OT: DeSean Jackson Taunting Penalty

[brdmaverick]

Scenario:
Eagles are on their own 2 or 3 yard line on 1st and 10, Young bombs one to DeSean Jackson who takes it out of bounds to the Giants 48 yards line.

The Giants were called for an illegal use of hands to the face penalty, but declined due to the long gain.

But wait........

Another official has thrown a flag on DeSean Jackson for TAUNTING.

The officials announce the penalties as offsetting, and first down is replayed all the way back at the Giants two yard line?!?!?

Am I missing something here, or did the officials just flat out screw up.

Let's take the Giants penalty out of the equation right now.

The tuanting had no affect on the actual play itself and by all accounts was a dead ball penalty. If there were no GIants penalty, shouldn't they mark the penalty as 15 yards back from the where the play ENDED (not from where it began)?

So was it the Giants penalty that through a wrinkle into the equation? THis wouldn't make sense, but essentially that would mean the Eagles were severly penalized from a GIANTS PENALTY!

THe way I see it, the Giants penalty should have been declined, and the Jackson penalty should have pushed them 15 yards back from where the play ended.

I'm not sure if there are any rulebook gurus who can help me out on this one.

 

[FalconHeavy]

Fu***** zebras, they thoroughly f**** up desean jackson on that big play as well as on the punt return

I f***** hate this mike FCUKING carrie and his crew !!! :scream:

 

[Dufflebagz]

Fu***** zebras, they thoroughly f**** up desean jackson on that big play as well as on the punt return

I f***** hate this mike FCUKING carrie and his crew !!! :scream:

You either have Desean Jackson on your fantasy team or you're a spy from the Eagles message board. Hmmmmm.....

 

[Nikolai]

OP has a point. It's a bit of a head-scratcher for me.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I saw that, what a costly penalty. It makes sense to penalize 15 yards from after the pass.

DeSean Jackson is still a knucklehead though. He's fragile with bad personal awareness and composure, who just happens to be blessed with insane speed. He's a milder version of Terry Glenn.

 

[FalconHeavy]

You either have Desean Jackson on your fantasy team or you're a spy from the Eagles message board. Hmmmmm.....

gee, I didn't think it was that obvious, ha

 

[BradyFTW!]

If that is how offsetting penalties really work, then that's stupid and needs to be changed. The Giants gained ~40 yards of field position by committing a penalty there.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I think the Zebras screwed up that ruling. The infraction occured AFTER the play therefore the catch should've counted.

I remember several plays where the play counted and they mark 15 off from that. Happens on lots of TDs and happened in the 2006 AFCD when we beat SD after their missed FG at the end.

The only explanation I could see would be that there was a penalty on the Giants so they didn't want to just ignore that and let the penalties offset but even that doesn't make much sense since you're essentially awarding the Giants for commiting a penalty. Or maybe the play only counts if it's a change of possession?? No idea

 

[ctpatsfan77]

If that is how offsetting penalties really work, then that's stupid and needs to be changed. The Giants gained ~40 yards of field position by committing a penalty there.

Sadly, it generally is. Any two offsetting penalties while the ball is in play results in a do-over; that said, I don't recall if the rule explicitly includes dead ball foul vs. ball in play foul.

[AFAIK, the only time ball-in-play penalties DON'T offset is if it's a 15-vs.-5 situation: if a false start leads to, say, unsportsmanlike conduct, then the 5 is dropped and the 15 enforced.]

 

[letekro]

Conduct violations that have no impact on the game, for example, taunting and excessive celebration, should not be penalized. If the league doesn't like this conduct, it should fine the players involved.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Thats the NFL for you. On the penalty where Manningham got called for taunting after his score against us, all Arrington had to do was shove manningham to the ground and their would be offsetting penalties and it would be like the play never happend.

 

[naF staP]

THe way I see it, the Giants penalty should have been declined, and the Jackson penalty should have pushed them 15 yards back from where the play ended.

I'm not sure if there are any rulebook gurus who can help me out on this one.

I agree, the taunting penalty should be from where the play ended, it just makes no sense how it was done tonight.

Btw, very dumb thing for Jackson to do, almost liked seeing him not getting that play because of it, even though it didn't make sense.

 

[strngplyr]

I agree, the taunting penalty should be from where the play ended, it just makes no sense how it was done tonight.

Btw, very dumb thing for Jackson to do, almost liked seeing him not getting that play because of it, even though it didn't make sense.

Just like Braylon Edwards taunting Butler (or was it Arrington at that point) after scoring a touchdown week 2 last year, by this logic the Jets should have had their touchdown reversed. I missed the play tonight, but if they penalized from before the snap for taunting then they screwed up big time.

 

[Mossed]

Yea I'm pretty sure that was a messed up call, since the taunting came after the play was over. Should have been the Illegal use of hands declined, then the unsportsmanlike foul enforced from the end of the run.

Because like some of you are saying it makes no sense that if someone were to be taunted, they could retaliate and offset the play haha.If that is however the case the next owners meeting should have a look at that..

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Is there a rule you cant have two penalties on one play? I thought that was odd but I cant see the zebras screwing up that badly.

 

[ALP]

i saw that, thought same thing

i trust the rulebook, the refs called it wrong, and it should have been quite obvious to at LEAST one of them that since the jackson penalty was AFTER the play, the two would NOT offset....

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Jackson caught the ball and then threw the ball to the Giants D coord's body right after he was knocked out of bounds and then the ref called the play dead (Ref waiving his 2 arms over his head together).
Since the incident happened right before the play was called dead, it was a right call and not a dead ball foul.


Plus it teaches D Jackson a lesson. I have no problems w. the ruling or the enforcement of the flag.

 

[jcdavey]

if the play was dead (not ref-ruled dead, but legitimately dead) before the taunting, then the refs got it wrong

no surprise though, the refs are pretty bad in the nfl

 

[Gumby]

Jackson caught the ball and then threw the ball to the Giants D coord's body right after he was knocked out of bounds and then the ref called the play dead (Ref waiving his 2 arms over his head together).
Since the incident happened right before the play was called dead, it was a right call and not a dead ball foul.


Plus it teaches D Jackson a lesson. I have no problems w. the ruling or the enforcement of the flag.

Your argument seems silly AND I think you are confusing cause and effect.

He ran out of bounds. So if the ref didn't wave his arms yet, a defender can go wallop him out of bounds?

The ball going out of bounds ended the play. The ref signalling is just to inform all those who didn't see it that the play is over.

The refs should not be the action; the players are.

(but that is not to say in this Polian-world of NFL rules in which referees change them from game to game that you might not be correct by the rules as written. GOD HELP US.)

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Did the coach even ask the refs to come over and explain the ruling? I know BB would have had that conversation (not that the zebras can ever admit to being wrong while in a game situation it seems...after the fact seems quite acceptable to them).