Studs and duds Ram game

[Sky King]

Hopefully, you boys have a sense of humor to go along with those considerable football IQs. Your debates remind me a lot of this cerebral exchange:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I'm the Woody character.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Again, I'm not assuming in advance what the next bounce was going to do. If a gunner going full speed tries to cover a ball inside the five tries to cover the ball it's very likely his momentum will take him into the EZ - that's why his goal should be to tap it backwards, not take it into the EZ.

Again, after the first bounce he was not in position to bat it, which was not his fault since he did not make it bounce where it did. Or, to use the Captain's exchange closer...I simply disagree.

 

[TJV]

I'm the Woody character.

Oh no you don't - you don't get to be Woody! But I do think HRE posts drunk sometimes.

 

[JK64]

Studs-Defense-Clay-Shields-etc. James Jones

Duds-Special Teams (esp. Goodson)-gave up a fake punt that everyone watching knew was coming. Committed penalty on FG attempt and gave back 3 points.

Arod- Looked lost in space. Horrible!
Lacy
Oline
Receivers were not getting open.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Hopefully, you boys have a sense of humor to go along with those considerable football IQs. Your debates remind me a lot of this cerebral exchange:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I'm the Woody character.

I thought Woody's character represents Janis..."why not bleed him with leeches, or drill a hole in his cranium and let the evil spirits leak out."

 

[HardRightEdge]

Oh no you don't - you don't get to be Woody! But I do think HRE posts drunk sometimes.

I don't drink, and that's not some AA thing. You, on the other hand, have a habit of being one step away from popping a vein when the random insults start flying.

 

[TJV]

Duds-Special Teams (esp. Goodson)-gave up a fake punt that everyone watching knew was coming. Committed penalty on FG attempt and gave back 3 points.

Wasn't it R Rodgers who committed the penalty on the FG? And on the fake punt, it looked to me like he had coverage but fell down.

 

[TJV]

You, on the other hand, have a habit of being one step away from popping a vein when the random insults start flying.

Are you finally admitting to hurling "random insults"?

We’re really hammering this to death so this is my last post on this (unless asked a question). I just watched the play several times. Mathay’s punt landed at about the 2 ½ yard line and took a big bounce parallel to the goal line. It then took a small bounce and another smaller bounce both parallel to the goal line. There was no reason at all for Janis to touch the ball, and because he started his slide a little late (which wouldn’t have mattered if he didn’t touch the ball), his momentum took his feet into the EZ. The ball was to his right as he slid and he could have easily avoided touching it. He didn’t try to grab it and down it and of course he didn’t try to avoid it. Instead he tapped it with his right hand, changing its direction toward the EZ – the worst option. Certainly worthy of a Dud rating. Four of his teammates arrived just behind him – of course I don’t expect Janis to have eyes in the back of his helmet – I just mention it because if Janis had avoided the ball, it would have been downed inside the 3-yard line.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Are you finally admitting to hurling "random insults"?

There goes the first vein.

I already told you...I do not agree with your take.

 

[GhostofCurly]

Wasn't it R Rodgers who committed the penalty on the FG? And on the fake punt, it looked to me like he had coverage but fell down.

You are correct.

 

[JK64]

Wasn't it R Rodgers who committed the penalty on the FG? And on the fake punt, it looked to me like he had coverage but fell down.

Yeah, Goodson fell down. Terrible play.

 

[John Bolger]

Why wasn't the second AR interception ruled "ground caused ball to move." It moved up with contact on the turf.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Why wasn't the second AR interception ruled "ground caused ball to move." It moved up with contact on the turf.

It seems they ruled that the ball touched the ground after Johnson secured control and that he continued to maintain control of it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Why wasn't the second AR interception ruled "ground caused ball to move." It moved up with contact on the turf.

I agree with your interpretation in this case, though "ground caused ball to move" is not actually in the rules. Whether the receiver or interceptor has maintained a "firm grip" with only "slight movement" are the relevant questions.

One relevant passage in the rules is a note in rule 8.3:

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2015-nfl-rulebook/

"Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

However, the definition of Player Possession (Definition 2.7.1) says:

"Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms."

These aspects of the rules are unchanged from 2014.

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2014-nfl-rulebook/

The NFL did tweak the catch rules to attempt to "clarify" the "football move" aspect of the rules, but that's another story.

So, how slight is slight? It must very slight, for the receiver/interceptor to still have "a firm grip and control".

Given there was no rule change for 2015 for this aspect of what constitutes a catch, and given past practice and interpretation of "firm grip" in replay officiating, I see no reason why this was not overruled.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree with your interpretation in this case, though "ground caused ball to move" is not actually in the rules. Whether the receiver or interceptor has maintained a "firm grip" with only "slight movement" are the relevant questions.

One relevant passage in the rules is a note in rule 8.3:

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2014-nfl-rulebook/

"Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

However, the definition of Player Possession (Definition 2.7.1) says:

"Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms."

These aspects of the rules are unchanged from 2014. The NFL did tweak the catch rules to attempt to "clarify" the "football move" aspect of the rules, but that's another story.

So, how slight is slight? It must very slight, for the receiver/interceptor to still have "a firm grip and control".

Given there was no rule change for 2015 for this aspect of what constitutes a catch, and given past practice and interpretation of "firm grip" in replay officiating, I see no reason why this was not overruled.

I think they applied Item 4 within rule 8.3 which states that if the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.

 

[PFanCan]

Hopefully, you boys have a sense of humor to go along with those considerable football IQs. Your debates remind me a lot of this cerebral exchange:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I'm the Woody character.

I miss Cheers. Think I am going to dig out those old Season 1 thru whatever discs and start to watch them again. We DO have a bye Sunday coming up, so nothing to do that day...

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think they applied Item 4 within rule 8.3 which states that if the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.

Item 4 that you cite is also unchanged from 2014.

"Control" is not explicitly defined in the rules. Given where the note and the definition reference I quoted are positioned in the rules, it is evident that the definition of "possession" is intended to clarify what constitutes control in the process of making a catch (or interception). "Possession", and thereby "control", must entail "firm grip" while having no more than "slight movement" of the ball.

Given no rule changes were made in this aspect of catching the football and given past applications of these rules, I see no reason why this call was not overturned.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Given no rule changes were made in this aspect of catching the football and given past applications of these rules, I see no reason why this call was not overturned.

I agree that I was surprised the decision wasn't reversed to an incomplete pass.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Had it been ruled incomplete, I doubt it's reversed either. "incontrovertible visual evidence" sometimes makes a bad call stick, IMO this was the case here.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Had it been ruled incomplete, I doubt it's reversed either. "incontrovertible visual evidence" sometimes makes a bad call stick, IMO this was the case here.

It was pretty clear to me that the ball moved out of Johnson's hands as it hit the ground.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not only did the ball move, but from what I remember, it shifted in his hands as he was going to the ground. You just have to hope these missed calls end up 50/50 (for/against) during the season and don't end up costing you a game along the way.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not only did the ball move, but from what I remember, it shifted in his hands as he was going to the ground. Wasn't a case of clear control and then the ground causing the fumble. You just have to hope these missed calls end up 50/50 (for/against) during the season and don't end up costing you a game along the way.

I think that officials reviewing plays should get it right way more often than half of the time.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think that officials reviewing plays should get it right way more often than half of the time.

I think they do....I meant 50/50 from the stand point of during the season you may have 2 bad reviews go in your favor and 2 not in your favor.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Had it been ruled incomplete, I doubt it's reversed either. "incontrovertible visual evidence" sometimes makes a bad call stick, IMO this was the case here.

Here's something I was not aware of until just now checking the rules:

"During the review, the Referee will consult with designated members of the Officiating department at the League office. A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change."

In other words, the league office cannot direct the referee; they could render an opinion and the referee can choose to ignore it.

So, the question becomes, how many referees, in their own minds eye, would consider this replay "incontrovertible visual evidence" that the player did not have "a firm grip and control" of the ball with only "slight movement"? Given what I've seen over the years, I'd say a considerable majority. Brad Allen evidently has a personal higher threshold for "incontrovertible".

While "a foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds", as Emerson famously wrote, consistency in the application of rules is hardly "foolish". Somehow, giving the Brad Allens of the world the freedom to roll their own serves no one well.

 

[PFanCan]

Vote for Rollins for Rookie of the Week here:
http://www.nfl.com/voting/rookies/2015/REG/5