Harrison TD Return- Penalty should have been called on Fitz (1 Viewer)

[Frenchy Fuqua]

My understanding was that "tacklers" are not allowed to run out of bounds to avoid being blocked: special teams is where it usually appplies but it certainly applies in this instance. Heck Fitzgerald was out of bounds when he finally tackled Harrison. Funny thing is that if you watch the whole play Fitz runs into Antrel Rolle on the sideline at the Cards 30 because Rolle wasn't back the standard 5 yards (also could be a penalty). This may have cost the Cards the game as Fitz surely would have run Harrison down. Also, when Harrison finally hits the ground there are 2 seconds left on the clock. Lots of controversy on that single play.

Special teams is where it applies . . . becuase there are rules designated for special teams plays (ie, change of possession kicking/punting plays). To the best of my knowledge, there are no such SPECIFIC rules for "regular" plays.For those suggesting that what Fitzgerald did was illegal, please cite a specific rule (as in rule number, section, and paragraph).

I don't have the NFL rulebook handy, nor am I sure what the specific rules are on defenders being out of bounds. I am just stating that an interception return and a punt return have similar dynamics and clearly Larry Fitz was running out of bounds in order to avoid being blocked. In the end it's not a big deal either way as the Steelers scored the TD.

I do have an official rule book handy, and I can tell you that there are specific rules on kicking plays. Interceptions ARE NOT kicking plays. One would think that they would specifiy "on all plays" if they wanted it to apply to all plays.

Fair enough, you've got the rules you lay the law. To me the kicking aspect has nothing to do with the act of running out of bounds. The act of running out of bounds deals directly with avoiding a block, whether it's on a kick, punt or play from the LOS.

 

[David Yudkin]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

Video1:54 mark. Not a real big difference in terms or yards but if you want to complain about Woodley then you should about this too.

If you stop the video at 2:45, you'll see where Woodley's hands are.

Again, the direction the two players were coming from were almost perpendicular . . . NOT from behind. As long as there is an angle and blocker does not come up from almost directly BEHIND the would be tackler they are not going to call it a penalty. In this example, the blocker actually starts his block IN FRONT OF the defender and then ends up hitting in the back of the left shoulder. It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

Not sure if you caught the quote below from the previous page, but I'm not sure how someone could look at that and say his hands are on his shoulders:

This says otherwise...

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2311/blockinthebackor5.jpg

We've seen that called a block in the back a million times. It's just always on kick returns.

 

[toenail_23]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

Video1:54 mark. Not a real big difference in terms or yards but if you want to complain about Woodley then you should about this too.

If you stop the video at 2:45, you'll see where Woodley's hands are.

Again, the direction the two players were coming from were almost perpendicular . . . NOT from behind. As long as there is an angle and blocker does not come up from almost directly BEHIND the would be tackler they are not going to call it a penalty. In this example, the blocker actually starts his block IN FRONT OF the defender and then ends up hitting in the back of the left shoulder. It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

I don't have a problem with either play. I just don't see how the Steelers haters can say clip or block in the back on one play and not the other. That's all. But, I do think Fitz hit him in the back.

 

[toenail_23]

It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

Not sure if you caught the quote below from the previous page, but I'm not sure how someone could look at that and say his hands are on his shoulders:

This says otherwise...

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2311/blockinthebackor5.jpg

We've seen that called a block in the back a million times. It's just always on kick returns.

And we saw that on Roethlisberger's interception three years ago. No call then either.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't have a problem with either play. I just don't see how the Steelers haters can say clip or block in the back on one play and not the other. That's all. But, I do think Fitz hit him in the back.

It's not just WHERE you hit the player . . . it's the ANGLE of hitting someone. In the INT return, IMO the blocker hits the defender's (the ARI player) arm and shoulder. even if he caught some of his back, it's not a direct hit from behind.In the ARI TD, the blocker comes from the side, so again it's not from behind in the back.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

Video1:54 mark. Not a real big difference in terms or yards but if you want to complain about Woodley then you should about this too.

If you stop the video at 2:45, you'll see where Woodley's hands are.

Again, the direction the two players were coming from were almost perpendicular . . . NOT from behind. As long as there is an angle and blocker does not come up from almost directly BEHIND the would be tackler they are not going to call it a penalty. In this example, the blocker actually starts his block IN FRONT OF the defender and then ends up hitting in the back of the left shoulder. It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

I don't have a problem with either play. I just don't see how the Steelers haters can say clip or block in the back on one play and not the other. That's all. But, I do think Fitz hit him in the back.

Just watched the Fitz block. Fitzgerald looked like he caught him in the shoulder from what I could tell. It's hard to tell, but you could see by how the Pitt player's body falls from it. He's running straight out, and after he gets hit his body does a barrel roll to the right. If he were hit in the back he would go straight down. That's just physics.Hightower meanwhile gets pushing the back and goes completely straight. Almost as if, as the picture shows, someone pushed him right in the back.

Either way, one was obviously a much bigger play than the other. If the one against Pitt gets called it's the end of the half right there. If the one against Zona gets called they have 1st and 10 on the 20.

 

[Sheriff66]

Sorry Mike Pereira. Please provide specific details of said infraction.

Thanks Mike!

Happy to help man. You called it clipping when it obviously wasn't. Not sure why you're being the smartass in this conversation.

Blocks in the back are routinely (and erroneously) called clipping. You could have just stated that from the beginning instead of your "You obviously don't understand clipping" comment. An obvious attempt to belittle another poster.

What's your thoughts on Fitzgerald's block in the back on Boldin's 45 yard catch in the second quarter. Two hands square in the back. More obvious than hands on the shoulder IMO.

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.And FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything on the player you're talking about so I can't really comment on it, unless there's a video somewhere.

Video1:54 mark. Not a real big difference in terms or yards but if you want to complain about Woodley then you should about this too.

If you stop the video at 2:45, you'll see where Woodley's hands are.

Again, the direction the two players were coming from were almost perpendicular . . . NOT from behind. As long as there is an angle and blocker does not come up from almost directly BEHIND the would be tackler they are not going to call it a penalty. In this example, the blocker actually starts his block IN FRONT OF the defender and then ends up hitting in the back of the left shoulder. It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

I don't have a problem with either play. I just don't see how the Steelers haters can say clip or block in the back on one play and not the other. That's all. But, I do think Fitz hit him in the back.

Just watched the Fitz block. Fitzgerald looked like he caught him in the shoulder from what I could tell. It's hard to tell, but you could see by how the Pitt player's body falls from it. He's running straight out, and after he gets hit his body does a barrel roll to the right. If he were hit in the back he would go straight down. That's just physics.Hightower meanwhile gets pushing the back and goes completely straight. Almost as if, as the picture shows, someone pushed him right in the back.

Either way, one was obviously a much bigger play than the other. If the one against Pitt gets called it's the end of the half right there. If the one against Zona gets called they have 1st and 10 on the 20.

 

[treat88]

It's called an agenda.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's called an agenda.

And what agenda would that be? As a Dolphin fan that bet on the Steelers, please explain it to me.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I don't have a problem with either play. I just don't see how the Steelers haters can say clip or block in the back on one play and not the other. That's all. But, I do think Fitz hit him in the back.

It's not just WHERE you hit the player . . . it's the ANGLE of hitting someone. In the INT return, IMO the blocker hits the defender's (the ARI player) arm and shoulder. even if he caught some of his back, it's not a direct hit from behind.

The "not a direct hit from behind" thing I can maybe buy, though I feel like I've seen the same thing called (and even less than that, really) a million times on punt returns when the players start running laterally and someone comes from upfield.I'm definitely not buying that he got him in the arm/shoulder though. It looks pretty clear to me that it was square on the back.

 

[drdgreenlove]

As the thread starter.. please take this clipping/block in the back talk to your own thread.

All I wanted to know was if it was illegal for Fitz to run out of bounds like he did. I am an Eagles fan, and it is all moot anyhow, but I was curious what the rule is...

 

[The Jerk]

I don't have a problem with either play. I just don't see how the Steelers haters can say clip or block in the back on one play and not the other. That's all. But, I do think Fitz hit him in the back.

It's not just WHERE you hit the player . . . it's the ANGLE of hitting someone. In the INT return, IMO the blocker hits the defender's (the ARI player) arm and shoulder. even if he caught some of his back, it's not a direct hit from behind.

The "not a direct hit from behind" thing I can maybe buy, though I feel like I've seen the same thing called (and even less than that, really) a million times on punt returns when the players start running laterally and someone comes from upfield.I'm definitely not buying that he got him in the arm/shoulder though. It looks pretty clear to me that it was square on the back.

Keep going. You're doing a good job fighting the good fight against known Steeler homer and referee apologist David Yudkin.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't have a problem with either play. I just don't see how the Steelers haters can say clip or block in the back on one play and not the other. That's all. But, I do think Fitz hit him in the back.

It's not just WHERE you hit the player . . . it's the ANGLE of hitting someone. In the INT return, IMO the blocker hits the defender's (the ARI player) arm and shoulder. even if he caught some of his back, it's not a direct hit from behind.

The "not a direct hit from behind" thing I can maybe buy, though I feel like I've seen the same thing called (and even less than that, really) a million times on punt returns when the players start running laterally and someone comes from upfield.I'm definitely not buying that he got him in the arm/shoulder though. It looks pretty clear to me that it was square on the back.

Keep going. You're doing a good job fighting the good fight against known Steeler homer and referee apologist David Yudkin.

LOL . . . as a Cowboys fan the LAST thing I am is a Steelers homer. I'm no referee and at one point knew a guy that had been a referee in college and in the pros. Just relaying what was explained to me. Certainly these types of blocks end up being a judement call and different guys could call it different ways depending upon how they say it.As for the OP, I still haven't found a rule that states what Fitz did was illegal. The only thing I could think of is if they wrap it into another rule and call it something else as a matter of common practice, but haven't seen an example in the rules of that either. (The rule book has examples of plays and what the calls should or shouldn't be.)

 

[meanjoegreen]

LOL . . . as a Cowboys fan the LAST thing I am is a Steelers homer.

You've always appeared to me to be more of a Patriots fan than a Cowboys fan. You get passionate and edgey over the Patriots, but you don't say much about the Cowboys.

 

[The Jerk]

Keep going. You're doing a good job fighting the good fight against known Steeler homer and referee apologist David Yudkin.

LOL . . . as a Cowboys fan the LAST thing I am is a Steelers homer. I'm no referee and at one point knew a guy that had been a referee in college and in the pros. Just relaying what was explained to me. Certainly these types of blocks end up being a judement call and different guys could call it different ways depending upon how they say it.As for the OP, I still haven't found a rule that states what Fitz did was illegal. The only thing I could think of is if they wrap it into another rule and call it something else as a matter of common practice, but haven't seen an example in the rules of that either. (The rule book has examples of plays and what the calls should or shouldn't be.)

You do know that I was joking (and a Steeler fan), right?

 

[wadegarrett]

Again, the direction the two players were coming from were almost perpendicular . . . NOT from behind. As long as there is an angle and blocker does not come up from almost directly BEHIND the would be tackler they are not going to call it a penalty. In this example, the blocker actually starts his block IN FRONT OF the defender and then ends up hitting in the back of the left shoulder. It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

I've seen that called a block in the back hundreds of times. One of the more famous ones (that I don't consider a block in the back)
.You disagree and that's fine.

And yes, the Fitz was a block in the back too. Never disputed that one either.

 

[David Yudkin]

LOL . . . as a Cowboys fan the LAST thing I am is a Steelers homer.

You've always appeared to me to be more of a Patriots fan than a Cowboys fan. You get passionate and edgey over the Patriots, but you don't say much about the Cowboys.

I get more edgy abouts the Pats because I know people associated with the Pats and can get a lot of info about NE. I live in NE but rarely get to watch the Cowboys and we get zip chewy for coverage here. I suppose I could be categorized as a Pats fan by geographic extension, but I will always be a Cowboys fan first and foremost and have been ever since the mid 70s.Over the years, I have been accused of being for or against a variety of teams, so I guess that's a good thinkg if not many people have any idea which team or teams I actually root for.

 

[David Yudkin]

Again, the direction the two players were coming from were almost perpendicular . . . NOT from behind. As long as there is an angle and blocker does not come up from almost directly BEHIND the would be tackler they are not going to call it a penalty. In this example, the blocker actually starts his block IN FRONT OF the defender and then ends up hitting in the back of the left shoulder. It IS NOT square between the numbers and the shoulder pads from behind. Absent of that, they are not going to throw a flag.

I've seen that called a block in the back hundreds of times. One of the more famous ones (that I don't consider a block in the back)

I agree that the one against ND seems a little ticky tacky, but there are a couple of differences. One, the blocker is completely BEHIND the defender. He's not coming at an angle and the defender has no way of seeing him coming. Second, the blocker does seem to hit the defender high enough to really hit him in the shoulder pads. Even in the NFL rules, there is a distinction about the blocker's hands being on the side of the defender. In the ND play, I don't think that there's a case that the blocker was on the side when he hit him and it also seems like he hit him lower down the back, and maybe that impacts how refs call things.I also think that on the ND play that the defender had run by the blocker and then the blocker hit him from behind. Again, in any judgment call in real time on the field different refs will call things different ways. I probably would have let that play go without a flag, but someone else felt other wise.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Anyone trying to somehow rationalize that as being his shoulder has clearly already made up their mind about what they want to believe, is not really worth discussing it with.

No one has to rationalize it not being a block in the back or a block in the shoulder pad. A block in the back, as told to me by several officials, is a block between the numbers and between the shoulder pads FROM BEHIND. In this case, the blocker hits the right shoulder pad from the side and does not have two hands between the player's numbers between both shoulder pads from the back when he pushes him.

This says otherwise...http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2311/blockinthebackor5.jpg

this disagrees with you

 

[Browns Rule!]

Another thing I have always wondered, what if a player from the sidelines had jumped on the field and tackled Harrison? Would it have been illegal substitution or to many men on the field (5 yards). I've always wondered why teams don't have a designated player on the sidelines that if something breaks loose where no one is going to catch the other team, they can run on the field and tackle them for a small penalty.

 

[David Yudkin]

Another thing I have always wondered, what if a player from the sidelines had jumped on the field and tackled Harrison? Would it have been illegal substitution or to many men on the field (5 yards). I've always wondered why teams don't have a designated player on the sidelines that if something breaks loose where no one is going to catch the other team, they can run on the field and tackle them for a small penalty.

They have specific rules on this. IIRC, 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection (with likely a mega fine). Would have to double check the rule though.

 

[Steeler]

How is debating these calls / non-calls more entertaining than reveling in the twists and turns and momentum shifts that this game provided? The Steelers took an early 10-0 lead, and then it looked like the Cards were going to take a 14-10 halftime lead, and then the Harrison TD happened. Then after halftime then the Cards D held tough on 6 plays inside the 10 to keep them in the game, and then the Cards had 90+ yard (IIRC) TD drive, to draw within 6, the Steelers go three and out, the Steelers D stops the Cards, the Cards pin the Steelers at the one, cause a saftey, and then Fitz finally explodes right down the middle of the Steelers D (running right at me BTW) to take the lead for the first time in the game... Then Ben leads the Steelers on a game winning drive complete with a huge catch by Holmes... It was an awesome game!!!

But I can see how getting into the minutia about what constitutes a block in the back VS what isn't is better

 

[drdgreenlove]

Another thing I have always wondered, what if a player from the sidelines had jumped on the field and tackled Harrison? Would it have been illegal substitution or to many men on the field (5 yards). I've always wondered why teams don't have a designated player on the sidelines that if something breaks loose where no one is going to catch the other team, they can run on the field and tackle them for a small penalty.

They have specific rules on this. IIRC, 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection (with likely a mega fine). Would have to double check the rule though.

I would guess it would 12 men on the field and an unnecessary roughness call + ejection of the player and maybe the coach?Would be interesting though.. what if it saved a TD? Poor sportsmanship but would be worth it?

 

[Da Guru]

There were penalties all over the place on that play. Hightower who had the best chance to bring him down or knock him out of bounds got clipped or blocked in the back at the 25..how was that not called??

Warner was held by #26.

 

[Q-Bert]

Another thing I have always wondered, what if a player from the sidelines had jumped on the field and tackled Harrison? Would it have been illegal substitution or to many men on the field (5 yards). I've always wondered why teams don't have a designated player on the sidelines that if something breaks loose where no one is going to catch the other team, they can run on the field and tackle them for a small penalty.

They have specific rules on this. IIRC, 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection (with likely a mega fine). Would have to double check the rule though.

I feel like I remember seeing a highlight of this on some old video when I was a kid. Some guy was running ahead of everyone and a player came off the sideline to tackle him. I don't know what the rules are but I think in this instance that in addition to an ejection they actually gave the team a touchdown.Edit:

Found it:

1954 Cotton Bowl

Turns out it was college, but they did award the team a touchdown.

 

[The Jerk]

There were penalties all over the place on that play. Hightower who had the best chance to bring him down or knock him out of bounds got clipped or blocked in the back at the 25..how was that not called?? Warner was held by #26.

If you actually want possible answers to your question(s), read the thread. It's not even two pages long. However, I'm guessing you're not really interested in any views that are different from the conclusion you have already drawn.

 

[fred_1_15301]

There were penalties all over the place on that play. Hightower who had the best chance to bring him down or knock him out of bounds got clipped or blocked in the back at the 25..how was that not called?? Warner was held by #26.

If you actually want possible answers to your question(s), read the thread. It's not even two pages long. However, I'm guessing you're not really interested in any views that are different from the conclusion you have already drawn.

I don't think you need to keep defending the Steelers. From what I can tell, the majority of people regard this as a legitimate superbowl win for the Steelers. The ones who don't are either pretty ignorant or just plain haters IMHO. This is much different from SuperBowl XL in which the majority of people were questioning the win. In my mind, SB XLIII was no different than any other typical game with a few bad calls going both ways. What an amazing game!!! Can't wait to watch this one again without having to deal with the nerves.

 

[The Jerk]

There were penalties all over the place on that play. Hightower who had the best chance to bring him down or knock him out of bounds got clipped or blocked in the back at the 25..how was that not called?? Warner was held by #26.

If you actually want possible answers to your question(s), read the thread. It's not even two pages long. However, I'm guessing you're not really interested in any views that are different from the conclusion you have already drawn.

I don't think you need to keep defending the Steelers. From what I can tell, the majority of people regard this as a legitimate superbowl win for the Steelers. The ones who don't are either pretty ignorant or just plain haters IMHO. This is much different from SuperBowl XL in which the majority of people were questioning the win. In my mind, SB XLIII was no different than any other typical game with a few bad calls going both ways. What an amazing game!!! Can't wait to watch this one again without having to deal with the nerves.

I agree that defending the Steelers is not necessary. Nor is defending the officials. It's possible this guy wants an explanation of the rules, and I have seen them described pretty well in this thread, especially by David Yudkin. I am a bit of a rules geek, and I like learning more about the way the rulebook gets translated to the field. For the most part, you can't get a good discussion going on rules based on hypotheticals. It takes situations where many people are watching and calls are made on unique plays to get that to happen on a large scale. The Super Bowl certainly fits that bill. Unfortunately, most of the people who are supposedly "questioning" the call are not really making an effort to understand how it may have been correctly called/interpreted/enforced.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

As the thread starter.. please take this clipping/block in the back talk to your own thread.

All I wanted to know was if it was illegal for Fitz to run out of bounds like he did. I am an Eagles fan, and it is all moot anyhow, but I was curious what the rule is...

FWIW...Steelers beat writer Ed Bouchette thought it should have been a penalty,

Katmandu: Ed, a rules question. When Fitzgerald brought down Harrison over the goal line, I just noticed that he ran the last 30 yards or so while out of bounds. Shouldn't he have been in bounds to avoid a penalty? What if he had brought down Harrison short of the goal line? Has anyone else brought this up?

Ed Bouchette: Yes, many are. He definitely ran out of bounds, came in and tackled him. It should have been a penalty, a moot point perhaps but if he had tackled him short of the goalline it would have become one big issue. I noticed an official right there along the sideline who could not have missed it either. Just another case, as I said, of one poorly officiated football game. The NFL better recognized that its officials are getting worse or they will have a credibility problem.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09034/946624-66.stm

 

[CalBear]

Another thing I have always wondered, what if a player from the sidelines had jumped on the field and tackled Harrison? Would it have been illegal substitution or to many men on the field (5 yards). I've always wondered why teams don't have a designated player on the sidelines that if something breaks loose where no one is going to catch the other team, they can run on the field and tackle them for a small penalty.

They have specific rules on this. IIRC, 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection (with likely a mega fine). Would have to double check the rule though.

I would guess it would 12 men on the field and an unnecessary roughness call + ejection of the player and maybe the coach?Would be interesting though.. what if it saved a TD? Poor sportsmanship but would be worth it?

I called all the officials together and there were some pale faces. The penalty flags were against Stanford for coming onto the field. I say, 'did anybody blow a whistle?' They say 'no'. I say, 'were all the laterals legal'? 'Yes'. Then the line judge, Gordon Riese, says to me, 'Charlie, the guy scored on that.' And I said, 'What?' I had no idea the guy had scored. Actually when I heard that I was kind of relieved. I thought we really would have had a problem if they hadn't scored, because, by the rules, we could have awarded a touchdown [to Cal] for [stanford] players coming onto the field. I didn't want to have to make that call.""I wasn't nervous at all when I stepped out to make the call; maybe I was too dumb. Gee, it seems like it was yesterday. Anyway, when I stepped out of the crowd, there was dead silence in the place. Then when I raised my arms, I thought I had started World War III. It was like an atomic bomb had gone off.

The most amazing, sensational, dramatic, heart-rending... exciting, thrilling finish in the history of college football! California has won the Big Game over Stanford!

 

[David Yudkin]

As the thread starter.. please take this clipping/block in the back talk to your own thread.

All I wanted to know was if it was illegal for Fitz to run out of bounds like he did. I am an Eagles fan, and it is all moot anyhow, but I was curious what the rule is...

FWIW...Steelers beat writer Ed Bouchette thought it should have been a penalty,

Katmandu: Ed, a rules question. When Fitzgerald brought down Harrison over the goal line, I just noticed that he ran the last 30 yards or so while out of bounds. Shouldn't he have been in bounds to avoid a penalty? What if he had brought down Harrison short of the goal line? Has anyone else brought this up?

Ed Bouchette: Yes, many are. He definitely ran out of bounds, came in and tackled him. It should have been a penalty, a moot point perhaps but if he had tackled him short of the goalline it would have become one big issue. I noticed an official right there along the sideline who could not have missed it either. Just another case, as I said, of one poorly officiated football game. The NFL better recognized that its officials are getting worse or they will have a credibility problem.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09034/946624-66.stm

Still waiting to see from anyone, on the boards or posted links, to the rule that cites this as a penalty.

 

[toenail_23]

As the thread starter.. please take this clipping/block in the back talk to your own thread.

All I wanted to know was if it was illegal for Fitz to run out of bounds like he did. I am an Eagles fan, and it is all moot anyhow, but I was curious what the rule is...

FWIW...Steelers beat writer Ed Bouchette thought it should have been a penalty,

Katmandu: Ed, a rules question. When Fitzgerald brought down Harrison over the goal line, I just noticed that he ran the last 30 yards or so while out of bounds. Shouldn't he have been in bounds to avoid a penalty? What if he had brought down Harrison short of the goal line? Has anyone else brought this up?

Ed Bouchette: Yes, many are. He definitely ran out of bounds, came in and tackled him. It should have been a penalty, a moot point perhaps but if he had tackled him short of the goalline it would have become one big issue. I noticed an official right there along the sideline who could not have missed it either. Just another case, as I said, of one poorly officiated football game. The NFL better recognized that its officials are getting worse or they will have a credibility problem.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09034/946624-66.stm

Still waiting to see from anyone, on the boards or posted links, to the rule that cites this as a penalty.

It was reported on a local sports show here in Pittsburgh (Savran on Sportsbeat) last night that it would not have been a penalty. Two local opinions and two different ones.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Another thing I have always wondered, what if a player from the sidelines had jumped on the field and tackled Harrison? Would it have been illegal substitution or to many men on the field (5 yards). I've always wondered why teams don't have a designated player on the sidelines that if something breaks loose where no one is going to catch the other team, they can run on the field and tackle them for a small penalty.

They have specific rules on this. IIRC, 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection (with likely a mega fine). Would have to double check the rule though.

I feel like I remember seeing a highlight of this on some old video when I was a kid. Some guy was running ahead of everyone and a player came off the sideline to tackle him. I don't know what the rules are but I think in this instance that in addition to an ejection they actually gave the team a touchdown.Edit:

Found it:

1954 Cotton Bowl

Turns out it was college, but they did award the team a touchdown.

the refs have the authority to award a TD.http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries scroll to the bottom.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Yep, Stan Savran said he recived about 100 emails about it, so he checked into it and was told that it was not a penalty to run OOB's like Fitz did, had it been a kick or punt, Yes, in this instance, No.

He also added that if they had ruled that Harrison was short of the Goal Line the ball would of been spotted there, and that the Steelers would still have one play to run because of the face mask penalty. So they could of went for it or kicked a FG.

 

[The Jerk]

I was wrong. Sorry.

1) The final Warner pass was reviewed upstairs and it was a fumble. The officials got it right on the field. He did say he wished upstairs would have called the head official over to discuss it with him and have him go under the hood to verify it, but regardless it was a fumble and the call would NOT have been overturned on review.

2) Holmes would have been flagged for using the ball as a prop had any of the officials seen it. He showed the film and after the TD call, the offical stands over Holmes and watches him for approx. 30 seconds. That is what they are told to do. Holmes was being hugged by his teammates and the celebration was legit. However, when all the officals turned away and were preparing for the PAT, Holmes did his LeBron thing. Holmes caught a break that no offical saw it. And that is not reviewable. The ref on the field has to see and call it. BTW, that is not a missed call according to Pereira and therefore does not warrant an apology.

3) The roughing the holder was a correct call. It is an unusual call because it doesn't happen often but if a player runs into the holder without being blocked, it is the same as roughing the kicker.

4) The Harrison 100 INT return was a TD and called correctly. However, had they ruled he was short of the goal-line, the Steelers would have been given an untimed down because of the Arizona personal foul on the play. Even though it happened before the INT, it is still tacked on the end of the run. Therefore Pittsburgh would have been given one play to score the TD had Harrision been short. But he did make it into the endzone and it was called correctly on the field.

Overall, Pereira said it was a well-officiated game and all the calls that were made were correct.

 

[The Jerk]

From USA Today

With 0:18 left in the first half, Arizona had first and goal at the Pittsburgh one. Warner's pass was intercepted at the goal line by Harrison, who ran 100 yards for a touchdown as time expired.

What if Harrison had been tackled by Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald just short of the end zone with 0:00 on the clock?

"Lost in that (what if) was the fact that there was a penalty called on this play," said Pereira.

The foul was a grabbing the facemask penalty. Pereira said it was on Arizona guard Reggie Wells.

"There was a facemask call on No. 74 (Wells) of Arizona prior to the interception, and so it took this whole element out of whether they would have another play or not because the personal foul by the offensive team before an interception is actually tacked on to the end of the play and then the period is extended," said Pereira.

"So no matter what we would have ended up ruling, even if we would have reversed it (the touchdown) and put it down short, we would have had another play and extended the half."

Fitzgerald ran about 40 yards down the Arizona sideline — while out of bounds — in pursuit of Harrison. Fitzgerald, who brushed by a Cardinals coach along the way, finally turned back onto the field inside the 5-yard line to tackle Harrison as he powered into the end zone. Had Fitzgerald stopped Harrison short, would it have been a legal tackle?

Yes, says Pereira.

"It was a legal tackle," Pereira said Wednesday via email. "The only time you can't go out of bounds is during a kick. Any other time you can go out of bounds, stay out of bounds and even be blocked out of bounds. The only restriction is during a kick."