I don't know the rule too well myself, but I even I don't think possesion matters if a defensive player kicks it out the ball would go back to the offense.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Game Thread W8 - New England V Pittsburgh (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Andy Hicks
- Start date
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
of course the real issue is new england doesnt really have a legit threat to stretch the field. ocho and price? nope. call TO, lol.
Run It Up
Footballguy
None of this would have ever happened if the Refball wasnt at its strongest when the obvious touchdown was called down on the goal line... hes 6'6" how do you miss him in the endzone FFS.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
You think when a defender intentionally pops/punches the ball loose from the ball carrier and causes it go in his preferred direction,, it shouldnt be allowed to go in that direction?
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
he sounded sure of himself. i dont have a clue. it doesnt pass the laugh test, but then neither did the tuck rule, lol.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
so very true.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
all i know is an offensive player cant do that, so a logical inference is why should a defensive player be allowed to do that?
belljr
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Ignoring the illegal batting, the correct call is a safety. I'm stunned that anybody thinks it should be a touchback.
belljr
Footballguy
10 Yards
Offensive pass interference.
Holding, illegal use of hands, arms, or body by offense.
Tripping by a member of either team.
Helping the runner.
Deliberately batting or punching a loose ball.
Deliberately kicking a loose ball.
Illegal block above the waist.
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries
Offensive pass interference.
Holding, illegal use of hands, arms, or body by offense.
Tripping by a member of either team.
Helping the runner.
Deliberately batting or punching a loose ball.
Deliberately kicking a loose ball.
Illegal block above the waist.
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Of course. But that's different from when a ball is already loose and rolling around and then, instead of trying to fall on it, you swat it toward the endzone. I thought they changed the rule about that after the Holly Roller. If it's illegal to swat a loose ball forward with the goal of scoring a TD, why then would it be legal to swat it backward with the goal of scoring a safety? Makes no sense. But again, I don't know the rule here.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Im assuming its because the O player has control of the situation. And the ball.Even if the defender hits it, they don't control the ball yet, so typically that is their main objective - gaining control.
timschochet
Footballguy
That's pretty clear. So if the refs had seen that touch, then the correct result is a 1st down for New England on about their own 30 (15 yards from where Troy swatted the ball), no?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Nice... they even have a note for the hypothetical I gave to timscochet, that if its being stripped... then its totally legal to bat the ball.But otherwise....
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
yep. i dont believe ne would have scored, so its moot imo. and i believe pitt earned the victory.
belljr
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
True enough, but thats not the part that bugs me.Reviews can be used to say whether a players knee is down on a fumble, whether a QB crossed the line of scrimmage, and a dozen other things.punching the ball forward on a fumble should be one of those things....I think might actually BE one of those things. Whether you can FLAG it on review doesn't matter...the ball should be down at the point where the defender punched it.ETA: Punching the ball is NOT a judgement call.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dizzy
Footballguy
Let it go dude (or at least change your signature).
CrossEyed
Footballguy
So why didn't the genius throw the challenge flag?
AmosMoses
Footballguy
Thanks.
GregR
Footballguy
If Polamalu provided the impetus to knock the ball past his opponents goal line and it went out of bounds, then by rule it is touchback. I think both of those points are indisputable.
Rule 11, Section 6, Article 2:
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds like check-mate. Either the genius screwed up (!!!) or it wasn't such an obvious touchdown. Pick your poison...
Or it was a gamble. Challenge and risk losing a TO or assume that you can punch it in pretty quickly from the 6 inch line.
The Jerk
Footballguy
If so, it was not a very smart gamble. Immediately challenging the call would have served as a backdoor timeout as a worst case scenario. Even the quickest snaps after a play typically take around 15 seconds to occur.The best options that were available:1. Challenge the call and save at least 15-20 seconds of game time even if the challenge is denied.2. Quickly snap the ball for one of Brady's patented QB sneaks as soon as possible.Unfortunately for the Patriots, they chose to not challenge and also ran the play clock down almost to 0.Sure it's hindsight, but it's clear that both Belichick and Brady (or generalize it to include the entire offense) exhibited poor choices in terms of clock management in this instance. It can also be argued that replay or no replay, Gronkowski could have suggested a challenge to the coach.By the way, I believe Belichick made the right call as far as an onside kick is concerned. The only time the Patriots had stopped the Steelers without a score in the game to that point was on the interception, at the half, and with a missed field goal. It's a low-percentage play, but it was likely the decision that gave the Patriots their best chance at a win.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would assume The Patriots didn't have the camera angle from the goaline that clearly shows that it was a TD. Having all 3 TOs would be huge, however the playcalling was pretty horrid no matter anyway you look at it.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Patriots didnt even allow for the camera angle... they went right into a hurry up mode so the Steelers couldn't substitute, and snapped he ball with the Steelers still pointing at ea other trying to get thing set/covered.
bryhamm
Footballguy
nope
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
I cant believe so many people are worried about a punched ball that wouldnt have made a difference in the game anyway
GregR
Footballguy
Where in the rule do you see it saying it is only offense only?'dryice said:
Article 8 A player may not bat or punch:(a) a loose ball (in field of play) toward opponent’s goal lineb) a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either end zone;© a backward pass in flight may not be batted forward by an offensive player.Exception: A forward pass in flight may be tipped, batted, or deflected in any direction by anyeligible player at any time.Note: If a forward pass that is controlled by an airborne player prior to completing thecatch is thrown forward, it is an illegal bat. If it is caught by a teammate or interceptedby an opponent, the ball remains alive. If it is not caught, the ball is dead when it hitsthe ground.Penalty: For illegal batting or punching the ball: Loss of 10 yards. For enforcement, treatas a foul during a backward pass or fumble (see 8-7).
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Do we have a lot of FBG refs?!
There are alot of Football Fans on this board. Whether or not it would have made a difference it is an interesting play that doesn't happen that frequently it will spark some discussion on the rule.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Not sure under which section this is from but it seems like this article 8 is referring to the offense. Notice highlights above. It specifically talks about a completion by a teammate and an interception by an opponent. Also notice the penalty is a 10 yard loss. If it were talking about defense it would not call it a loss.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
I was frustrated by this as well, but Brady had to scramble out of a collapsing pocket (i.e. he was clearly under duress) and failed to plant his feet and connect on an easy TD.'biggamer3 said:
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
agreed. some of us pats homers are trying to remain objective, fwiw.
'SeniorVBDStudent said:
ThaPenguin
Footballguy
In fact, if anything, it gave the Pats another chance. A very slim one for sure, but a chance none the less.Steelers fall on the ball, they kneel to end the game. Pats fall on the ball, clock is running with 8 seconds left, with WRs at least 30 yards downfield...no chance they get another play off.By hitting the ball out, it was still only a one score game, and the Pats had a chance to recover the onside kick with about 5 seconds left. Highly unlikely they score, but crazier things have happened.
belljr
Footballguy
POsted this earlier in the thread. In the end it doesn't matter but this is a rule that I think "matters"http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands
A player of either team may block at any time provided it is not pass interference, fair catch interference, or unnecessary roughness.
A player may not bat or punch:
(a) A loose ball (in field of play) toward his opponent’s goal line or in any direction in either end zone.
(b) A ball in player possession.
Note: If there is any question as to whether a defender is stripping or batting a ball in player possession, the official(s) will rule the action as a legal act (stripping the ball).
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Unlike a couple of years ago when Cassel stepped in for Brady and the Pats still functioned pretty well, I wonder if the current NE squad more closely resembles that of Indianapolis, where the team has a demonstrable dearth of talent outside the superstar under center.
bryhamm
Footballguy
It should not have been a touchback AND the NFL will not come out this week and confirm it.
parrot
Footballguy
Considering the way Pittsburgh had been moving the ball I didn't find it strange at all.
GregR
Footballguy
No, the rule is saying just because Player A doesn't have two feet down yet to establish a catch doesn't mean he can make a forward pass after himself catching a forward pass. It doesn't matter whether the player was offense or defense at the start of the snap. If Ed Reed jumps up and catches the ball and while in mid-air throws it upfield (from the Ravens perspective) to Ray Lewis, it is a penalty. If he does so and Reggie Wayne intercepts Ed Reed's forward pass, it is still a penalty on Ed Reed. The use of the word "interception" relates to the second forward pass being attempted, not to the first.On the comment about the use of the word "loss"... no, that's how most penalties are worded regardless of offense or defense. Examples from the same section of the rulebook:
Penalty: For illegal contact or holding by the defense: Loss of five yards and automatic
first down.
Penalty: Pass interference by the offense: Loss of 10 yards from the previous
spot.
The Jerk
Footballguy
The only argument that the officials got Troy's bat correct is if it is considered a judgment call and/or not a definitive bat. To me, it was a great hustle play and because it essentially worked (i.e., he got away with it) it is understandable why some are praising it. However, the best play to guarantee victory would have been to allow a fumble pileup. There is no chance another play could have been run by the Patriots.
I agree with the earlier poster who stated this was an interesting play. I don't think I've seen an exact replica in my nearly four decades of football viewing. To that extent, it should absolutely be discussed. However, I also agree with posters who state that the administration of the call had no impact on the outcome of the game. The only impact was for people who needed the Steelers number to be at 23 points or faced the Pittsburgh defense in their fantasy matchup.
I agree with the earlier poster who stated this was an interesting play. I don't think I've seen an exact replica in my nearly four decades of football viewing. To that extent, it should absolutely be discussed. However, I also agree with posters who state that the administration of the call had no impact on the outcome of the game. The only impact was for people who needed the Steelers number to be at 23 points or faced the Pittsburgh defense in their fantasy matchup.
Walton Goggins
Footballguy
I was thinking the same thing, especially after reading the link below. All this talk about Peyton removed from Colts makes them one of the worst teams in the league is true but I think the same thing can be said for the Pats.http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7172753/a-requiem-patriots-defense
The Jerk
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
Exactly, it's a really interesting play. Was cheering for the Steelers and I agree the better play for Pittsburgh would have been to let the scramble for the ball ensue.
What disappoints me is that the ref not only didn't make the call on the live play, but even on the review. I don't think the laws of physics allow someone to send a football bouncing that far just by diving into it. Not unless they take a swing at it. So seeing it live I thought it was obvious Polamalu had to have batted it.
The biggest questions left about it are 1) Can a ref call from a replay review an illegal bat that wasn't called live? I'm not sure, I wouldn't be surprised either way, but if I had to guess I'd say no since few penalties get called based on reviews.
And then 2) Can a ref call a touchback from a replay review when he sees that the impetus for the ball going into the end zone came from the defense. Again not entirely sure, but I would be surprised if that was something he can't review, just based on how many other calls dealing with who touched a ball can be changed based on review.
Mike Pereira already tweeted a number of times yesterday it was an illegal bat and a touchback, but didn't mention which, if either, the ref can change under review. Sent him a tweet asking if he can clarify those points.
What disappoints me is that the ref not only didn't make the call on the live play, but even on the review. I don't think the laws of physics allow someone to send a football bouncing that far just by diving into it. Not unless they take a swing at it. So seeing it live I thought it was obvious Polamalu had to have batted it.
The biggest questions left about it are 1) Can a ref call from a replay review an illegal bat that wasn't called live? I'm not sure, I wouldn't be surprised either way, but if I had to guess I'd say no since few penalties get called based on reviews.
And then 2) Can a ref call a touchback from a replay review when he sees that the impetus for the ball going into the end zone came from the defense. Again not entirely sure, but I would be surprised if that was something he can't review, just based on how many other calls dealing with who touched a ball can be changed based on review.
Mike Pereira already tweeted a number of times yesterday it was an illegal bat and a touchback, but didn't mention which, if either, the ref can change under review. Sent him a tweet asking if he can clarify those points.
