NFL rules question
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
- RickRund
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
- Location: Post Falls ID
NFL rules question
This happened again. On the review on the complete/incomplete pass to Bryant, he once again went onto the field w/o a helmet. That is two weeks in a row. I thought that was a 15 yard penalty.
msubobcats@outlook.com
Audiatur et altura pars: Let both sides be fairly heard.
Audi alteram partem: listen to the other side.
Audiatur et altura pars: Let both sides be fairly heard.
Audi alteram partem: listen to the other side.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 6509
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm
Re: NFL rules question
it's not actually the rule. it is the officials discretion when it comes to players on the sideline coming on the field.RickRund wrote:This happened again. On the review on the complete/incomplete pass to Bryant, he once again went onto the field w/o a helmet. That is two weeks in a row. I thought that was a 15 yard penalty.
that play made me sad. from what i've seen they got it "right" based on the rule but it's just awful. this coming from a vikes fan that hates both the cowboys and packers. just don't see how a guy can make a play like that, come down with two feet, lunge for the goal line, and because the the ball moves it's all for naught. oh ya...and the fact that they called it a catch and then over-ruled it is tough to watch.
two weeks in a row i had to watch the officials be WAY too big of a part in the outcome of the game.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: NFL rules question
This time the officials got it right. Last week was bizarre and never explained.ilovethecats wrote:it's not actually the rule. it is the officials discretion when it comes to players on the sideline coming on the field.RickRund wrote:This happened again. On the review on the complete/incomplete pass to Bryant, he once again went onto the field w/o a helmet. That is two weeks in a row. I thought that was a 15 yard penalty.
that play made me sad. from what i've seen they got it "right" based on the rule but it's just awful. this coming from a vikes fan that hates both the cowboys and packers. just don't see how a guy can make a play like that, come down with two feet, lunge for the goal line, and because the the ball moves it's all for naught. oh ya...and the fact that they called it a catch and then over-ruled it is tough to watch.
two weeks in a row i had to watch the officials be WAY too big of a part in the outcome of the game.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
- RickRund
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
- Location: Post Falls ID
Re: NFL rules question
So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....
And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....
And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.
msubobcats@outlook.com
Audiatur et altura pars: Let both sides be fairly heard.
Audi alteram partem: listen to the other side.
Audiatur et altura pars: Let both sides be fairly heard.
Audi alteram partem: listen to the other side.
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
Re: NFL rules question
[img]http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01 ... 86cd7a.jpg[/img][img]http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01 ... d57b01.jpg[/img]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- cats2506
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 9228
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:35 pm
- Location: Lewistown
Re: NFL rules question
The head of officials for the NFL was on the NFL Network and explained the punt play.RickRund wrote:So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....
And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.
The call on the field was fumble, not a muff. A fumble indicates that the player had control of the ball and lost control, a muff indicates that the player never had control.
In review there was not enough evidence to say that he never had control and overturn the call from fumble to muff. Then since there is no evidence of loss of control before he contacted the ground with his knee, he was down at that point. The rule is different for a punt returner that for a receiver, contrary to what the guy (expert official) said during the game.
He also said that if the call on the field had been a muff it might have gone the other way, since control was really uncertain either way.
On the catch play I think it has been explained above, but he did make a point that the rule is written so that the first priority of a receiver is to secure the ball, and that the so called 3rd step was just his toe hitting the ground, also that the reach for the goal line is minimal and they felt that it was just momentum of his body. After the ball contacts the ground it comes completely loose from the receivers hands as he rolls over.
Last edited by cats2506 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
PlayerRep wrote:The point is not the record of the teams UM beat, it's the quality and record of the teams UM almost beat.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: NFL rules question
So, your saying these rules are so confusing that no one actually knows what they are doing? Does that mean the Big Sky refs are actually pretty good, as they don't know what they are doing many times?cats2506 wrote:The head of officials for the NFL was on the NFL Network and explained the punt play.RickRund wrote:So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....
And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.
The call on the field was fumble, not a muff. A fumble indicates that the player had control of the ball and lost control, a muff indicates that the player never had control.
In review there was not enough evidence to say that he never had control and overturn the call from fumble to muff. Then since there is no evidence of loss of control before he contacted the ground with his knee, he was down at that point. The rule is different for a punt returner that for a receiver, contrary to what the guy (expert official) said during the game.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
- cats2506
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 9228
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:35 pm
- Location: Lewistown
Re: NFL rules question
Hate to say it, but I called the final result for both plays almost immediately.allcat wrote:So, your saying these rules are so confusing that no one actually knows what they are doing? Does that mean the Big Sky refs are actually pretty good, as they don't know what they are doing many times?cats2506 wrote:The head of officials for the NFL was on the NFL Network and explained the punt play.RickRund wrote:So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....
And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.
The call on the field was fumble, not a muff. A fumble indicates that the player had control of the ball and lost control, a muff indicates that the player never had control.
In review there was not enough evidence to say that he never had control and overturn the call from fumble to muff. Then since there is no evidence of loss of control before he contacted the ground with his knee, he was down at that point. The rule is different for a punt returner that for a receiver, contrary to what the guy (expert official) said during the game.
PlayerRep wrote:The point is not the record of the teams UM beat, it's the quality and record of the teams UM almost beat.
- TIrwin24
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:00 pm
- Location: Bow, WA
Re: NFL rules question
After watching the reviews, I think that Bryant made that catch and the refs got it wrong.
"I've always followed in my father's footsteps, not necessarily because I wanted to, but because it is in my spirit."
-Singlefin Yellow
-Singlefin Yellow
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
Re: NFL rules question
Read the rules I posted. They made the right call.TIrwin24 wrote:After watching the reviews, I think that Bryant made that catch and the refs got it wrong.
- WeedKillinCat
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2022
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:19 pm
- Location: Billings Heights
Re: NFL rules question
Supposedly they will review that rule in the off season. I think the current rule is dumb and cost my Lions a win in 2010 against the Bears-Thus the Calvin Johnson rule.
1993 Agronomy
If You Want To Get To Heaven-----You Gotta Raise A Little Hell
If You Want To Get To Heaven-----You Gotta Raise A Little Hell
- CatBlitz
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7584
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:27 pm
- Location: B Town
Re: NFL rules question
Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the griz blew a 22-0 lead.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: NFL rules question
I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
- CatBlitz
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7584
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:27 pm
- Location: B Town
Re: NFL rules question
So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?allcat wrote:I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the griz blew a 22-0 lead.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: NFL rules question
Are we still talking specifically about Dallas, or is this general question?CatBlitz wrote:So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?allcat wrote:I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
- CatBlitz
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7584
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:27 pm
- Location: B Town
Re: NFL rules question
General question but it can be compared to Dez's catch after we establish what actually constitutes what people think a catch is...allcat wrote:Are we still talking specifically about Dallas, or is this general question?CatBlitz wrote:So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?allcat wrote:I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the griz blew a 22-0 lead.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: NFL rules question
General, then yes it should be a catch. I do agree with keeping the rule, when it pertains to Dallas (you do realize they are America's team and as such should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world).CatBlitz wrote:General question but it can be compared to Dez's catch after we establish what actually constitutes what people think a catch is...allcat wrote:Are we still talking specifically about Dallas, or is this general question?CatBlitz wrote:So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?allcat wrote:I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: NFL rules question
The NFL really needs to eliminate some of the inconsistencies in the rules governing what constitutes a legal catch. For example, the standard is lower if the receiver gets the ball across the goal line, or even if he's reaching for the goal lne, than if he remains in the field of play, and that makes no sense to me. The standard should be the same, regardless of whether the receiver gets the ball into the EZ, is reaching for the EZ, or is nowhere near the EZ.
- CatBlitz
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7584
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:27 pm
- Location: B Town
Re: NFL rules question
And what gets me is even if the guy catches it, comes down in bounds with both feet and falls out of bounds but the ball hits the ground at some point, that area not even in the field of play is governing a play after the fact. That makes no sense to me.John K wrote:The NFL really needs to eliminate some of the inconsistencies in the rules governing what constitutes a legal catch. For example, the standard is lower if the receiver gets the ball across the goal line, or even if he's reaching for the goal lne, than if he remains in the field of play, and that makes no sense to me. The standard should be the same, regardless of whether the receiver gets the ball into the EZ, is reaching for the EZ, or is nowhere near the EZ.
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the griz blew a 22-0 lead.
- DriftCat
- 1st Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:39 pm
- Location: Billings, MT
Re: NFL rules question
Sorry to bring "the catch that never was" up again but I still have not completely healed from that overturned call.
Quick question for discussion as it relates to that specific play......if Dez does everything the same except as he is falling towards the goal line a defender punches the ball out before he hits the ground, is it ruled a fumble or incomplete pass?
Discuss.
Quick question for discussion as it relates to that specific play......if Dez does everything the same except as he is falling towards the goal line a defender punches the ball out before he hits the ground, is it ruled a fumble or incomplete pass?
Discuss.
F.K.A. - MM7CAT