Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by SaCaCh, Oct 30, 2006.
That was a catch. Refs should of overturned.
(Pre empting the Pats get all the calls thread)
bad call. agreed
Another one. only 5 yds. though
The Pats have dominated but the refs have sucked (for the Vikings).
Oh you mean the Indy rule??? lol thats not our fault thats called.
They got a little payback, the PF on Wilfolk was awful also, he was push in the back into Johnson, should have been a penalty against the Vikes.
My understanding of the rule is that if a receiver (or a defender who attempts an interception) is in the process of being tackled before he legally completes the catch, then he must maintain possession all the way to the ground IF (but only if) the tackle is ultimately made by the player who started the tackle.
This is a new official example given in the rule book, I believe, after the Troy Palamalu play last year. This is impossible to confirm, though, since it's very difficult to actually find the NFL rules on line (as opposed to the nfl's lame "digest," which does not give the approved situational rulings).
In other words, as usual, Theisman has no idea what he is talking about, although it appears Bill Belichick knew the rule and educated the official about it.
So, in a nutshell, if you catch the ball and get two feet down with possession before a defender starts to tackle you, the ref must apply the infamous "football move" rule. If, however, before you get both feet down with possession, a defender STARTS to make a tackle, that the defender then completes, you must maintain possession throughout the tackle, all the way to the ground. It does not matter whether you have taken two steps or ten steps or made two football moves or ten football moves.
The only issues in calling that play correctly are (1) Was the tackle in progress BEFORE the receiver got two feet down and had possesion and (2) did he maintain possession through the tacke. On 1, clearly yes. On 2 clearly no -- in fact, Wiggins lost the ball before his knee hit the ground. No catch. Easy call. Easy to uphold on replay, which is why they did. This is one of those situations where the officials know the rules better than the announcers or Joe Public, and they call it correctly. You may not like the rule -- like the tuck rule -- but it's the rule.
I actually think it's a good rule. It's a possession protection, and offense protection, rule. The rule is primarily designed to avoid calling a fumble in that situation, which is what it would have been there but for the rule (albeit a fumble out of bounds). The idea is that the NFL wants it clear -- either it's a catch or not, and a ball that pops out in the course of a tackle of a receiver is not a fumble.
In short, that rule is designed to protect possession for the offensive team -- it was supposed to be there to help the vikings, but it didn't work out that way since the fumble went out of bounds, but if a patriot had picked up that ball, the rule would have meant not turnover -- just an incomplete pass.
FWIW-all the good calls/bad calls for each respective team gets evened out as the season goes along.
Bottom line is that the refs have the toughest job on the field-it's no different from a coach making a bad play call, or even a DB blowing an assignment.
I am impressed. :rocker:
I also don't think there were going to be any Minny fans showing up here today either way.
I missed the offensive pass interference call that was said to be bad, I was in the kitchen at the time.
The Wiggins catch, as has been said, the two feel down is irrelevant, the "football move" is the relevant issue. As I don't know exactly what constitutes a "football move", it's hard for me to comment.
A pass interference on Samuel against Williamson would have been a travesty. That was closer to offensive interference although I wouldn't have called it either way.
Thanks for a tremendously informative post!
Well I counted at least 2, possibly 3 blocks in the back by Viking players on the punt return for TD.
But the refs needed to give something for the Vikes fans to cheer about.
Now that is why we live on this forum, excellent post to both inform us and increase our appreciation of BB's game focus. Confess, you're a retired official.
I hope he's right since Dale is now referencing PatsFaninAz's post on Patsfans.com (though without crediting Az by name) on WEEI as the only logical explanation he has seen thus far as to why the call may have in fact been correct. He will try to research it. I have a feeling Mike Perriera will explain it to us tonight on NFLN, and my $$$ is on Az got it right.
My money is on Perriera having to get somebody to explain the rule to him carefully, and then having to prep him on what to say tonight. After all, he is the guy that gets paid to understand these things!
Nah, Mike knows his rules. Even the ones he doesn't like. And while his default is always a judgement call, you can tell when he's squirming like on the Asante PI last January.
You are sure those aren't hemorrhoids? Though, come to think of it, it does seem to hit on specific calls...
Oh jeez -- I hope I am right.
As I said, I don't have the NFL rules in front of me, and they don't make their rulesbook available on line, just the digest. My post was based on two things -- first is a lengthy discussion on the subject I read and later heard about from someone who heard a talk by Jerry Markbright (I think) shortly after the Troy Palamalu situation, in which Markbright talked about a new approved interpretation for this situation, to avoid gray areas on fumbles and the "football move" rule. Second, there was a game earlier this year where instant replay was used on one of these and the official -- I believe it was Ed Hochuli explained that it was a fumble, but that the rule "would be different" if the tackle had started before the football move. (Hochuli is great for giving explanations during the game.) I think Nemmers was the official last night, and he's usually not that wordy.
So, anyway, I hope I'm right. I tried to add a caveat that I wasn't 100 percent sure, so I didn't mean to send anyone down a wild goose chase. Let's see what the league says.
Separate names with a comma.