Passizle Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Good Morning Skins fans, Long time fan, seasoned poster... but I dont start threads much. I am sure, like many here today that even after yesterdays loss, some positives can be taken away from a real hartebreaker. Our offense played VERY well, against a great defense led by a man seeking a little payback. I was glad that they stepped up and gave'em "what for". Nice showing all around, though I would like to string Suisham up by his toe, spray him down with honey and let a few thousand fire ants have at him for an hour or so.... That being said, I wanted to bring a little bit of a different POV about the game flow, and how IMO, anoher batch of inoppurtune reffing turned this game around for the "Aints" (DISCLAIMER) I am in no way, shape or form, condoning the thought that the refs actually cost the Redskins a win. Im just pointing out a few "mistakes" (IMO) they had misinterpreted from the NFL rule book. This iswhat gave the Saints new life and started a "perfect storm" so to speak, of plays that up ended our very deserved win. Question 1. What are the "official" rules for down by contact. There were two moments in the game that really had me scratching my head. One play was the Moore interception right before the end of the first half. During the replay, it is VERY clear that Moore made a good catch, (had control and maintained control throughout the fall to the ground). That being said, the reason both defenders were falling was do to contact by Meachem. To further the point... it was also very clear that Moore's elbow hit the ground before he got up and started running again. Even if the Refs missed that, how could they miss that he was down by contact from Meachem when rolled on the ground after the elbow hit? He was litterally on his back for a short moment. Technically he was down twice before he started running again. This misread IMO gave the Saints 7 points. Question 2. What are the official rules for hitting a PR after the fair catch is called? Play in question was the ARE fair catch where a Saint was blocked into him. My memmory is a little fuzzy on this so please correct me if I am wrong... This exact same kind of play went against us a few weeks back. I cant remember which game it was but I do rememeber ARE calling for fair catch and a defender blocked one of our own players into the catch and it cost us possesion. Now, I dont understand the rule clearly. How is it that a defender can block a team member into his own guy to possible mess up a fair catch and cost said team possesion... but if a team member blocks a defender into the same fair catch guy, it cant be a penalty? I dont get it. Final question. How can a change of possesion be made after the ball is blown dead? This has to do with Sellers fumble that finally cost us the game in OT. I understand the call... and the review. What I dont understand is how they can change the possesion after the play is blown dead. Clearly Sellers fumbled. But since the play was dead, the official blew the whistle and hit the ground with his hand before the Saints scooped it up. I hope this is review by Pierrera (sp) this week. Any one have some good insight or pinion to share about these plays? They were frustrating to watch. I dont think they really cost us the game. We should have never taken the boot from the neck in the first place... PS. Also of note were the low hit on Campbell and helmet to helmet on DT (I think... it may have been Davis) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 A good place to start for some of your answers (maybe): http://www.nfl.com/rulebook But keep in mind, there is always a certain amount of "interpretation" that goes into almost any call any official in any sport makes. EDIT: That looks too general. Maybe this link - http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/2006%20NFL%20RULEBOOK.pdf - will help more. Found here (http://www.catscratchreader.com/2009/8/10/984388/the-official-nfl-rulebook). It's 2006 so any changes in the last 3 years will obviously not be there. If anyone has anything more recent that would obviously be better, I couldn't find it just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 I see that a bunch of us had the same thought around the same time. MODS, please feel free to close or merge this if you feel its a retread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I only interpret Roger "Good-to-all" wanting 2 un-defeated teams going for perfect seasons under his tenure. It was mentioned that it is the 1st time 2 undefeated teams are playing this late in the season, so go figure... Maybe Snyder should put the refs on the Skins payroll; works in Dallas, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lydon Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Good questions Passizle, I would like to know the answers myself, especially the one about the Sellers fumble. Also I would like to know how that was able to be reviewed. It looked like the skins had already snapped the ball when the timeout was called. I also thought that a timeout counts as a play and you can't review a play once another one has been run. I only say this because in the Lions/Browns game a week or two ago, Stafford was hurt on the last drive and had to sit out a play. The Browns called a timeout and Stafford was allowed to re enter the game because the time out counted as one play. Anyone who can shed light on these questions would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooley4President Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Good questions Passizle, I would like to know the answers myself, especially the one about the Sellers fumble. Also I would like to know how that was able to be reviewed. It looked like the skins had already snapped the ball when the timeout was called. I also thought that a timeout counts as a play and you can't review a play once another one has been run. I only say this because in the Lions/Browns game a week or two ago, Stafford was hurt on the last drive and had to sit out a play. The Browns called a timeout and Stafford was allowed to re enter the game because the time out counted as one play. Anyone who can shed light on these questions would be greatly appreciated. The Sellers fumble was a result of a new rule this year that basically says if there was a play that was ruled down by contact on the field and the review shows a fumble, a change of possession is allowed if and only if there would be a CLEAR recovery by the other team. It was made necessary after the Broncos/Chargers call last year that cost the Chargers the game when it was clearly a fumble that would have been recoverd by them, but since the play was blown dead there was no review possible. The play was able to be reviewed because the timeout was granted before the snap of the ball. Since OT challenges are booth challenges, the booth is allowed to review the play during the timeout to see if they want the ref to review it as a challenge. The rule that enabled Stafford to play says, I believe, that if the clock stops because of an injury, the injured player has to come off for at least one play. I think there is a time run-off when this happens in the last 2 minutes. This is intended to prevent players from staying down to get their team an extra timeout. In the Stafford play, since Cleveland called the timeout, the clock had not stopped because of his injury so therefore he was not required to sit out the next play. Having said all that, the Sellers reversal was terrible and goes against the very intention of "indisputable visual evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 1. The contact only counts if it happens after a player has established full possession of the ball. In other words, a player isn't down even if he made a catch in the act of falling specifically because he got tangled up with a defender (or in this case, receiver-turned-defender). I'm guessing that the refs thought Moore bobbled the catch a bit (which I think he did), and by the time he had full control, he wasn't touching the Saint anymore - which would mean that his elbow or knee could be on the ground and it wouldn't matter. A "defender" would have to touch him again for him to be down. 2. The rule's actually somewhat consistent. "You" can block "them" into the fair catch guy, and "they" can block "you," too. It's not a penalty. However, it's the responsibility of the receiving team to not be blocked into their own man. So when that happens (like it did to ARE a few weeks ago), if it's not a penalty, then the ball must be live. 3. They changed this rule a year or two ago. If one team clearly recovers a fumble in the immediate aftermath of the play being blown dead, and replay can establish that it was, in fact, a fumble, the defending team can challenge for possession. Now, you can argue that the replay didn't conclusively show that Sellers fumbled, but if the refs think it did, then, yes, they actually can award the ball to the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.