Game Thread W8 - New England V Pittsburgh (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

The strangest thing about that play is that Troy didn't attempt to scoop the ball up and take it for a TD.

 

[bryhamm]

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.

1) I don't think any penalties can be called when a review is taking place2) Not sure about this. But, even if the ball goes in to the endzone from a defender touching it, it doesn't make it a touchback. I believe that it can only be a touchback if PIT had control of it (ie possession) and lost it and it went out of the endzone. Possession in this case was still with NE, so it was ruled correctly (again, I believe) a safety.

 

[GregR]

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.

1) I don't think any penalties can be called when a review is taking place

2) Not sure about this. But, even if the ball goes in to the endzone from a defender touching it, it doesn't make it a touchback. I believe that it can only be a touchback if PIT had control of it (ie possession) and lost it and it went out of the endzone. Possession in this case was still with NE, so it was ruled correctly (again, I believe) a safety.

The rule is cut and pasted in post 274. Possession is not part of it if a player supplied the impetus for it going through his opponent's zone and out of bounds it is a touchback. I don't think impetus means two people fighting for it and it squirts out, but more that it has to be a clear cut bat or kick such as happened on the play. If that doesn't take place, then it would probably by another rule where possession did matter.The rule is the same at either end of the field, with just the result (touchback or safety) differing. If you knock a ball through your own end zone and out of bounds it is a safety. A 2 point safety if it is on a normal play, or a 1 point safety if it is on a PAT. Doesn't matter that you were the defense and you never possessed the ball. Same thing when it is your opponent's end zone, except it's a touchback rather than the safety.

 

[GregR]

Forgot to say... on the subject of penalties from a review... I'm pretty sure that a review can result in a penalty. For instance, if a QB crosses the line of scrimmage and throws a forward pass that is ruled legal, I'm pretty sure that can be reviewed and if it is found it was an illegal forward pass, the penalty for such will be called. I think they can also review a play to count how many players are on the field and penalize for too many men on the field... I know they do in college, think they do in the NFL too.

But I agree with you that you normally cannot initiate a review to check for most penalties, like pass interference or offsides. The list of what can be reviewed is pretty specific, and I don't know that batting a ball would qualify.

 

[bryhamm]

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.

1) I don't think any penalties can be called when a review is taking place

2) Not sure about this. But, even if the ball goes in to the endzone from a defender touching it, it doesn't make it a touchback. I believe that it can only be a touchback if PIT had control of it (ie possession) and lost it and it went out of the endzone. Possession in this case was still with NE, so it was ruled correctly (again, I believe) a safety.

The rule is cut and pasted in post 274. Possession is not part of it if a player supplied the impetus for it going through his opponent's zone and out of bounds it is a touchback. I don't think impetus means two people fighting for it and it squirts out, but more that it has to be a clear cut bat or kick such as happened on the play. If that doesn't take place, then it would probably by another rule where possession did matter.The rule is the same at either end of the field, with just the result (touchback or safety) differing. If you knock a ball through your own end zone and out of bounds it is a safety. A 2 point safety if it is on a normal play, or a 1 point safety if it is on a PAT. Doesn't matter that you were the defense and you never possessed the ball. Same thing when it is your opponent's end zone, except it's a touchback rather than the safety.

But Troy's hit did not cause it to go through the end zone. It caused it to go into/towards the end zone, but there were other players trying to gain possession in the endzone that caused it to go through the end zone.

I agree that what Troy did should have been ruled a penalty. But once that was not called, the rest of the play and resulting call was accurate.

 

[Walton Goggins]

Forgot to say... on the subject of penalties from a review... I'm pretty sure that a review can result in a penalty. For instance, if a QB crosses the line of scrimmage and throws a forward pass that is ruled legal, I'm pretty sure that can be reviewed and if it is found it was an illegal forward pass, the penalty for such will be called. I think they can also review a play to count how many players are on the field and penalize for too many men on the field... I know they do in college, think they do in the NFL too.But I agree with you that you normally cannot initiate a review to check for most penalties, like pass interference or offsides. The list of what can be reviewed is pretty specific, and I don't know that batting a ball would qualify.

If there's offensive holding but it's not called then no a coach can't demand to review it then call a penalty after the fact.

 

[GregR]

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.

1) I don't think any penalties can be called when a review is taking place

2) Not sure about this. But, even if the ball goes in to the endzone from a defender touching it, it doesn't make it a touchback. I believe that it can only be a touchback if PIT had control of it (ie possession) and lost it and it went out of the endzone. Possession in this case was still with NE, so it was ruled correctly (again, I believe) a safety.

The rule is cut and pasted in post 274. Possession is not part of it if a player supplied the impetus for it going through his opponent's zone and out of bounds it is a touchback. I don't think impetus means two people fighting for it and it squirts out, but more that it has to be a clear cut bat or kick such as happened on the play. If that doesn't take place, then it would probably by another rule where possession did matter.The rule is the same at either end of the field, with just the result (touchback or safety) differing. If you knock a ball through your own end zone and out of bounds it is a safety. A 2 point safety if it is on a normal play, or a 1 point safety if it is on a PAT. Doesn't matter that you were the defense and you never possessed the ball. Same thing when it is your opponent's end zone, except it's a touchback rather than the safety.

But Troy's hit did not cause it to go through the end zone. It caused it to go into/towards the end zone, but there were other players trying to gain possession in the endzone that caused it to go through the end zone.

I agree that what Troy did should have been ruled a penalty. But once that was not called, the rest of the play and resulting call was accurate.

I completely understand what you're saying, that Polamalu caused the ball to go into the end zone, but didn't necessarily cause it to go out of bounds. But note the exact wording in the rule. Two things have to take place:

1) "When a team provides the impetus (3-15-3) that sends a loose ball behind its opponent’s goal line"

2) "the ball is dead in the opponent’s possession in its end zone; or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line"

Troy definitely provided the impetus to send a loose ball behind his opponent's goal line. He doesn't have to be the one to knock it all the way out of bounds (which my poor wording early probably implied he did).

He just had to knock a loose ball from the field of play into the end zone. After that, if the other team recovers in the end zone, or if it goes out, it's a touchback.

 

[bryhamm]

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.

1) I don't think any penalties can be called when a review is taking place

2) Not sure about this. But, even if the ball goes in to the endzone from a defender touching it, it doesn't make it a touchback. I believe that it can only be a touchback if PIT had control of it (ie possession) and lost it and it went out of the endzone. Possession in this case was still with NE, so it was ruled correctly (again, I believe) a safety.

The rule is cut and pasted in post 274. Possession is not part of it if a player supplied the impetus for it going through his opponent's zone and out of bounds it is a touchback. I don't think impetus means two people fighting for it and it squirts out, but more that it has to be a clear cut bat or kick such as happened on the play. If that doesn't take place, then it would probably by another rule where possession did matter.The rule is the same at either end of the field, with just the result (touchback or safety) differing. If you knock a ball through your own end zone and out of bounds it is a safety. A 2 point safety if it is on a normal play, or a 1 point safety if it is on a PAT. Doesn't matter that you were the defense and you never possessed the ball. Same thing when it is your opponent's end zone, except it's a touchback rather than the safety.

But Troy's hit did not cause it to go through the end zone. It caused it to go into/towards the end zone, but there were other players trying to gain possession in the endzone that caused it to go through the end zone.

I agree that what Troy did should have been ruled a penalty. But once that was not called, the rest of the play and resulting call was accurate.

I completely understand what you're saying, that Polamalu caused the ball to go into the end zone, but didn't necessarily cause it to go out of bounds. But note the exact wording in the rule. Two things have to take place:

1) "When a team provides the impetus (3-15-3) that sends a loose ball behind its opponent’s goal line"

2) "the ball is dead in the opponent’s possession in its end zone; or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line"

Troy definitely provided the impetus to send a loose ball behind his opponent's goal line. He doesn't have to be the one to knock it all the way out of bounds (which my poor wording early probably implied he did).

He just had to knock a loose ball from the field of play into the end zone. After that, if the other team recovers in the end zone, or if it goes out, it's a touchback.

Gotcha. Did anyone else touch it before it went into the endzone? I don't recall off the top of my head. I know Troy's "touch" sent it screaming that way, but I can't remember. I am thinking/guessing that no one else hit it before it went into the endzone.

Is it possible that the ref did not see whether it was Troy's hand vs a Patriot foot? Meaning, maybe a ref was not in a position to see who actually was the one to hit it that caused it to go screaming towards the EZ.

 

[GregR]

Forgot to say... on the subject of penalties from a review... I'm pretty sure that a review can result in a penalty. For instance, if a QB crosses the line of scrimmage and throws a forward pass that is ruled legal, I'm pretty sure that can be reviewed and if it is found it was an illegal forward pass, the penalty for such will be called. I think they can also review a play to count how many players are on the field and penalize for too many men on the field... I know they do in college, think they do in the NFL too.But I agree with you that you normally cannot initiate a review to check for most penalties, like pass interference or offsides. The list of what can be reviewed is pretty specific, and I don't know that batting a ball would qualify.

If there's offensive holding but it's not called then no a coach can't demand to review it then call a penalty after the fact.

Right, that is a penalty that can't be reviewed. Most judgment call penalties cannot be reviewed (holding pass interference, etc). Other penalties essentially can be reviewed if governed by a line (illegal forward pass, receiver who was out of bounds and had to re-establish himself, etc). Or something else concrete as opposed to judgment like if pass interference is the ruling on the field, I believe you can initiate a review to show a D-lineman tipped the pass (in which case contact with the receiver is allowed so no PI).I don't imagine illegal batting a ball would be a penalty that would be reviewable since it is judgment call. But, I don't know if that would exclude being able to rule a touchback, as opposed to just not being able to rule a penalty.

 

[GregR]

...Is it possible that the ref did not see whether it was Troy's hand vs a Patriot foot? Meaning, maybe a ref was not in a position to see who actually was the one to hit it that caused it to go screaming towards the EZ.

I hope it's something like that. I recall thinking when I saw it live there was no way Troy didn't punch it out of there. Haven't watched a replay today, but my recollection is all three players were diving on it, not much chance of it being kicked, but I could be wrong.I also don't know if the ref even reviewed that part of the play. Though any reviewable part of a play can be corrected when a review happens, it's possible he just was focused on replays of whether the ball was recovered in the end zone or went out of bounds first. I imagine that's the part the replay booth told him needed to be reviewed.

 

[moondog]

If it was an illegal bat then I think the 10yd penalty would be enforced only if the ball stayed within the field of play or the batting caused it to go out of bounds over either sideline.

Since the ball went through the endzone then I think the correct call is a touchback with NE getting the ball on the 20.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If it was an illegal bat then I think the 10yd penalty would be enforced only if the ball stayed within the field of play or the batting caused it to go out of bounds over either sideline.Since the ball went through the endzone then I think the correct call is a touchback with NE getting the ball on the 20.

I think a ton of it (which isn't being mentioned) is the speed of the play and the refs ability to see what actually happened (the bat).It was between a offensive players feet/legs and Polamalu came screaming in and diving and as he reaches for the ball... her pokes it. I don't believe the refs were sure. Slow-mo is far different.