|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279 |
7 times out of 10 that will be called an incompletion in the NFL. 10 times out of 10, when the ball is rattled loose by contact with defender, it will be ruled a fumble. It won't matter what the arm motion was. Even if you disagree with that, in this case, the arm wasn't moving forward when the contact occurred. The ball was loose when the arm began moving forward. When the ball is loose, the player doesn't have possession. Thus, the ruling on the field stands. Touchdown. The ball could not have been knocked loose when the arm was going forward because it had to be going backwards when it contacted Ike Taylor's helmet. Steve
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000)
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957 |
That exact play would be called differently more than half the time. It wasn't an egregious call, but anyone pretending it was cut and dry is just lying to them self. the arm wasn't moving forward when the contact occurred. Completely irrelevant. The rule is whether they arm was moving forward when the fumble occurred. Contact has absolutely nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,522
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,522 |
7 times out of 10 that will be called an incompletion in the NFL. Since they only get it right 3 out of ten, they need to work on that. Sorry, everything thing you posted is completely wrong (except maybe the 7 out of ten, refs get fooled too easy by the arm flail). Your hate for the Steelers is clouding your objectivity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,522
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,522 |
That exact play would be called differently more than half the time. It wasn't an egregious call, but anyone pretending it was cut and dry is just lying to them self. the arm wasn't moving forward when the contact occurred. Completely irrelevant. The rule is whether they arm was moving forward when the fumble occurred. Contact has absolutely nothing to do with it. WTF do you think he meant? Wow, this is really bothering you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957 |
That exact play would be called differently more than half the time. It wasn't an egregious call, but anyone pretending it was cut and dry is just lying to them self. the arm wasn't moving forward when the contact occurred. Completely irrelevant. The rule is whether they arm was moving forward when the fumble occurred. Contact has absolutely nothing to do with it. WTF do you think he meant? Wow, this is really bothering you. He meant what he typed, I am sure. And no, it doesn't bother me. I already said the call wasn't egregious. Dishonesty, because you like the results, bothers me. It was a close call. Stop acting like it was something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279 |
That exact play would be called differently more than half the time. It wasn't an egregious call, but anyone pretending it was cut and dry is just lying to them self. the arm wasn't moving forward when the contact occurred. Completely irrelevant. The rule is whether they arm was moving forward when the fumble occurred. Contact has absolutely nothing to do with it. Contact has everything to do with it, because it's the contact that loosened Sanchez's grip on the ball. Steve
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000)
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957 |
Contact has nothing to do with the rule and thus with the call. He could have been humping him and holding his arm for 5 seconds and yet if his arm is moving forward before he loses his grip, it's not a fumble.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 382
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 382 |
Let's just say that there was a couple of bad calls - that went against the Pittsburgh Steelers - just as there is every week.
It is as if the ref's are against Pittsburgh and that they do everything they can to see anything illegal - against Pittsburgh and that they are blind as a bat when it comes to the activities that the other teams does against Pittsburgh - which is not called.
As far as some of those ref's goes - they need to get rid of a bunch of them and send them back down to the minor league where they belong - after some of the [bleep] calls that I have seen that were missed the last couple of weeks in the Steelers games.
The end result is that New York sent 53 Jets to make sure that the Steelers got to the Super Bowl in Arlington Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,522
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,522 |
That exact play would be called differently more than half the time. It wasn't an egregious call, but anyone pretending it was cut and dry is just lying to them self. the arm wasn't moving forward when the contact occurred. Completely irrelevant. The rule is whether they arm was moving forward when the fumble occurred. Contact has absolutely nothing to do with it. WTF do you think he meant? Wow, this is really bothering you. He meant what he typed, I am sure. And no, it doesn't bother me. I already said the call wasn't egregious. Dishonesty, because you like the results, bothers me. It was a close call. Stop acting like it was something else. Never said it wasn't close. I said it irks me that the QBs flail their arms to try to get the call. So I suggested the rule should be changed. But your Steeler-hate seems to be hurting your reading comprehension as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279 |
Contact has nothing to do with the rule and thus with the call. He could have been humping him and holding his arm for 5 seconds and yet if his arm is moving forward before he loses his grip, it's not a fumble. You're right that contact has nothing to do with the rule, but because the ball contacted Taylor's helmet before the arm began moving forward, the ball was loose before the arm began moving forward. Pretty simple, really. There could be a variety of reasons the ball came loose. It could be slippery. Sanchez could have broken fingers. Slipperiness and broken fingers have nothing to do with the rule either, but if they cause the ball to become loose in his grip, it's still a fumble. You can't ignore the contact when it was the contact that loosened Sanchez's grip on the ball. Steve
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000)
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,811
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,811 |
Replay saved the day for the Steelers. In real time I would have argued that his arm was moving forward. In slow motion, I think they made the correct call or at least it was close enough to leave it stand.
laissez les bons temps rouler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279 |
Replay saved the day for the Steelers. In real time I would have argued that his arm was moving forward. In slow motion, I think they made the correct call or at least it was close enough to leave it stand. It's a little hard to say replay saved the day, because the ruling after the replay was the same as the ruling on the field. Nevertheless, the slo-mo replay should settle any controversy. Besides all of the above discussion, notice also that the ball did not advance. It could not be called a forward pass, and thus it could not be called an incomplete pass. A lateral (or backward) pass that ends up on the turf is not a dead ball. The ball came loose at the 19� or 20 yard line, and Gay picked it up at the 19. Steve
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000)
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,811
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,811 |
Agree, however what I meant to say was that in real time I would have thought the refs made the wrong call.
laissez les bons temps rouler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957 |
Besides all of the above discussion, notice also that the ball did not advance. It could not be called a forward pass, and thus it could not be called an incomplete pass. A lateral (or backward) pass that ends up on the turf is not a dead ball. The ball came loose at the 19� or 20 yard line, and Gay picked it up at the 19.
Steve
The ball landed inches from the 20 yard line. The ball left his hand well behind the 20 yard line. It doesn't matter where it was picked up, it only matters where it landed. It was a forward pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 46,745
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 46,745 |
So if the RB fumbles forward, it's a pass?
Camp is where you make it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957 |
So if the RB fumbles forward, it's a pass? Uh...no. Steal'er boy above claimed that it couldn't be a forward pass because he claimed it landed on the 19 yard line. I'm just pointing out that's not where the ball landed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,279 |
The ball landed inches from the 20 yard line. The ball left his hand well behind the 20 yard line.
It doesn't matter where it was picked up, it only matters where it landed. It was a forward pass. I admit that where the ball left his hand and where it hit the turf is a subjective call, especially in a YouTube video, and you should too. But the way I see it is that most of his body was well past the 20, and his arm was cocked behind his head when the ball rattled loose. From that perspective the ball was very close to the 20 yard line when he let go of it. And, it's fairly clear that it landed on the chalk of the "2" in the "20", more than mere inches from the stripe. I judge that it didn't go forward, and at best it traveled parallel to the 20. So if you're calling it a pass, it's definitely not a forward pass. I continue to maintain it was a fumble rattled loose when the ball hit Taylor's helmet as Sanchez cocked his arm, so as his arm went forward he didn't have possession. That's probably what the referees saw, but regardless, there was not enough evidence in the slo-mo replay to overturn an on-the-field live action call. You can see what you want, but the Jets didn't play well enough to win. The Steelers did, barely, but can't be proud of their second half performance. Nevertheless, on to Super Bowl 45. They'll have to play better to win that one. By the way, I'm not sure what you meant be calling me "Steal'er boy," and not "Steelerboy," but it didn't go unnoticed. Steve
"I was a deerhunter long before I was a man." ~Gene Wensel's Come November (2000)
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." ~Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957 |
The ball landed inches from the 20 yard line. The ball left his hand well behind the 20 yard line.
It doesn't matter where it was picked up, it only matters where it landed. It was a forward pass. I admit that where the ball left his hand and where it hit the turf is a subjective call, especially in a YouTube video, and you should too. But the way I see it is that most of his body was well past the 20, and his arm was cocked behind his head when the ball rattled loose. From that perspective the ball was very close to the 20 yard line when he let go of it. And, it's fairly clear that it landed on the chalk of the "2" in the "20", more than mere inches from the stripe. I judge that it didn't go forward, and at best it traveled parallel to the 20. So if you're calling it a pass, it's definitely not a forward pass. I continue to maintain it was a fumble rattled loose when the ball hit Taylor's helmet as Sanchez cocked his arm, so as his arm went forward he didn't have possession. That's probably what the referees saw, but regardless, there was not enough evidence in the slo-mo replay to overturn an on-the-field live action call. You can see what you want, but the Jets didn't play well enough to win. The Steelers did, barely, but can't be proud of their second half performance. Nevertheless, on to Super Bowl 45. They'll have to play better to win that one. By the way, I'm not sure what you meant be calling me "Steal'er boy," and not "Steelerboy," but it didn't go unnoticed. Steve "Steal'erboy".... is not a slight at you, that's what I have taken to calling that team until such time as they win something without "help". You can see what you want, but the Jets didn't play well enough to win. The Steelers did I don't get that statement. Pittsburgh only won by 5 points, If the pass had been ruled an incompletion, Pittsburgh doesn't get that TD. 24-7 = 17. How is losing 17-19 playing well enough to win? That call decided the game. The ball hit the turf roughly the length of the football from the 20 yard line. The camera angles are tough to tell where the ball was when it was released relative to the yardage, however, we know where his back foot is... roughly 18" behind the 20 yard line. The ball is roughly equal in distance from his body to his back foot, IF as claimed that the ball left before he started his arm forward it IS IMPOSSIBLE for the ball to be forward of his rear foot. As I have pointed out, none of this is as clear and obvious as the Pittsburgh faithful would like to make it. It was a subjective call and a close call and had "incompletion" been called on the field, it probably would have been upheld in the replay booth. The play was simply too close to be overturned either way.
![[Linked Image]](http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member651.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,071
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,071 |
I don't get that statement. Pittsburgh only won by 5 points, If the pass had been ruled an incompletion, Pittsburgh doesn't get that TD. 24-7 = 17. How is losing 17-19 playing well enough to win? That call decided the game.
So you're assuming that the rest of the game would have been played exactly the same even with the call going the other way? You know it doesn't work like that and the score dictates the offensive and defensive play calling. It's pretty safe to assume the defense would have gotten more aggressive with a closer game earlier than it did and the offense more than likely would have opened it up more. Would they have still won? No one knows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,957 |
I don't get that statement. Pittsburgh only won by 5 points, If the pass had been ruled an incompletion, Pittsburgh doesn't get that TD. 24-7 = 17. How is losing 17-19 playing well enough to win? That call decided the game.
So you're assuming that the rest of the game would have been played exactly the same even with the call going the other way? You know it doesn't work like that and the score dictates the offensive and defensive play calling. It's pretty safe to assume the defense would have gotten more aggressive with a closer game earlier than it did and the offense more than likely would have opened it up more. Would they have still won? No one knows. How is my assumption any different than his? You gonna play "didn't play well enough" logic in a 5 point game, where the call in question was worth 7 points, it cuts both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
594 members (222Sako, 12344mag, 160user, 240NMC, 1lessdog, 17CalFan, 67 invisible),
2,248
guests, and
1,258
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,285
Posts18,486,876
Members73,967
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
