Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Rams 30 vikings 20
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Voyageur" data-source="post: 1047047" data-attributes="member: 17953"><p>Yes. He did go down, and it was a score, in my opinion, interpreting the rules, the play should have been reviewed. But, if they actually did review the play, did they determine that they didn't have the option to reverse it because of a penalty, or did they have to leave it stand because it was a score, and they can't go back and review for a penalty to nullify the play?</p><p></p><p>The rule is ambiguous, and I think open to way too many interpretations, and for the most part, creates insane decisions that shouldn't happen. I go back to the old "simultaneous catch" the Packers had in the end zone, which shouldn't have been a Seattle score years ago, in the playoffs, and how they awarded the ball to the receiver despite the evidence it wasn't simultaneous. The Packer defender had the ball in both hands as they hit the ground, and the Seahawk only had one hand on it. After they hit the ground, the play should have been over, but the Seahawk receiver latched onto the ball to make it "appear" to be a simultaneous catch, which it wasn't even close. It's gone done as a historical play; "The Fail Mary."</p><p></p><p>The rule failed because the definition of simultaneous catch did not spell out the two vs one hand, and the fact that the play ends when the player possessing the ball has it secured, and hits the ground. Essentially, the officials made that one up because it wasn't spelled out in the rules.</p><p></p><p>What makes it worse on this safety is that the review was supposed to be a booth review, and I'm not certain how they came to the ruling they did. They'll supposedly close the loop holes next year, but they'll open up several more at the same time. It's their usual method of operation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Voyageur, post: 1047047, member: 17953"] Yes. He did go down, and it was a score, in my opinion, interpreting the rules, the play should have been reviewed. But, if they actually did review the play, did they determine that they didn't have the option to reverse it because of a penalty, or did they have to leave it stand because it was a score, and they can't go back and review for a penalty to nullify the play? The rule is ambiguous, and I think open to way too many interpretations, and for the most part, creates insane decisions that shouldn't happen. I go back to the old "simultaneous catch" the Packers had in the end zone, which shouldn't have been a Seattle score years ago, in the playoffs, and how they awarded the ball to the receiver despite the evidence it wasn't simultaneous. The Packer defender had the ball in both hands as they hit the ground, and the Seahawk only had one hand on it. After they hit the ground, the play should have been over, but the Seahawk receiver latched onto the ball to make it "appear" to be a simultaneous catch, which it wasn't even close. It's gone done as a historical play; "The Fail Mary." The rule failed because the definition of simultaneous catch did not spell out the two vs one hand, and the fact that the play ends when the player possessing the ball has it secured, and hits the ground. Essentially, the officials made that one up because it wasn't spelled out in the rules. What makes it worse on this safety is that the review was supposed to be a booth review, and I'm not certain how they came to the ruling they did. They'll supposedly close the loop holes next year, but they'll open up several more at the same time. It's their usual method of operation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
CarryTheG14
DoURant
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: CarryTheG14
1 minute ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
39 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 10:43 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 9:26 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Badgers Football 2025-2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 8:57 AM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Rams 30 vikings 20
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
