NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

[Steel Life]

...Because the officiating this weekend sucks! I'd like to have the pass-interference call explained once again (as opposed to illegal contact) & find what it takes to have offensive PI called, apparently I don't know because Fitzgerald got away with running guys over.

While we're at it Mr. Piera, please explain the ref missing the facemask on Rodgers on the game's last play & the helmet to helmet hit. Just a crappy way to end a great game...

[papillon]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

...Because the officiating this weekend sucks! I'd like to have the pass-interference call explained once again (as opposed to illegal contact) & find what it takes to have offensive PI called, apparently I don't know because Fitzgerald got away with running guys over.

While we're at it Mr. Piera, please explain the ref missing the facemask on Rodgers on the game's last play & the helmet to helmet hit. Just a crappy way to end a great game...

Yea, I wondered about that as well. The defender clearly hot him in the mask and then actually latched on for a bit. I'm surprised it wasn't called, that's one they seem to look for these days. The announcers made nothing of it either, as if they had a hot dinner date and didn't want the game to continue.

Pappy

[NJ-STEELER]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

its getting to be NHL bad.


they ahve to do something about it

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

...Because the officiating this weekend sucks! I'd like to have the pass-interference call explained once again (as opposed to illegal contact) & find what it takes to have offensive PI called, apparently I don't know because Fitzgerald got away with running guys over.

While we're at it Mr. Piera, please explain the ref missing the facemask on Rodgers on the game's last play & the helmet to helmet hit. Just a crappy way to end a great game...

I'll take a stab at this one - PI occurs if there's contact made after the ball is thrown. Illegal contact is any contact that occurs 5 yards downfield before the ball is thrown.

Anyone?

Yeah, I noticed that too! What I think is interesting is that the facemask may have occurred after the fumble and recovery. What would the correct call have been then?

[feltdizz]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

I saw a head to head on Rodgers and a facemask... I will also admit Aaron Rodgers holds onto the ball just like Ben.. and has just as many sacks. Throw the freaking ball.

This weekend was another obvious display of refs influencing games.. I have seen at least 5 plays where the WR has pushed of, initiated contact, held and all the calls went against the Defender...

The automatic first down on a few 3rd and incomplete were also janky. I guess this is why they call it a passing league. Surely it's not because of the outcome of these playoff games.

The teams who ran heavy won easily. Football hasn't changed that much.

[NJ-STEELER]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

the begnals were also a run first team

[feltdizz]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

the begnals were also a run first team

I don't know about that. Cedric Benson was a beast but Cincy drops back a lot. Maybe I didn't watch them enough but they looked like a team who had to run because Palmer was stinking the place up.

[NJ-STEELER]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

all season long they were talking about the bengals being a run first team this year.


maybe after they got down yesterday they opened it up a bit.


more importantly...it was the better defenses that won 3 of 3 games this week, with the last game not having any defense

[SteelAbility]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

all season long they were talking about the bengals being a run first team this year.


maybe after they got down yesterday they opened it up a bit.


more importantly...it was the better defenses that won 3 of 3 games this week, with the last game not having any defense

The last game was a case of the less-worse defense NOT losing it.

[SteelAbility]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

...Because the officiating this weekend sucks! I'd like to have the pass-interference call explained once again (as opposed to illegal contact) & find what it takes to have offensive PI called, apparently I don't know because Fitzgerald got away with running guys over.

While we're at it Mr. Piera, please explain the ref missing the facemask on Rodgers on the game's last play & the helmet to helmet hit. Just a crappy way to end a great game...

I'll take a stab at this one - PI occurs if there's contact made after the ball is thrown if the ball is not tipped. Illegal contact is any contact that occurs 5 yards downfield before the ball is thrown.

Anyone?

Yeah, I noticed that too! What I think is interesting is that the facemask may have occurred after the fumble and recovery. What would the correct call have been then?

Spot on SASF. I added a qualifier for the anal retentive/OCD types.

[Mister Pittsburgh]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

What I would like to know is what is the definition of the tuck rule? To me it appeared that Rodgers had the ball up and was ready to throw it, but then was in the process of bringing it back down when it was jarred loose cause the defender was climbing his facemask.

I think they didn't have the balls to call anything once everyone was going nuts and running on the field and stuff.

Oh well. Glad to see the Pats lose. Even if it was the Ravens, I have some level of respect for them. None for the Pats. Mort said that on the Ravens botched punt return where NE recovered, that not only did they not show the replay on the jumbotron at the stadium, but that mysteriously, the feed for TV got cut to the Ravens coaches box at that moment then mysteriously came back on after the first play was run. Talk about shady.

[Jooser]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

Here's the video of the play. It was definitely a personal foul. The tuck rule didn't apply here because the ball never hit the ground, but rather bounced off of Rogers' foot.

[youtube:nxkq767j]<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lZCbmc0IIM4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0 xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lZCbmc0IIM4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0 xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>[/youtube:nxkq767j]

[stlrz d]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

Eh...he hit the ball and his hand carried through to the face.

Calls are made and calls are missed...it happens.

The refs get one look at it live (unless there is a challenge). We sit at home and see 3 or 4 angles, including extreme close ups, and then criticize them for not seeing something that we needed 3 or 4 angles and an extreme close up to see.

As for the NE punt...I'm almost positive that took place on the Ravens sideline. They blew it by not challenging. I don't blame the officials for that one.

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

Here's an interesting discussion on the last play of the Cardinals - Green Bay game. It also reminded me there was a "helmet-to-helmet" that could have been called on the Cards just a play or two before.

My take on the fumble-facemask-recovery-TD play is that even though the fumble occurred before the facemask, it could be argued that the facemask impeded Rodgers ability to recover the fumble, and that the ball should therefore stay with Green Bay.

I'm wondering why no booth review?

************************************************** ***********
[url="http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/01/10/packers-cardinals-game-ends-in-officiating-controversy/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnfl.fanhouse.com%2F2010%2 F01%2F10%2Fpackers-cardinals-game-ends-in-officiating-controversy%2F"]http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/01/10/pack ... roversy%2F[/url]

Matt Snyder
Matt Snyder is an NFL and MLB Blogger for FanHouse
Zebra Report is FanHouse's analysis of actual NFL rules and how they are to be applied ... because most fans think they could do a better job than the NFL officials, yet definitely could not. Click here for an introduction as to how we do things.

One of the most exciting games in recent memory ended amid controversy Sunday evening. Karlos Dansby's fumble return for a touchdown gave the Cardinals a 51-45 victory over the Packers, but Packer Nation is up in arms with two specific no-calls. Let's examine:

First of all, FOX color commentator Troy Aikman mentioned on the Packers' second down play in overtime that a defender hit Aaron Rodgers "helmet to helmet." Coincidentally, just this past week I covered how the actual penalty isn't for every time helmets collide in the NFL, because the circumstances behind each hit actually matter.

That being said, I'm pretty surprised there was no call for roughing the passer here. For the past several years, we've seen officials -- at the urging of the league office -- be particularly protective of quarterbacks. This wasn't a situation where the defender got blocked into Rodgers or where Rodgers initiated the contact himself. It appeared simply to be a blow to the helmet by the helmet of a defender. In other words, clear roughing the passer.

Here's the section of the rulebook that applies to roughing the passer in this situation (12-2-13, p. 85):

In covering the passer position, Referees will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders impermissibly use the helmet and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of the body to hit the passer in the head, neck, or face (see also the other unnecessary-roughness rules covering these subjects). A defensive player must not use his facemask or other part of his helmet against a passer who is in a virtually defenseless posture -- for example, (a) forcibly hitting the passer's head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by encircling or grasping him, or (b) lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the "hairline" or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the passer's body. This rule does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on a passer.

Share Why did the official not call it? If I had to mount a guess, I'd say he didn't see it. The referee (the one wearing the white hat who stands behind the offense) is supposed to be watching the passer. Unfortunately, he was in the process of throwing a flag for holding during that same play. I'd wager that he was still getting the number of the offending player (for the hold) and didn't see the contact on Rodgers. Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying as a justification or excuse, though. The referee is supposed to be protecting the quarterback on a passing play, so there is no excuse for missing this contact. I'm just trying to surmise how he missed it.


Two plays later, the Packers lost the game on a Rodgers fumble which was returned for a touchdown. On the play in question, it does appear the defender got enough of Rodgers' facemask to warrant a flag, in my opinion. The problem here is the positioning. If you watch the replay from behind, you can't tell where the defender's hands are -- and this was the view the referee had. There's no way he could see it. No one else would be watching the quarterback, as each official is assigned to a certain grouping of players and the referee is the only one watching the passer. There's also another layer at play, which is that the referee, in this case, had to watch the ball to determine possession once it was loose. This was just a blind spot that is unavoidable when using a seven-man crew of human officials.

Now, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a penalty. A penalty is a penalty. As I said, it's hard to fault the referee for missing the facemask. I do believe he made a big mistake by averting his eyes from the quarterback on the first no-call. On the possible facemask, if anything, this further illustrates an opinion I've had in the past that more calls should be reviewable. If that was the case, the final play would have been taken to the replay process and they would have called facemask.

Then, it would be a tough call as to whether or not the foul occurred before or after Rodgers lost control of the football. If it happened after the possession change, the Cardinals would have gotten the turnover and had to score with their offense. If it was determined the foul happened before Rodgers lost possession, the Packers would have retained possession and been awarded 15 yards and a first down (they call this the "clean hands" stipulation, meaning you can't get the ball on a change of possession unless you haven't committed a penalty. If you had committed a penalty, you didn't get the ball with clean hands).

Finally, I've seen a few people asking about why the "tuck rule" wasn't applied on the final play. The answer is that it's irrelevant because the ball never hit the ground. In the tuck rule, a forward moving arm means it was a pass and not a fumble, but, again, the ball never hit the ground. The only argument would be whether or not to credit Karlos Dansby with a fumble recovery or an interception.

Got a rules-related question? Whether it's elementary, high school or NFL, email TZR and he'll see what he can do.
************************************************** ***********

[feltdizz]

Re: NFL has a lot of explaining to do...

I bet the Ravens challenge if the game was closer. Pats* are old and slow though.. that was a lovely way to see them fall.