Fumble? Incomplete?

[Mick Fan]

Well, whaddya think?

The Raiders got screwed! I don't think that anybody thought before the review that it wasn't a fumble! I don't even like the Raiders and I was screaming at my TV set!

If you apply that logic, any QB who doesn't "tuck" the ball against his body will never fumble.

If I can ramble on more, the mere fact that the QB's arm is moving forward does not cause the fumble -- it's the direction of the ball. How about the running back in the open field who is holding the ball with one hand and fumbles after being hit. HIS arm is moving foward but it's a fumble.

Poor Raiders. They deserved better.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mick Fan on 2002-01-20 20:18 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

Raiders got screwed. I think the Steelers would beat either team though.

[E. Blackadder]

Ignoring the game (which I missed -- see other thread), I hate the situation you've described.

Possible remedies:
1) It's not a forward pass until the ball is caught or until the ball crosses the line of scrimmage -- in the air;

2) The result of an incomplete forward pass is zero yardage or where the ball first hits the ground, whichever is worse for the offense; or

3) It's not a forward pass unless the ball is released by the quarterback under his grasp and control.

Yeah, this will reduce scoring, I'll deal with it.

[jets fan]

Guys, according to the rules, it WAS a forward pass. You can argue that they need to change the rule somehow, but according to the rulebook as it stands now, the call was right. Also remember, that call didn't lose the game for the Raiders. They still had to play the rest of regulation, and OT. IMO, the play that lost it for the Raiders was when they didn't stop the Patriots on 4th and 4 in OT.

I have an unbiased opinion in this game, because I really do not like either team. The Raiders just beat the Jets last week, and the Patriots are one of our biggest rivals. But the rulebook is the Bible of football, and they have to go by what it says.

[urysohn]

First off, the rule sucks. I'm a Pats fan, and I was screaming "bullshit" at the tv. You just don't want to see your team win that way. But once they clarified the rule, I could at least live with it.

Except for my second point... If you look at the slow-motion replay, I am 99% positive that Brady's arm had stopped moving in a forward direction and had then stopped and moved slightly back again. So whether he was tucking or not (and clearly he was not trying to throw as he implied in the post-game), his arm was NOT moving forward and it wasn't a forward pass.

On the other hand, you might not WANT to see your team win this way, but we'll take it! Bring on the Steelers!

[wally world]

Now I haven't seen the replay 712 times, but from what I saw, it looked pretty clear that Brady's arm had stopped moving forward, and he was actually starting to bring it back in to cock his arm again. So I don't know what the rule exactly says, but he wasn't throwing the ball and it was a fumble.

Raiders got screwed.

[Patience]

I agree with Jets Fan. It wouldn't be a fumble unless he actually tucked it away & had possession.

The Raiders let them back in from 13-3 and to score on the first drive in OT, a good sized one for the weather.

It was a good call, a bad rule, but not the reason the Raiders lost the game.

[Ray Finkle]

Jets fan, how can you say the call didn't cost the Raiders the game? If it's a fumble, the Raiders kneel on it and the game's over. Sure the Raiders had other chances to stop the Pats. But a fumble would have given the Raiders the win.

I still think the rule was misinterpreted. The point of the tuck rule is that if the QB stops his throwing motion and the ball comes out, it's a pass. In this case, the ball didn't come out from the throwing motion. His arm had stopped moving. The ball came out from the hit.

[jets fan]

The Raiders did NOT get screwed. The rule addresses the "pulling it back" motion. Here is what ESPN says the exact wording is:

"any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."

This quote came from this link. (http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2002/0120/1314728.html) Like I said before, you can debate whether the rule should be changed, but you can't say the call was wrong.

[urysohn]

The rule is intended to address what happens when the QB is tucking away the ball, but the arm/ball still needs to be moving forward. Otherwise, take it to the extreme, a QB could fake a pass at the start of a play and 7 seconds later he could get hit and drop the ball -- fumble or incomplete? There has to be an end to the protection, and that end is when the ball stops moving forward. Even the claifications from the refs during the game and NFL following the game agree on that. But I disagree that his arm was moving forward when he dropped it.

[Patience]

The "forward pass" would end when he tucked the ball away and gained control of the football.

If he is scrambling and continuing fake passing motions there would be no fumble. If he had control of the ball and moved around just to avoid the hit, or was across the line of scrimmage, that is a fumble.

However, I don't like the rule. But all I have heard is the pass attempt ends after control of the ball, not the end of the forward motion.

[jets fan]

I don't think your "7 second later" point is valid in this instance - it was clearly all one play in one motion. There will always be some grey areas in the rules that have to be left up to the judgement of the refs - your "7 second later" point touches on one of these. The amount of time until the QB is considered a runner again is up to the refs to decide. If the QB makes a pump-fake and nobody is near him, then yes, the minute he pulls the ball back (instead of throwing it), he a runner again. But in the NE game, someone hit him while he was pulling it back so it's a forward pass - it was all one motion.

I do NOT like the Patriots, and I don't really care if they win or lose. But check out the Bucs/Rams NFC Championship game a few years back - Bert Emmanuel (sp?) had a controversial catch called back due to a similar "letter of the law" type decision. That rule then changed and this forward pass rule may need to change, but the call WAS (despite all the crying) correct as the rules stand today.

[egg]

As the rule stands I think it was the correct call. I also think it is a crummy rule. However, at what point does his arm moving forward not become a forward pass? When it crosses some imaginary release point? That would leave too much up to the official and very difficult for him to judge where that point is. The way the rule reads to me is to eliminate all subjectivity on the part of the official. That can be good or bad.

[Botsy]

The way the rule is written (i.e. terribly), the correct call was made.

Question: What if Woodson would have hit the ball and not the arm of Brady? Would it be a fumble or still an incompletion?

[jets fan]

Here is an excerpt from the "Daily News" where the NFL's director of officiating, Mike Pereira, said the call was right:

"In order to get a fumble out of the situation, one or two things has to happen," Pereira said yesterday. "You either have to get the ball tucked all the way back against the side of your body or you have to recock as if you're trying to throw it again. If the ball comes out at any time when you're tucking the ball back towards your body, whether it slips out of your hand with no contact, whether it hits your own hand as it did with Brady (Saturday) night, or if your opponent hits it out, it's an incomplete pass." ...

Pereira, who said he was surprised Coleman blew the call in the first place, conceded that "Brady, at that point, was not trying to pass the ball when it came out." But the "Tuck Rule," which has been on the books for two years, doesn't consider intent.

"The whole point about the rule is trying to be consistent," Pereira said. "The forward motion of the arm starts the pass and that whole continuing motion is considered part of the pass. If the ball pops out like that, the ball is incomplete.

"It's not an uncommon thing," added Pereira, who said the rule was used at least 15 times during the regular season. "It's misunderstood, but it's the rule. Now, if we want to disagree whether or not we like the rule, that's one thing but the rule as written was called right."

If you want to read the whole article, go here (http://www.newyorkjets.com/news/index.php) and then click on "Daily News" on the right and then click on "Head Ref Tucks in Last Word on Ruling.

[Anonymous]

The rule, as currently written, rewards the offense for having the defensive player whack the ball out of the quarterback's hand. Based on the facts and circumstances, the Raiders should have been rewarded for a good play on defense and the Patriots should have been penalized. But the problem with the replay system is that it is unforgiving. You compare what you see on the video to what is written in the rule book, without prejudice. A wise judge would see that the Raiders acted within the rules to cause the football to come loose.

A parallel situation happened earlier this season with the Ravens and Titans. In the last 5 seconds of a game, the Titans completed a pass to the 1 yard line to set up 4th and goal. As they hurried to line up and run the 4th-down play before the clock ran out, Boulware (Ravens) bumped into a Titan lineman in the act of crossing onto his side of the line of scrimmage. The play was not stopped, and the Titans ran in for a winning touchdown. But after a strict reading of the rules, it was determined that the clock should have been stopped when Boulware made contact with the Titan player, the Ravens penalized for a pre-snap encroachment, the ball moved half the distance, and 4th down repeated with 3 seconds left. In essence, the Ravens were rewarded for committing a penalty because the result of the play would have caused them to lose.

In both cases, the Steelers will have ended the seasons of the teams who benefited from this inflexible application of stupid rules.

(edited to correct grammar in 2nd graf)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 3Sheets2thewind on 2002-01-21 11:56 ]</font>

[Captain America]

Would you mind providing us all with a list of circumstances under which rules should not be rigorously enforced? Please keep in mind that 'when they are stupid' isn't terribly convincing.

[jets fan]

Good point CA!

[Anonymous]

On 2002-01-21 12:04, Captain America wrote:
Would you mind providing us all with a list of circumstances under which rules should not be rigorously enforced? Please keep in mind that 'when they are stupid' isn't terribly convincing.


Only one: when enforcing the rules rewards the people who otherwise would not deserve reward. I think I made that pretty clear. And I think it's pretty clear that the Raiders had the better of that play, but the Patriots were rewarded based on a rigorous enforcement of the rules. I'm not going to list every rule because there are some rules that don't really lend themselves to interpretation, like 12 men on the field.

Also, when it pisses you off. I love seeing you get all worked up and snippy about stuff because you get this little rash over your upper lip... it's hysterical....

[Kid Rock]

The Raiders got burned by a bad rule. The same guy that made the original call was the one that reversed it. He did it based on the rules. It's a tough break, but did not win the game. After that, the Pats gained some yards and then kicked a 45 yards FG in those conditions. That was nearly miraculous. Then, the Raiders let NE walk down the field in OT. Too bad. Teams are patient. I am sure everyone saw the play from 25 years ago when Sugar Bear Hamilton got called for roughing the passer that allowed Oakland a second chance that they took advantage of to win the 1976 playoff game.

Two years ago, Tampa got hosed and the rule for catching the ball was changed.

The Steelers and Rams will be incredibly toguh to beat next week. In any event, the teams that made it to this round, Bears included, all demonstrated that were solid. If Miller had not gone down, who knows.

[Anonymous]

On 2002-01-21 12:43, Kid Rock wrote:
If Miller had not gone down, who knows.


Wouldn't have mattered. Miller didn't do anything before he went out. McNabb dominated. Eagles D dominated.

[Not Mike]

3S2TW, the Ravens/Titans analogy doesn't really apply.... in that situation, the play is dead whether the Titans continue to run th play or not.... it's like a false start, if no one hears the whistle and the defense recovers a fumble, it doesn't matter, the play never happened....

Personally, I think they made the right call in the Raiders/Pats game and I'm very critical of NFL officials.... ask yourself this, if Woodson hadn't hit his arm and Brady had instead had the ball slip out at the same point, is it a fumble or incomplete pass?? I've seen that happen more than a few times and it's always called incomplete.... rules are rules, even though they may suck...

[Abducens]

Both teams still could have won the game. Oakland still had the rest of the game and OT. Tennessee could have surprised all the Ravens and the 5 million watching on by not running McNair.

[Kid Rock]

Miller had thrown the ball 5 times before leaving. The Bears were in the game until the 4th quarter. The Eagles probably still would have won, but it's tough to see a starting QB go down. Ask the Raiders if Gannon would have made a difference last year. It's easy to say that nody would have beaten the Ravens defense that day either.

[toomuchtime]

As much as Oakland may have gotten screwed, they had plenty of chances to stop the Pats after that, and they also had a chance on offense before that series to basically run out the clock if they got a first down on 3rd and 1. They didn't do what they needed to win the game, and I think Charles Woodson himself said they should never have been in that position in the first place.

Besides, this is only fitting. In 1976, in a game that is remembered vividly in Boston (Boston sports fans are fanatical about what could have happened - regardless of how long ago it was), the Patriots played the Raiders in a playoff game. The Pats were up three at the end of the 4th quarter and the Raiders had just thrown an incomplete pass on 3rd and 17. The Pats only would have had to prevent the Raiders from gaining 17 yards on the next play to win the game. Instead, a phantom roughing the passer penalty was called against the Pats, giving the raiders 15 yards and a first down. The point of all of this is that the Raiders went on to win the Super Bowl that year due to a ridulous call made by the officials against the Patriots. This time it was the other way around, and people around here are finally saying that justice has been served.

[Captain America]

That's good, 3sheets. Keep showing us how clever you are.

[franklinma]

On 2002-01-21 16:29, toomuchtime wrote:
As much as Oakland may have gotten screwed, they had plenty of chances to stop the Pats after that, ...... and people around here are finally saying that justice has been served.


Agreed, the Raiders should have converted that 3rd and 1 and this thread would have never happened. A pattern of not finishing games over their entire season. What is a tuck anyway? Does it have to touch the QB's hip? Nonsense.

However, "justice has been served"? We in New England do not know the meaning. Every game played here MUST have some "justice to serve" or it's just not a game. Some sportswriter recently alluded to that but I can't pinpoint the article. NE sportfans may be loyal, they may be fanatic, and even knowledgable, but they will never be true fans of the sport and lately have been quite boorish. What's with that "Yankees suck" chat? How dumb can we be?

[quentin cassidy]

on espn yesterday, steve young explained the rule as it had been explained to him by the rules committee or whoever when it was initiated. the main point of debate is the meaning of the word "tuck". according to him (and what was explained to him), "tuck" should NOT be interpreted literally - the ball does not necessarily need to be against the side of the body for it to be considered a tuck. he said it has more to do with control, and when the qb's left hand touches the ball, that constitutes control. therefore, he thought it was a fumble.

aside from all this, it is a horrible rule. how can something that is not even a intended to be a PASS be ruled an incomplete PASS?

[Anonymous]

I still think the rule was misinterpreted. The point of the tuck rule is that if the QB stops his throwing motion and the ball comes out, it's a pass. In this case, the ball didn't come out from the throwing motion. His arm had stopped moving. The ball came out from the hit.

The rule is intended to address what happens when the QB is tucking away the ball, but the arm/ball still needs to be moving forward. Otherwise, take it to the extreme, a QB could fake a pass at the start of a play and 7 seconds later he could get hit and drop the ball -- fumble or incomplete?

In order to get a fumble out of the situation, one or two things has to happen," Pereira said yesterday. "You either have to get the ball tucked all the way back against the side of your body or you have to recock as if you're trying to throw it again. If the ball comes out at any time when you're tucking the ball back towards your body, whether it slips out of your hand with no contact, whether it hits your own hand as it did with Brady (Saturday) night, or if your opponent hits it out, it's an incomplete pass."

"It's not an uncommon thing," added Pereira, who said the rule was used at least 15 times during the regular season.

on espn yesterday, steve young explained the rule as it had been explained to him by the rules committee or whoever when it was initiated. the main point of debate is the meaning of the word "tuck". according to him (and what was explained to him), "tuck" should NOT be interpreted literally - the ball does not necessarily need to be against the side of the body for it to be considered a tuck. he said it has more to do with control, and when the qb's left hand touches the ball, that constitutes control. therefore, he thought it was a fumble.
I think the rule was applied incorrectly. I’d like to see one of the “at least 15 times during the regular season” where the rule was applied in a similar manner. I will agree with Pereira that the play is not an uncommon thing but I have never seen it called this way. I believe the referee made an honest mistake. The rest is hoopla.

[jets fan]

Guys, forget what Steve Young said and focus on my post which says what Mike Pereira (the director of officiating) said. Bottom line - the call WAS correct, whether any of us like it or not. You have to define "forward pass" somehow, and what happened in the game meets the current definition. We may not like the rule or agree with it, but it IS a rule which, like any other, has to be enforced. The competition committee will review the rule at the end of the year and see what's up, but remember one thing, this rule was enforced in the regular season a couple of times and nobody (not even the Raiders) was complaining about this rule before last Saturday night.

[Patience]

I agree that a tuck doesn't have to be against the body. But, even in the Young interpetation, I can't see how he could say there was control of the ball because the left hand touched. To me it still wasn't in control.

It was never in his left hand, Young is claiming control over the slight contact

[quentin cassidy]

Jetsfan,

Even if we concede that the correct call according to the rules was made, that doesn't mean that the Raiders didn't get screwed. What was Woodson supposed to do - slow down and wait until the ball is tucked before trying to swipe at it and force it loose? that's absolutely ludricous. the guy made a great play that would've won the game and didn't get credit for it because of some obscure rule that nobody besides the referees understood before saturday.

i'll illustrate the problem with your logic with a ridiculous example. say the NFL, in the interest of having more entertaining games the next couple weeeks (which is the same reason they made this 'tuck' rule), makes a rule that all teams playing against the Rams get 12 points for a TD instead of 6. according to you, as long as the Rams are vaguely aware of this rule, that when they lose it is not unfair.

[Not Mike]

On 2002-01-22 16:53, quentin cassidy wrote:
Jetsfan,

Even if we concede that the correct call according to the rules was made, that doesn't mean that the Raiders didn't get screwed. What was Woodson supposed to do - slow down and wait until the ball is tucked before trying to swipe at it and force it loose? that's absolutely ludricous. the guy made a great play that would've won the game and didn't get credit for it because of some obscure rule that nobody besides the referees understood before saturday.

i'll illustrate the problem with your logic with a ridiculous example. say the NFL, in the interest of having more entertaining games the next couple weeeks (which is the same reason they made this 'tuck' rule), makes a rule that all teams playing against the Rams get 12 points for a TD instead of 6. according to you, as long as the Rams are vaguely aware of this rule, that when they lose it is not unfair.


What a ridiculous example "using his logic".... that's not using jets fan's logic, that's using no logic..... the "incomplete rule" doesn't discriminate against any player or team... it's a rule, deal with it....

If you watch football, you've seen defensive players hit QBs arms COUNTLESS times, have the ball hit the ground, and have it ruled an incomplete pass.... do you always make a point to say "What was <insert name> supposed to do - slow down and wait until the ball is tucked before trying to swipe at it and force it loose? that's absolutely ludricous."?

Using YOUR logic, we should reward a team every time a player almost makes a good play... hey Stokely almost had that second foot down, TOUCHDOWN RAVENS!!

[frummie]

not exactly on the topic, but wasn't cool seeing a big game in the snow? I enjoyed it.

[jets fan]

Thank you "Not Mike", I would have said the same exact thing!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jets fan on 2002-01-23 06:55 ]</font>

[3rookie]

The Raiders should have called 'Tails'

[quentin cassidy]

Yes, of course I've seen a QB get hit while attempting a pass and it called an incomplete pass dozens of times, and in every one of those situations it made sense because the QB was trying to throw a pass. Brady was not throwing a pass, so there is no logic behind a rule that allows it to be called an incomplete pass!!!

In those situations, of course, it wouldn't make any sense for the defender to wait to hit him, because the QB is about to throw the ball. The best he can hope is that he'll hit him soon enough to cause an incompletion. When the QB is in the midst of 'tucking', having a rule that protects him from being hit, while giving him time to allude a pass rusher or find an open receiver without worrying about being sacked or fumbling, is totally unfair to the defense.

The rule also goes against what all football players learn when they are about 8 years old - that you should tuck the ball away quickly when you're about to be hit so that you don't fumble. With this rule, if you do tuck, you might end up fumbling, but if you don't, there's no chance of it.

Your ridiculous '1 foot inbounds example' is silly too, and doesn't really apply here. The white line clearly indicates what is inbounds and what is out-of-bounds. Here, no one really understands the definition of the word 'tuck'. I also don't see how it can be a great catch if he doesn't keep both feet in. are we now supposed to think that it wasn't a great play by woodson, because he didn't wait for brady to tuck?

[jets fan]

QC, the rule specifically states that, even if the QB is pulling the ball back towards his body, if the ball comes out at any point during the motion before it gets against his body, it's an incomplete pass. This is a clear cut application of the rule and, under the rule, the right call was made. The director of officiating agrees, and so must everyone else who has read the rule. There's no question that the rule, as it is written, was enforced properly. There was a very similar play with Kurt Warner in the regular season that nobody complained about.

Having said all this, you can argue the rule all you want. Whether or not you (or anyone) agree with the rule is a separate issue from what happened in the game. Now, the issue is "should the rule be changed?" The competition committee will meet and discuss what's up and they'll make the final determination.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jets fan on 2002-01-23 10:20 ]</font>

[quentin cassidy]

here's another perspective that you may not have considered:

instant replay isn't supposed to reverse a call unless there is conclusive evidence that shows that the wrong call was made on the field. the call on the field was a fumble. the word 'tuck' is not defined in the rule book. i don't care what the director of officiating says now, for all i know he is just covering his butt. the word 'tuck' is open to interpretation (just like pass interference, which is not reviewable). you've even said that the rule book is like the NFL's Bible, so if 'tuck' is not defined in the rule book, how is anyone supposed to know what is a tuck and what is not? one ref may say that it has to be against his body to be a tuck, another may say it only has to touch his non-throwing hand to be a 'tuck', and the call on the field is not reviewable, much less overturnable.

[Troy McClure]

Another issue jets fan, is should the refs have just recognized that the rule did not make sense and was not having the intended result and made a different call (based on all of the arguments above above Woodson waiting a second to hit him).

I think this was part of the controversy on a flukey call a couple of years ago (against the Raiders? - can anybody refresh me?), where the Sports Rporters (Sunday morning on ESPN) were saying the refs should do just that.

I don't believe the refs should have done that, but I think some people feel that way, including, perhaps, the posters above.

[jets fan]

Troy, in the middle of a game, you can't decide which rules you want to enforce and which rules you don't. If there's something wrong with the rule, that's a matter for the competition committee to discuss, not an on-the-job ref.

QC, the whole reason they got the call right is because there WAS conclusive evidence in the replay. Here is the key wording form the rule - according to ESPN, this is the exact wording:

Note 2: When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body

The replay conclusively showed 'intentional forward movement' and that he lost possession as he was 'attempting to tuck it back toward his body'. I don't see how you have any leg to stand on here - this seems pretty obvious to me. Anyone trying to debate the meaning of 'tuck' is trying to twist the rule around to make it say something that it doesn't - the meaning is simple.

[quentin cassidy]

look at it this way - if the play had not been reviewed, would anyone be saying that new england got screwed? didn't think so, because it was so obvious that even brady knew it was a fumble (based on watching him walk off the field with his head down knowing that the game was over) .

it was funny to watch him in the post-game. he said "yeah, of course i was trying to throw the ball" (smiling) "how do you like that answer?"

[Patience]

The reason the players walked off the field is they didn't know the rule, neither did the coaches or the announcers.

It doesn't change the fact, that the refs got the call right.

[quentin cassidy]

so, you're saying that the NFL can create rules, not explain them to anyone, and then when they make a correct call on the field based on those rules, that there is nothing wrong with that?

and don't even try to say that it is the players' fault for not understanding the rules. steve young was probably one of the most intelligent players ever, and the explanation he gave doesn't agree with what the rule says. it obviously has something to do with the communication of the new rules, not with players' comprehension of those rules.

[toomuchtime]

It doesn't matter if it seems like some team got screwed, the bottom line is a rule is a rule. The rule seems to be created so that an official does not have to make a judgment call on what the intention of the quarterback is. The bottom line is that Brady was moving his arm in the same motion as when he began to "fake" the pass. The entire motion constituted him bringing the ball forward form behind his head to bringing it past his head with the ball still in his hand to him bringing the ball into his chest. He had not yet completed the entire motion when the ball was knocked forward out of his hand. What everyone is calling a "tuck" is not an issue because the word tuck was not in the official's explanation, only the part about the WB's arm's motion.

Then the question is, is it a fair rule? The answer is yes, because this is not even the first time this season that a play like this happened (see above, Kurt Warner, also note same result). It takes subjective judgment away from the officials in that they cannot judge a QB's intention. You cannot make a call based on what you think a QB was going to do, only on what he actually does - move his arm forward. Had the ball slipped out of his hand earlier, even though he wasn't going to pass, people would simply agree that it was an incomplete pass, what is the difference here - he was faking a pass and the ball got knocked forward out of his hand.

Also, you cannot say that the Raiders got screwed because they had ample opportunities to win the game on their own. They had a third and one with less than 2 minutes left, and the Pats had no timeouts (actually they also had second and 1), which they then blew. When the Pats got the ball after the overturned play, they were still on the 42, and still needed a first down, which the Raiders allowed them to do. Then the Raiders could have stopped the PAts in OT, which they didn't. They screwed themselves a lot more than the officials did regardless of what the correct call was.

[Ray Finkle]

The controversial call this reminded me of was the fumble recovery where momentum carried the (Raider?) defender into the end zone. The ref called it a safety. The rule book stated that if a ball is intercepted and the player's momentum carries him into the end zone, then it's a touchback. But there was no such rule for a fumble. So they called it a safety. I'm not sure if they revised that rule or not, but they definitely should.

The problem with the Brady call was that this play was not what the rule was intended to cover. The reason the rule is in the book is for when quarterbacks lose control of the ball while trying to hold back on a throw. I'm sure there were times during the season that a quarterback pump faked and the ball accidentally came out. In that case it's an incompletion, no matter when the ball came out during the fake. But Brady didn't lose control of the ball during the pump fake. After the fake was over, Woodson knocked the ball loose. That should be a fumble.

[toomuchtime]

On 2002-01-23 14:45, quentin cassidy wrote:
so, you're saying that the NFL can create rules, not explain them to anyone, and then when they make a correct call on the field based on those rules, that there is nothing wrong with that?

and don't even try to say that it is the players' fault for not understanding the rules. steve young was probably one of the most intelligent players ever, and the explanation he gave doesn't agree with what the rule says. it obviously has something to do with the communication of the new rules, not with players' comprehension of those rules.


This is why there are officials, it is their job to know all the rules, this is why the NFL pays them a lot of money to work 16 weeks a year. Every sport has intricate rules, that not everyone can know. This is also not a new rule. Also, didn't Steve Young have a boatload of concussions? It doesn't matter what he thinks, he is not a paid official. IT also doesn't matter what you or I think is fair. Do you think it is fair that we have to take the actuarial exams? No it is not. But we do it anyway, because that is our rule. I do not understand the rules for Professional Development in the SoA, but I will still have to deal with it.

[Not Mike]

Do all of you guys read the rules to candidates that are sent out to take exams?? If you did something subject to disqualification, is it fair to claim ignorance and expect to have your exam graded?

Do you really think that all of the coaches and players read the entire NFL rulebook?? I've watched enough football to know for CERTAIN that many players and coaches (and I think even sometimes officials) don't know all of the rules... I've never picked up the rulebook and I'm certain that I know more rules than a lot of those players...

John Clayton, football expert, stated unequivocally a few years ago that the Music City Miracle WAS a forward pass and Buffalo got robbed.... even though I (and 99.9% of unbiased football fans) know for sure that that is a completely incorrect statement... are we all wrong because he's on ESPN? Take a poll of all ex-NFL QBs, not just some clown that's on ESPN....

Either way, the rule will probably be changed to something like "Once the arm is beyond parallel, it is no longer a forward pass" or something dumb like that....

As bad as this has turned out, the one rule that needs to be looked at more closely is the quick whistle rule (or at least these refs need to be schooled in not blowing their whistles on potential fumbles)...

[Patience]

In that situation you would have to assume that every loose ball is a fumble.

So every replay would then have to conclusively prove it wasn't a fumble to reverse it.

otherwise where would you draw the line on the whistle? This would create a lot more replays. Many incompleted passes would have to be considered complete, until a replay as well.

This would be a mess. I feel the current way is better. If the replay is a luxury, that helps correct calls, why is it so terrible that it can't be used on all plays?

[Not Mike]

I don't think it would cause an excessive number of new replays..... I think it's completely acceptable for the ref to not blow the whistle, let the play go and then say that he thought it was down.... but, he shouldn't be blowing that whistle unless he is CERTAIN it is down...

Teams will still have a limited number of challenges (I think two per game is too few, actually), and they still get burned a TO if it's wrong....

It's absolutely ridiculous when a play like the Franks fumble in the first series this past weekend can't be reviewed... the ref didn't even blow the whistle until the Rams were running down the field.... clearly the fumble had happened AND been recovered WELL BEFORE the whistle... why is this not reviewable.... at the very least, the play should result in a change of possession....

As far as completions, you can always review whether or not a pass is complete, so I don't see the effect here (except on the rare play where a ref blows it dead, but the player gets up and is running for the endzone)....

[jets fan]

No system of officiating, no matter what it says about whistle-blowing, will be free from error. Inadvertant whistles, although very annoying, tend to be the rare exception rather than the rule. If there is some way of improving on the current system, I'd be all for it (as anyone would). As far as inadvertant whistles, realistically, I think we're dealing with a "minimize the error" type problem here rather than an "eliminate the error" problem.

[Anonymous]

jets fan, I wanted only to CTM but I have been LMAO for the past few minutes since after reading The director of officiating agrees. WOW!!! Let me tell you my surprise. Of course, if his official was wrong then he would readily come forward and say officiating undermined the Raider’s Superbowl hopes. Yeah that’s it.

The reason the players walked off the field is they didn't know the rule, neither did the coaches or the announcers. Neither did the fans watching, neither did the other officials, neither did Kurt Warner’s mom, neither did my Aunt Molly Sue, neither did the Eskimo group watching on Direct TV.

It doesn't change the fact, that the refs got the call right. It wasn’t right at the time but I guess with the wacky interpretation never before used in a single NFL football game it is right now. Oakland, you lose!!!

And I am still laughing about the director comment. :lol:

[jets fan]

WOW!!! Let me tell you my surprise. Of course, if his official was wrong then he would readily come forward and say officiating undermined the Raider’s Superbowl hopes. Yeah that’s it.

I am LMAO at your totally 100% wrong quote. I have news for you, why don't you check out the following quote from nfl.com (http://www.nfl.com/insider/2001/officials072401.html), before you decide to open your mouth:

"Pereira unveils a revised evaluation system "that is fair and involves officials to a greater degree."

"You are right until we come to a consensus that a wrong call was made," Pereira says. "Grades will not be a surprise."

Seven game reviewers from the league officiating department will grade game films, noting plays and calls that deserve review. The process eventually includes conversations with the referee of that crew and the official who did or did not make the call in question. (For more on the officials evaluation system, please see the Kickoff Issue of NFL Insider, on newsstands in early September.)

Pereira assures the officials that all considerations will be included in their evaluations.

Upson details the revised grade-point system for correct calls, marginal calls, and incorrect calls, causing most in the room to do some quick math. He also announces that 10 percent of each official’s season grade will be based on his personal evaluation of aspects such as professionalism."

If you don't know what this means, I'll explain it to you. This means that the officials are graded on their performance through a system that the DOO (Pereira) helped design. Yes, Draco, that means Pereira WOULD say, without hesitation, that the wrong call was made. Think before you speak.

It wasn’t right at the time but I guess with the wacky interpretation never before used in a single NFL football game it is right now. Oakland, you lose!!!

Now, check out this quote from ESPN.com's Pats website (http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2002/0120/1314728.html):

"In a similar play in the second game of the season, the Patriots recovered an apparent fumble by Vinny Testaverde of the New York Jets but it was ruled an incomplete pass after being reviewed."

Now I don't have time to try to physically open your mouth wide enough to fit your foot inside of it, so I'll just sit here LMAO instead.

[Oliver Klozov]

I haven't read it, but I am certain that there is a pretty good definition of what constitutes Holding in the rule book, too. But the refs do not call every instance of holding that they see, particularly during the playoffs. Why not? Because they exercise professional judgement, and allow the players to "play the game".

By definition the ref made the right call, but anybody who knows anything about football knows that that was a fumble.

[Patience]

also as for assuming that the director wouldn't criticize the ref, you are also wrong. Right after the incident the director commented that he can't understand how the ref got the call wrong in the first place.

[3rookie]

If the "fumble" happened with over 2 minutes remaining, it would have been a fumble, and this board would not exist. Patriots would have challenged it? No way.

[franklinma]

If the ref had called it incomplete from the start, would upstairs have asked to review? If it was called incomplete and before the 2 minute warning it's a certainty Gruden would have had it reviewed. You can quibble all you want but the real issue is what is the definition of a tuck? I say it's when you regain control of the ball after faking a pass. For some foolish reason, the ref thought it meant hip attachement. Pit will roll so it really doesn't matter.

[Patience]

Whether the Pats would have challenged it is irrelevant. They had no time outs left they couldn't have challenged it.

But on a play that pivital, that would virtually end the game, of course they would challenge if they could, regardless of whether you thought it was the right call initially.

[Ray Finkle]

Best picture I've seen of the call. Does this look like a pass to you?

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/_photos/2002-01-24-badcall.jpg

[quentin cassidy]

Before jets fan gets all bent out of shape and starts quoting note 2 again in response to the post above, let me add to what franklinma said:

Note 2 is not meant to cover situations when the QB is hit. It is plain common sense that when a hit causes a fumble, and the QB isn't in the process of throwing the ball, it is a fumble. If I read the entire rulebook, I'm sure I could come up with dozens of examples of things that are just common sense, but not specified. I wouldn't be surprised if the officials even know the intention of the rule (since i'm sure they discuss all new rules very carefully before each season), but no one has mentioned it in the continuing effort to make it sound like they made the right call.

In the play noted above where Vinny T. fumbled, was he hit first, or did the ball just slip out of his hand?

[Ducky]

Anybody think that the Raiders would have a better shot of beating the Steelers at 57 Field than the Pats do?

[Patience]

I picked the Pats to win in the pool last week.

However, I believed the Raiders are the better team. But the Pats had the bye week, the weather & the Raiders travelling 3000 miles to get there.

For this week I think the Pats match up better against Pitt, they could keep it low scoring which gives them a better chance.

The Raiders wouldn't have enough defense to stop Pitt and I believe Pitt's defense would force Oakland into mistakes and turnovers.

[Anonymous]

On 2002-01-25 10:15, Patience wrote:
Whether the Pats would have challenged it is irrelevant. They had no time outs left they couldn't have challenged it.

If a team calls a timeout that they don't have, they are penalized. Can they call a challenge and if they lose it, take the penalty for having no timeout?

[Patience]

I listen to WFAN in NY and they raised the same question to the league office. Without timeouts you are not allowed a review, they won't accept the penalty if it is not overturned.

[Anonymous]

jets fan, Pereira is ultimately responsible for officiating. The call in question decided a game. Oakland would have kneeled out the game on the fumble call. Should a wrong call have been made in this situation his job would be called into question. I believe he is biased. Perhaps you see things differently. If you do, then illicit drugs may be the cause of your delusions. I am sure you believe the correct call was made, but I think you can also realize the Pereira has a motivation to say the call was correct whether he believes it or not.

I’d love to see this similar play. I have seen many, many plays that were ruled an incomplete pass after being thought to be a fumble. I also recognize that you can throw an incomplete pass on a pump fake. The play last week was a fumble. Pereira is biased.

Ducky, I think the Raiders would have a much better chance of beating the Steelers.

[Ducky]

I think the Pats run game may be stronger than the Raiders, so I think that may make tomorrow's matchup better than what would have been. Guess we'll never know.

[Anonymous]

I can name four running backs for the Raiders. The Raider have the best offensive line in the NFL. IMHO, the Raiders have the better running game.

[Anonymous]

Hey, jets fan, the Steelers just had a complete pass overturned on instant replay. I was wondering if you could help explain the call for me. The receiver catches the ball with both hands and falls inbounds where the ball slips to his wrist and arms but at no time leaves contact with either arm. This happens as the receiver’s body continues out-of-bounds. The referee overturns the reception by instant replay claiming the receiver didn’t have control of the ball until he was out-of-bounds. Do you agree with this call? :smile: At what time did the receiver establish control of the ball? :lol: Why?

[Mick Fan]

Ugh! The Pats are in the SUPER BOWL. :sad:

They're the worst team to make the Super Bowl since the 1994 San Diego Chargers. Guess who the Chargers beat in the AFC Championship? That's right ... The Steelers.

With the overturned calls (and lack of some) in this season, especially the AFC playoffs, we need to get rid of replay because the officials don't know how to administrate it.

[toomuchtime]

On 2002-01-27 18:00, Mick Fan wrote:
Ugh! The Pats are in the SUPER BOWL. :sad:

They're the worst team to make the Super Bowl since the 1994 San Diego Chargers. Guess who the Chargers beat in the AFC Championship? That's right ... The Steelers.

With the overturned calls (and lack of some) in this season, especially the AFC playoffs, we need to get rid of replay because the officials don't know how to administrate it.


What does that say about the Steelers?

How can you say that the Pats are the worst team since the Chargers? What is bad about them besides their 1-3 start? They have now won 10 out of 11 and their only loss is a 7-point loss to the Rams - who they have shown they can compete with. They went into the supposedly best AFC team's house and beat them up. They stopped the best running game in the league, and made Kordell cry. The only reason it was even close was because of all the stupid penalties the Pats made.

As far as replay goes, the Pats got screwed on two of the replays in yesterday's game. The first was the Steelers fumble when the ref said the player's head had touched the ground, and the other was when Troy Brown caught a ball on 3rd down and the replay showed that he had his hand under the ball but the ref said there was not enough evidence. But you know what, we aren't going to complain.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: toomuchtime on 2002-01-28 08:47 ]</font>

[MathGuy]

Do you think that maybe the Patriots won the game because they held Bettis to 8 yards rushing? Or because they intercepted Stewart 3 times? Or because they have the best "backup" quarterback in the league? Or because their special teams rock?
Boohoo :sad: I hate replay!

[quentin cassidy]

i didn't watch the whole game live, so i was wondering if the steelers challenged the FG block that was returned for a TD? it looked like there may have been a forward lateral, definitely close enough to take another look at.

i also thought the non-reversal of the Hines Ward reception with about 30-40 seconds left in the first half (that would've put Pitt in FG range) was a bad call. the ref said he wasn't able to see whether the tip of the ball hit the ground or not.

[Anonymous]

On 2002-01-27 18:00, Mick Fan wrote:
Ugh! The Pats are in the SUPER BOWL. :sad:

They're the worst team to make the Super Bowl since the 1994 San Diego Chargers.

Last year's Giants weren't very good either.