ptr77 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Read the rule. Says nothing about feet first. It says "falling to the ground", which he did, and "making no effort to advance" which is also true. Sorry folks but much like the tuck rule the anger here is caused by our ignorance to the obscure rules buried in the rule book. I thought it was a fumble as well when I saw it. I had never read the rule before and assumed it was a fumble, however this rule is very cut and dry. In most instances where a guy gives himself up headfirst he stays on the ground longer and waits to be tapped, that's why people are arguing the call. Cruz, clearly gave himself up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryGreenMonk Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 While watching the game, I thought it was a blown call. But the rule seems pretty clear. Good job by the officials. BS... if he had realized he wasn't touched and then took off for a TD.. they would never call that back as a dead ball... EVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 BS... if he had realized he wasn't touched and then took off for a TD.. they would never call that back as a dead ball... EVER.And it would have been the right call because he would have made an effort to advance. But since Cruz didn't do that on this play (he put the ball down and walked back to the huddle), he was clearly down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryGreenMonk Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 And it would have been the right call because he would have made an effort to advance. But since Cruz didn't do that on this play (he put the ball down and walked back to the huddle), he was clearly down. so... you're just supposed to stand there and wait and see if he starts running cause he has the option to just take off if he wants? that's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 And it would have been the right call because he would have made an effort to advance. But since Cruz didn't do that on this play (he put the ball down and walked back to the huddle), he was clearly down. So he gets the benefit of the doubt no matter what then. If he takes too long to get up, he's "not making an effort" but if he doesn't, he's covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 so... you're just supposed to stand there and wait and see if he starts running cause he has the option to just take off if he wants? that's ridiculous.No, the defense can touch him when he's down to end the play.So he gets the benefit of the doubt no matter what then. If he takes too long to get up, he's "not making an effort" but if he doesn't, he's covered.No, if he realized after he put the ball down and started walking away that he wasn't touched, he would still be down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzplay Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Precisely, and what's equally ridiculous is that the officials never blew the whistle to signal that the play was over (i.e., that Cruz had given himself up, and was down). The league office has issued a statement indicating that Boger and his crew made the proper call. That is complete and utter nonsense. I agree with what Tony Dungy said about it last night......basically that if the league is gonna make that contention, then please also include a video of that call ever having been made before. Doesn't exist. And for the record, there were plenty of questionable calls against Arizona in that game. The problem with Boger and his crew (and there are many) is that they routinely favor big-market teams and traditional powerhouses. And Boger should NEVER have been elevated to referee after only being a line judge for 2 years. Geez, have you heard him on the microphone explaining calls ---- the english language is to him what t-bone steak is to my vegetarian girlfriend. Anyway, on the play in question, he was influenced heavily by Bog Waggoner's contention that the receiver gave himself up. If you remember the mysterious offensive pass interference call against Seattle (Darrell Jackson) in the Super Bowl against Pittsburgh, you'll also remember how late that flag came out, and that it wiped out a Seahawks touchdown. Who threw it? Waggoner. He's horrible, and consistently so. The league doesn't want to accept that the officiating has deteriorated significantly over the last several years, largely because inept officials are allowed to continue far too long, and unprepared officials are too often promoted when they're not ready. This is what is ridiculous about it...Had he gotten back up, realized he wasn't touched and took off for a TD, there's no way it would have been called back as a result of the fact that he was down and didn't make a football move so the play was dead. so if he gets back up and fakes the play is over and takes off.. it'll be a TD.. if he does what he did and they recover he's down and unreviewable because it's a dead ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The difference between what Eli did last year and Cruz yesterday is that Eli lost the ball in the process of falling when he hit the ground. Cruz let the ball go after he went down and started getting back up. Apparently, it wasn't a blown call: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d822cb889/article/report-johnson-says-refs-at-giantscardinals-tilt-made-right-call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald362 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I know that you are a bit young to remember the situation, but it is very possible that if the call had gone against the Redskins at that point, it might have been 42-10 the other way. The Skins were behind, not really able to accomplish anything, and looking confused and down. If the broncos had gotten the call, the score could well have been 17-0 broncos. I dont think that the Skins would have been quite the same after that. You're talking about a game where the Redskins won 42 to 10. This call changed who won the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Read the rule. Says nothing about feet first. It says "falling to the ground", which he did, and "making no effort to advance" which is also true. Sorry folks but much like the tuck rule the anger here is caused by our ignorance to the obscure rules buried in the rule book. I thought it was a fumble as well when I saw it. Well, despite the rule, when you hear both Cruz AND Manning talk about the play, neither of them were aware of this rule & they both realized how lucky they got. Unfortunately, there is a judgement call made here where 1/2 the people say it was a fumble & the other 1/2 say it was downed because there was a "grey area" here. When he got up, the ball was laying on the ground. In any other game, that would have been a fumble & this must be the only official in the League who knew that rule. Clearly the players on the field weren't aware of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 This is what is ridiculous about it...Had he gotten back up, realized he wasn't touched and took off for a TD, there's no way it would have been called back as a result of the fact that he was down and didn't make a football move so the play was dead. so if he gets back up and fakes the play is over and takes off.. it'll be a TD.. if he does what he did and they recover he's down and unreviewable because it's a dead ball. You don't have any clue how the refs would have responded, so there's no point to speculate with some absurd scenario. The fact is, the refs called the play correctly as it's written in the rule book. You can argue about the rule being dumb and say that the Giants are lucky since Cruz was obviously not meaning to "use" that rule to his advantage. But this isn't on the refs. By definition, they called the play correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptr77 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 You don't have any clue how the refs would have responded, so there's no point to speculate with some absurd scenario. The fact is, the refs called the play correctly as it's written in the rule book. You can argue about the rule being dumb and say that the Giants are lucky since Cruz was obviously not meaning to "use" that rule to his advantage. But this isn't on the refs. By definition, they called the play correctly. Exactly. All Dungy and Harriso talked about was what they were taught. Not many people actually bothered to read the rule. The actual rule (which is bogus) was enforced correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Exactly. All Dungy and Harriso talked about was what they were taught. Not many people actually bothered to read the rule. The actual rule (which is bogus) was enforced correctly. Actually, it isn't really bogus. It gives the offensive player an out as opposed to getting lit up. If Cruz didn't give himself up there, he gets hit from both ends and maybe gets injured. The rule is a good one if it is used correctly. The Greatest Show On Turf used it all the time. The Ram receivers always went down instead of getting hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The officiating in the NFL has gotten absolutely HORRIBLE! The refs ABSOLUTELY GAVE that game to the G'nats! The receiver was NOT down! No onr had touched him, and he just as easily could have gotten up and resumed running because he hadn't been touched. This "not reviewable" **** has GOT to be stopped! EVERY call should be reviewable, although these ref idiots have proven time and again that they can't even watch hi-def, freeze-frame, super slo-mo TV and get the calls right! It's also gotten to where you can't touch the QB or a kick returner without getting flagged. They should just rename it the "NPL": the National Pattycake League! I can think of another "P" word for the Pattycake part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptr77 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 ;8584378']Actually' date=' it isn't really bogus. It gives the offensive player an out as opposed to getting lit up. If Cruz didn't give himself up there, he gets hit from both ends and maybe gets injured. The rule is a good one if it is used correctly. The Greatest Show On Turf used it all the time. The Ram receivers always went down instead of getting hit.[/quote']Completely disagree. The rule should state something to the effect that to give oneself up they must stay down for an extended period IMO. You are welcome to your opinion but I think its a stupid way to state a rule. If a guy is on the ground, unless he gets up he should be treated as defenseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 This rule has been around for a while. It happened to Doug Williams in Super Bowl XXII vs. Denver. You don't have to be tackled or even touched for the play to end. Just fall to the ground and the play is over. Williams was do to his knee going in the other direction. It was more of an injury thing. This guy just fell down. ---------- Post added October-3rd-2011 at 02:29 PM ---------- Victor Cruz didn't "give up on the play" He was trying to make a juke to get some more YAC, and stumbled to the ground untouched, then makes a boneheaded move that should have secured the game for the Cardinals.Something tells me if that isn't the Giants, the officials find a reason to allow Cardinals to challenge it and Cardinals win game. If it was Moss, it would have been a fumble. The call would have gone against us for making a "football" move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 ;8584378']The Greatest Show On Turf used it all the time. The Ram receivers always went down instead of getting hit. Really? I don't recall this happening ever. Bruce, Holt or Az-Akim would dive to the ground without getting hit and the refs would blow the whistle? It was ten years ago, so maybe I'm just forgetting, but that just seems off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Really? I don't recall this happening ever. Bruce, Holt or Az-Akim would dive to the ground without getting hit and the refs would blow the whistle? It was ten years ago, so maybe I'm just forgetting, but that just seems off. They were the most blatant users of the rule. They didn't like getting hit. It was talked about a number of times on the pregame shows. ---------- Post added October-3rd-2011 at 02:36 PM ---------- Completely disagree. The rule should state something to the effect that to give oneself up they must stay down for an extended period IMO. You are welcome to your opinion but I think its a stupid way to state a rule. If a guy is on the ground, unless he gets up he should be treated as defenseless. I think we are saying almost the same thing. I don't know how you completely disagree with what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 If the call was made correctly as they are saying, it's outrage that the ref didn't recognize it and blow the whistle in a timely fashion. The fact that they "let the play keep going" after the Cardinals recovered the ball, and then decided to change it to the correct ruling is what we get tired of. Get it right the first time and there is no controversy. Most could accept it if they had blown the whistle faster while pointing to the ground that the runner was down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptr77 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 ;8584455']They were the most blatant users of the rule. They didn't like getting hit. It was talked about a number of times on the pregame shows.---------- Post added October-3rd-2011 at 02:36 PM ---------- I think we are saying almost the same thing. I don't know how you completely disagree with what I said. If an offensive player lays on the ground, will he get lit up? I think there's a penalty for that... John Lynch used to get penalized for that all the time... That's how the rule should be IMO. Giving oneself up should be a feet first slide or just laying down and staying down till tapped by a defensive player. As it stands right now, Cruz purposely falling face first and deciding he was down was enough under the current rules. The rule can be improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There are a lot of ignorant NFL fans. Knew it wasn't a fumble the second I saw the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There are a lot of ignorant NFL fans. Knew it wasn't a fumble the second I saw the play. FALSE. Tell me how this was ruled a fumble http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010102410/2010/REG7/patriots@chargers#menu=highlights&tab=recap It's the "Chargers fumble again" video. Giants were given a W. PERIOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFC Beast Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Wow. you guys sould like chicks. The NFL said today the right call was made. I think the giants got lucky they didnt call it a fumble, but the refs called the play and it was a judgement call. He fell to his knees and let go of the ball and was headed back to the huddle. Id say he "gave up". Definitely lucky though they didnt call it a fumble. Again the NFL today said they made the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010102410/2010/REG7/patriots@chargers#menu=highlights&tab=recap Go to "Chargers fumble again". Tell me why that wasn't called the exact same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010102410/2010/REG7/patriots@chargers#menu=highlights&tab=recapGo to "Chargers fumble again". Tell me why that wasn't called the exact same way. That's exactly right. Same thing as happened yesterday. Even Mike Piera said it was called wrong. This ain't college. Looked like he thought it was college rules. Change the rule to say that when you give yourself up, stay down until the whistle is blown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.