PDA

View Full Version : Rules Question



sd steel
09-14-2010, 04:29 PM
During the first half of our game Sunday Tony Gonzales caught a ball on the sideline after going out of bounds. He was penalized for being the first guy to touch the ball after being out of bounds. Atlanta was allowed to replay the down, thus getting another shot at a third down. My question is shouldn't the pass be considered incomplete because an illegal man caught the ball, and if that is the case why wouldn't the Steelers decline the penalty to have it be 4th down?

papillon
09-14-2010, 05:10 PM
During the first half of our game Sunday Tony Gonzales caught a ball on the sideline after going out of bounds. He was penalized for being the first guy to touch the ball after being out of bounds. Atlanta was allowed to replay the down, thus getting another shot at a third down. My question is shouldn't the pass be considered incomplete because an illegal man caught the ball, and if that is the case why wouldn't the Steelers decline the penalty to have it be 4th down?

This rule sounds eerily similar in its idiocy to the retarded TD catch rule that caught Calvin Johnson and the Lions by surprise on Sunday.

Pappy

Flasteel
09-14-2010, 06:32 PM
During the first half of our game Sunday Tony Gonzales caught a ball on the sideline after going out of bounds. He was penalized for being the first guy to touch the ball after being out of bounds. Atlanta was allowed to replay the down, thus getting another shot at a third down. My question is shouldn't the pass be considered incomplete because an illegal man caught the ball, and if that is the case why wouldn't the Steelers decline the penalty to have it be 4th down?

I thought it was considered an incomplete pass...and also accompanied by a loss of 5 yards. I remember thinking the same thing...how do they get to play the down over? It wasn't a deadball foul or anything.

Unless this is some kind of new twist, I think there was a mistake somehow. I forgot all about that until this thread. Great question.

stlrz d
09-14-2010, 09:07 PM
http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecente ... mebook.pdf (http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/54870/PIT_Gamebook.pdf)

3-5-PIT 49 (12:33) (Shotgun) M.Ryan pass short right to T.Gonzalez to PIT 36 for 13 yards (R.Clark).
PENALTY on ATL-T.Gonzalez, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at PIT 49 - No Play.

1st and Goal--
09-14-2010, 09:40 PM
3-5 PIT 49 (12:33) M.Ryan pass short right to T.Gonzalez to PIT 36 for 13 yards (BMac)
PENALTY on ATL-T.Gonzalez, Illegal Touch Pass, 5yds, enforced at PIT 49 -No Play.

This is what it said on the NFL.com playxplay in the GameBook.

I looked at several other penaltys and after the False Starts it also said - No Play.

Would it have made a difference if he had not caught the pass. [I don't know] I was thinking when the QB hits an OL in the back is that not an illegal touch and/or an incomplete pass. I don't know. But the way it reads it simply is no play just like a false start. As you mentioned it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Incidentally, this happened in the 3rd Q and they converted on 3rd and 10 on the next play and ended up getting a Field Goal which put them ahead 6-3 at the time. Had the Steelers had the option to refuse the penalty ATL would most likely have been forced to punt. CTTAI The Steelers very careless clock management giving ATL the ball back with time left on the clock after Reed missed the long Field Goal attempt near the end of the 1st half gave ATL their 1st 3 points too. This really burned me up since while ATL is not really that good shutting them out in the 1st half was no easy thing. Oh well, the Steelers did win. Didn't they?

Northern_Blitz
09-14-2010, 11:08 PM
3-5 PIT 49 (12:33) M.Ryan pass short right to T.Gonzalez to PIT 36 for 13 yards (BMac)
PENALTY on ATL-T.Gonzalez, Illegal Touch Pass, 5yds, enforced at PIT 49 -No Play.

This is what it said on the NFL.com playxplay in the GameBook.

I looked at several other penaltys and after the False Starts it also said - No Play.

Would it have made a difference if he had not caught the pass. [I don't know] I was thinking when the QB hits an OL in the back is that not an illegal touch and/or an incomplete pass. I don't know. But the way it reads it simply is no play just like a false start. As you mentioned it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Incidentally, this happened in the 3rd Q and they converted on 3rd and 10 on the next play and ended up getting a Field Goal which put them ahead 6-3 at the time. Had the Steelers had the option to refuse the penalty ATL would most likely have been forced to punt. CTTAI The Steelers very careless clock management giving ATL the ball back with time left on the clock after Reed missed the long Field Goal attempt near the end of the 1st half gave ATL their 1st 3 points too. This really burned me up since while ATL is not really that good shutting them out in the 1st half was no easy thing. Oh well, the Steelers did win. Didn't they?

I'm guessing that we have the option to accept or decline the penalty. If he doesn't catch it, then maybe we decline. The only penalty I can think of where you lose the down and the distance is intentional grounding (which ends up being just like a sack).

Discipline of Steel
09-14-2010, 11:40 PM
[quote="1st and Goal--":1dp60rf7]3-5 PIT 49 (12:33) M.Ryan pass short right to T.Gonzalez to PIT 36 for 13 yards (BMac)
PENALTY on ATL-T.Gonzalez, Illegal Touch Pass, 5yds, enforced at PIT 49 -No Play.

This is what it said on the NFL.com playxplay in the GameBook.

I looked at several other penaltys and after the False Starts it also said - No Play.

Would it have made a difference if he had not caught the pass. [I don't know] I was thinking when the QB hits an OL in the back is that not an illegal touch and/or an incomplete pass. I don't know. But the way it reads it simply is no play just like a false start. As you mentioned it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Incidentally, this happened in the 3rd Q and they converted on 3rd and 10 on the next play and ended up getting a Field Goal which put them ahead 6-3 at the time. Had the Steelers had the option to refuse the penalty ATL would most likely have been forced to punt. CTTAI The Steelers very careless clock management giving ATL the ball back with time left on the clock after Reed missed the long Field Goal attempt near the end of the 1st half gave ATL their 1st 3 points too. This really burned me up since while ATL is not really that good shutting them out in the 1st half was no easy thing. Oh well, the Steelers did win. Didn't they?

I'm guessing that we have the option to accept or decline the penalty. If he doesn't catch it, then maybe we decline. The only penalty I can think of where you lose the down and the distance is intentional grounding (which ends up being just like a sack).[/quote:1dp60rf7]

Correct, correct, and correct.

JTP53609
09-15-2010, 09:18 AM
there are way too many rules that are in the gray area, aside from the calvin johnson rule (which also happened to hines against cleveland last year of course) I think that this rule is another dumb rule, just because he caught the ball that means a slappy 5 yard penalty and re do of the down is issued even though he illegally touched it, it should have been a loss of 5 and a loss of down.

And I am in the outcast here but I think holding is B.S. too, an offensive lineman can get beat like a rented mule and he knows that he can basically tackle the guy and know that it will cost him the same amount of yards but they get the reward of playing the down again, I think that holding penalties should also be a loss of down, they want to see less holding and clutching than issue loss of downs instead of 10 yard penalties.

Flasteel
09-15-2010, 05:27 PM
[quote="Northern_Blitz":1bbqt3ai][quote="1st and Goal--":1bbqt3ai]3-5 PIT 49 (12:33) M.Ryan pass short right to T.Gonzalez to PIT 36 for 13 yards (BMac)
PENALTY on ATL-T.Gonzalez, Illegal Touch Pass, 5yds, enforced at PIT 49 -No Play.

This is what it said on the NFL.com playxplay in the GameBook.

I looked at several other penaltys and after the False Starts it also said - No Play.

Would it have made a difference if he had not caught the pass. [I don't know] I was thinking when the QB hits an OL in the back is that not an illegal touch and/or an incomplete pass. I don't know. But the way it reads it simply is no play just like a false start. As you mentioned it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Incidentally, this happened in the 3rd Q and they converted on 3rd and 10 on the next play and ended up getting a Field Goal which put them ahead 6-3 at the time. Had the Steelers had the option to refuse the penalty ATL would most likely have been forced to punt. CTTAI The Steelers very careless clock management giving ATL the ball back with time left on the clock after Reed missed the long Field Goal attempt near the end of the 1st half gave ATL their 1st 3 points too. This really burned me up since while ATL is not really that good shutting them out in the 1st half was no easy thing. Oh well, the Steelers did win. Didn't they?

I'm guessing that we have the option to accept or decline the penalty. If he doesn't catch it, then maybe we decline. The only penalty I can think of where you lose the down and the distance is intentional grounding (which ends up being just like a sack).[/quote:1bbqt3ai]

Correct, correct, and correct.[/quote:1bbqt3ai]

Not so fast my friends. The player DIDN'T catch the ball because he was inelligible as soon as he went out of bounds...the play is dead as soon as he catches the ball. If we decline the penalty, they cannot get the yardage on the catch, because the catch never happened. It's kind of like someone on the bench catching a pass on the sideline.

I believe that an illegal forward pass also results in loss of down by the way.

sd steel
09-30-2010, 11:02 PM
http://www.bangcartoon.com/2010/bum_steer.htm