) and he did it because he was afraid that trying to recover the ball might lead to an offensive player getting it.
Should we not call holding if it turns out the defender probably wouldn't have been able to make a play?
 
Even more, how many times have we seen defenders screw up a fumble recovery?, What if the ball squirts out to one of the three Lions in the endzone?
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,181
New York, NY
Cellar-Door said:
Should we not call holding if it turns out the defender probably wouldn't have been able to make a play?
That's a much harder judgment call to make. We allow refs to not call pass interference when a ball is uncatchable in their subjective judgment. We allow refs to determine whether intentional grounding happened based on whether an eligible receiver was "in the area." Subjective, circumstantial calls are part of football.
 
I think a sensible regime would be that if we think the refs can somewhat reliably make consistent judgments about a given call, that giving them leeway to do so is probably the right way to go. In cases like holding, where there are realistically too many moving parts on the other hand for consistency, then it's fine to adhere to a hard and fast rule. But I also want to bring back the intentional/unintentional pass interference distinction, so I appreciate the winds are blowing the other way on this issue.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
2,547
Of course it affected the play. We have no idea who would have recovered if Wright didn't bat the ball. That's Wright's fault for not knowing the rule. He and his team don't deserve anything and I'm also a neutral observer.

It was obvious and blatant that Wright hit it on purpose. I don't see how the ref could think that was accidental. I'm more apt to believe he didn't even know the rule.

Either way horrible job. The refs haven't become bad overnight. They've been bad for a long time. Main difference between then and the replacement refs was coverage of mistakes. And many of those replacements never officiated above lower college or even high school.
 

minischwab

lurker
Aug 1, 2006
585
West Hartford, CT
Not to turn this discussion away from how the NFL is full of BS, but i've been wondering for a couple years now why the defense should earn possession of the ball if it's fumbled through the end zone no matter what. If the ball goes out of bounds on the sidelines before the D recovers, the O retains possession. If it goes through the end zone, should be the exact same rule (not a TD or anything, just returns to the spot of the fumble). Or option B is if the ball goes out the sidelines, Defense gets the possession. Makes no sense for those rules to be so inconsistent.
 

lars10

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
5,215
wibi said:

 
I revise my 3-5 yard to 5-7 yards away given that shot is from the ball's high point.  Wright fucked up by not just grabbing the ball but it doesnt change that Riddick had no real play on the ball
Ok.. In the lower angle I thought he was closer.. I was mistaken
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,001
Hingham, MA
minischwab said:
Not to turn this discussion away from how the NFL is full of BS, but i've been wondering for a couple years now why the defense should earn possession of the ball if it's fumbled through the end zone no matter what. If the ball goes out of bounds on the sidelines before the D recovers, the O retains possession. If it goes through the end zone, should be the exact same rule (not a TD or anything, just returns to the spot of the fumble). Or option B is if the ball goes out the sidelines, Defense gets the possession. Makes no sense for those rules to be so inconsistent.
 
This is a good point
 

TimNJsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,380
NW New Jersey
BigJimEd said:
Of course it affected the play. We have no idea who would have recovered if Wright didn't bat the ball. That's Wright's fault for not knowing the rule. He and his team don't deserve anything and I'm also a neutral observer.

It was obvious and blatant that Wright hit it on purpose. I don't see how the ref could think that was accidental. I'm more apt to believe he didn't even know the rule.

Either way horrible job. The refs haven't become bad overnight. They've been bad for a long time. Main difference between then and the replacement refs was coverage of mistakes. And many of those replacements never officiated above lower college or even high school.
 
Of course we do...The ball bounced up into his hands.  All he had to do was grab it.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
 
Honestly, this is nonsense.  You play under the rules that exist and the "right" outcome has to involve a correct interpretation of the rules by the officials.
As someone who agrees about the "right result," I guess I'm thinking about it like "If you fumble the ball at the 1 yard line you don't deserve to score," not so much the application of the rule to the situation.

It's just as easy to say that you also deserve to be able make a play on the end zone, sure, but if I were a Lions fan I think I would be more upset by the fact that it was 3rd and 1, Johnson had the 1st down. He just needed to protect the ball.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
7,989
Washington, DC
minischwab said:
Not to turn this discussion away from how the NFL is full of BS, but i've been wondering for a couple years now why the defense should earn possession of the ball if it's fumbled through the end zone no matter what. If the ball goes out of bounds on the sidelines before the D recovers, the O retains possession. If it goes through the end zone, should be the exact same rule (not a TD or anything, just returns to the spot of the fumble). Or option B is if the ball goes out the sidelines, Defense gets the possession. Makes no sense for those rules to be so inconsistent.
 
This was discussed above but you're totally correct. I think it's the worst rule in football (and PFT has called it that at least three times).
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
Cellar-Door said:
This is a pretty big leap to assume he snags it clean.
it really isn't. It was right there for him. He didn't have to dive in it or anything.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
14,295
KJ Wright is a linebacker with shitty hands. He knows this, which is why he didn't "just grab it" the only advantage in him batting it as opposed to just catching it was that he wasn't sure he'd catch it clean. He even said he didn't want to chance screwing up a catch or dive. And looking at the number of LB/DL who screw up recoveries on fumbles, or drop easy picks it makes sense why.
 
Now sure it's more likely he either catches it or botches it out of the endzone if he makes a play on it, but there is definitely a chance he mishandles it and it stays in play. I don't know that we should start ignoring written rules because it is "more probable than not" that the result of the play would have been the same as not calling the penalty.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
Cellar-Door said:
KJ Wright is a linebacker with shitty hands. He knows this, which is why he didn't "just grab it" the only advantage in him batting it as opposed to just catching it was that he wasn't sure he'd catch it clean. He even said he didn't want to chance screwing up a catch or dive. And looking at the number of LB/DL who screw up recoveries on fumbles, or drop easy picks it makes sense why.
 
Now sure it's more likely he either catches it or botches it out of the endzone if he makes a play on it, but there is definitely a chance he mishandles it and it stays in play. I don't know that we should start ignoring written rules because it is "more probable than not" that the result of the play would have been the same as not calling the penalty.
This is becoming semantics but the suggestion that the play was anywhere near 50/50 is ludicrous. It was damn near a gimme.
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
It was a blown call, but Seattle gets that fumble a very, very, very large percentage of the time by the time it gets batted.  He doesn't have to actually catch the ball, just be less blatantly obvious about directing it out of the back of the end zone since anything remotely ambiguous is never getting flagged.  If he just puts his palm up instead of an open fist he's fine.
 
Detroit definitely got jobbed given the rules, but Seattle didn't really gain a huge advantage by batting the ball if that makes sense
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,001
Hingham, MA
amarshal2 said:
This is becoming semantics but the suggestion that the play was anywhere near 50/50 is ludicrous. It was damn near a gimme.
 
If it was damn near a gimme why didn't he just grab it
 

simplyeric

aggressively nonsensical
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
12,147
NYC
drleather2001 said:
 
Anyone with the talent to do that successfully would memorize part of the tax code instead and make 10x that amount.
 
 
Why can't he/she do both?
It's not like the rest of the officials are full-time...
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,209
tims4wins said:
 
If it was damn near a gimme why didn't he just grab it
 
Because he didnt know the batting rule and thought that grabbing the fumble or pushing it out the back of the endzone would result in the same thing
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
59,445
Oregon
wibi said:
 
Because he didnt know the batting rule and thought that grabbing the fumble or pushing it out the back of the endzone would result in the same thing
 
This is, of course, the correct answer
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
14,295
E5 Yaz said:
 
This is, of course, the correct answer
And he didn't want to take the chance of screwing up. It's two parts. Part 1 he didn't know the rules. Part 2 he was worried he'd screw up the catch.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,154
Rotten Apple
ESPN didn't know the batting ball penalty rule either. Tirico and Gruden never mentioned it. Ed Hilel was the only one who brought up in the game thread that the play was a penalty and should have been called. I never even considered it was an illegal move.
 
Ever since LT most players do whatever they can do get the ball out and the batting penalty is pretty rare. I'm speaking totally anecdotally, I haven't seen numbers.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,352
Marciano490 said:
 
I know you're joking even thought there was no Boogie Nights reference, but for a kid out of college with a photographic memory who doesn't want to go to 3 years of law school, it wouldn't be a bad gig to watch games from a box with the rule book in his lap and buzz down any time something was overlooked or improperly applied.  Obviously, the 30k is an arbitrary figure, you'd have to think it'd be pretty valuable to a team to have someone like this.
 
So what you're saying is:  it's the kid's big brain, and he decides how he rolls?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
35,080
drleather2001 said:
 
So what you're saying is:  it's the kid's big brain, and he decides how he rolls?
 
I'm saying you don't know what he can do! You don't know what he can do, what he's gonna do, or what he's gonna be! He's good! He has good things and you don't know about! He's gonna be something! And don't tell him to be a tax attorney.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
7,989
Washington, DC
maufman said:
It's only a penalty to bat a loose ball.
 
Technically, this is incorrect. It's also a penalty to bat the ball out of a player's hands. The rulebook says:
 
 
 
A player may not bat or punch: 

(a) A loose ball (in field of play) toward his opponent’s goal line or in any direction in either end zone. 

(b) A ball in player possession. 
 
 
However, it also then  says you can strip the ball out of a player's hands and that that should be the default assumption:
 
Note: If there is any question as to whether a defender is stripping or batting a ball in player possession, the official(s) will rule the action as a legal act (stripping the ball). 
 
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands
 
Which makes me wonder what illegal batting of a ball that isn't stripping is supposed to look like - in my mind, that would be something like batting the ball against the receiver's chest, but wouldn't that just be ineffective stripping?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,656
Waltham, MA
singaporesoxfan said:
Technically, this is incorrect. It's also a penalty to bat the ball out of a player's hands. The rulebook says:
 

 
However, it also then  says you can strip the ball out of a player's hands and that that should be the default assumption:
 

 
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands
 
Which makes me wonder what illegal batting of a ball that isn't stripping is supposed to look like - in my mind, that would be something like batting the ball against the receiver's chest, but wouldn't that just be ineffective stripping?
I'd assume batting the ball is hitting it with an acute force (like a bat to a baseball) whereas stripping would be pulling/pushing the ball out of the players arms with a more steady force. It's a stupid distinction, and we know that refs always consider it a strip, since everyone here thought that batting a ball in possession is legal before last night.
 

westneat

lurker
Apr 16, 2013
30
Deathofthebambino said:
I agree that Detroit got jobbed, but here's my question.  When a snap goes over a punter's head and into the end zone, aren't they all taught to just kick the ball out of bounds and take the safety?  I've seen it happen a few times, but in that case, wouldn't that result in a penalty on the kicker for illegal batting? 
 
I'm guessing if they called the penalty, the other team would decline it, as they would just get what, five or 10 yards from the previous spot and lose the safety, or maybe they could force the punting team to kickoff following the safety from 5-10 yards further back?  
 
A couple things...
 
Yes it is a penalty, but it's a foul for illegally kicking the ball, not illegal batting. You can bat the ball backwards, but you can't kick a loose ball anywhere or any direction. In addition, the penalty result is a safety (unless the bat/kick occurs outside of the endzone). So in these situations you can accept the foul for a safety, or decline the foul for a safety. That's probably why you don't remember the flag being thrown.
 

westneat

lurker
Apr 16, 2013
30
Also, for those who want to change the rule regarding fumbles into the endzone:
 
When a live ball (non-pass) becomes dead in the endzone, it can only result in one of four options: Touchback, Safety, Field Goal, or Touchdown. Which of those seems the most fair?
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
3,243
Why is this? Because of a different rule?

If so, change that rule as well. I'm firmly in the camp of that rule being one of the worst in all of sports. Giving a team possession of the ball, though they never once possessed it, seems very arbitrary and silly.
 

westneat

lurker
Apr 16, 2013
30
The idea is that the endzone is a special place. You might as well ask "Why do you get six points for moving the ball 1 yard from the 1, but 0 points for moving it 1 yard anywhere else on the field?"
 
The rule book is actually very simple in this regard. When a ball becomes dead in the endzone (and it's not a touchdown), the team who is responsible for putting the ball in the endzone is penalized. Calvin Johnson is responsible for putting the ball in the end zone (via fumble), so they are penalized with a touchback.
 
If a QB drops into his own endzone and runs over the endline, he is responsible for the ball being there. He is penalized with a safety.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
westneat said:
The idea is that the endzone is a special place. You might as well ask "Why do you get six points for moving the ball 1 yard from the 1, but 0 points for moving it 1 yard anywhere else on the field?"
 
The rule book is actually very simple in this regard. When a ball becomes dead in the endzone (and it's not a touchdown), the team who is responsible for putting the ball in the endzone is penalized. Calvin Johnson is responsible for putting the ball in the end zone (via fumble), so they are penalized with a touchback.
 
If a QB drops into his own endzone and runs over the endline, he is responsible for the ball being there. He is penalized with a safety.
 
So you don't like the rule?  That's fine.  But I don't understand the argument that you can only change the rule to a specific set of not applicable options when changing a rule.  It makes no sense.
 

westneat

lurker
Apr 16, 2013
30
amarshal2 said:
 
So you don't like the rule?  That's fine.  But I don't understand the argument that you can only change the rule to a specific set of not applicable options when changing a rule.  It makes no sense.
 
I'm not sure what you mean. I think the rule is fine the way it is. How would you change it?
 
Probably the easiest from a rule book perspective would be awarding the fumbling team with the ball at the spot they lost it.
 

geoduck no quahog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,037
Seattle, WA
djbayko said:
I'd assume batting the ball is hitting it with an acute force (like a bat to a baseball) whereas stripping would be pulling/pushing the ball out of the players arms with a more steady force. It's a stupid distinction, and we know that refs always consider it a strip, since everyone here thought that batting a ball in possession is legal before last night.
 
And, even more ironic - look at the replay and tell me that the ball wasn't batted/punched out of Johnson's possession by Chancellor.
 
If that's not a "punch", what is?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
59,445
Oregon
westneat said:
The idea is that the endzone is a special place. You might as well ask "Why do you get six points for moving the ball 1 yard from the 1, but 0 points for moving it 1 yard anywhere else on the field?"
 
The rule book is actually very simple in this regard. When a ball becomes dead in the endzone (and it's not a touchdown), the team who is responsible for putting the ball in the endzone is penalized. 
 
If a QB drops into his own endzone and runs over the endline, he is responsible for the ball being there. He is penalized with a safety.
 
So ... the end zone is a vagina?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.