FGs not reviewable

[convertedpatsfan]

I think this extends well beyond just whether it is reviewable or not, and should focus directly on whether the referee understood the entire rule as Pereira explained it.

If the referee knew the entire ball had to be inside the edge of the upright and saw that, even if he was wrong, I could accept it.

But I have zero confidence the referee knew what the rule was. He probably saw part of it go inside and assumed that was good enough.

Throughout the last few weeks, the refs have shown they are not aware of many rules. I'm not saying I know every rule (as those in the chatroom last night with me can point out! ), but the fact that on that call, they didn't get together to discuss, and just ran the hell out of there as fast as they could makes me really upset.

If it's based on a good or bad judgment call, that's life.

If it's based on complete ignorance of the actual rule, that's a massive hit to the credibility of the NFL.

A few more weeks of this and we'll have to asterisk the entire season...

 

[Bonzo]

Rule 11, Section 4, Article 1 Successful Field Goal (subsection c):

"The entire ball must pass through the vertical plane of the goal, which is the area above the crossbar and between the uprights or, if above the uprights, between their outside edges."

Wow, this rule seems nuts to me. For instance, If the ball is "mostly" outside the goalpost but low enough that it hits the upright, it would almost certainly clang off no good. Why reward the kicker with greater margin for error if the ball is kicked above the posts?

 

[dex13]

I still don't get how a FG can be reviewable under one set of situation but not under another. yeah, I get the explanation but scoring plays should be reviewable with any exceptions. Stupid policy by a bunch of idiots.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Wow, this rule seems nuts to me. For instance, If the ball is "mostly" outside the goalpost but low enough that it hits the upright, it would almost certainly clang off no good. Why reward the kicker with greater margin for error if the ball is kicked above the posts?

Agree. If I were writing the rule from scratch, I'd write it to say that if the ball is above the upright, the entire ball must be within the center line of the post. I think that's the point at which a ball, more likely than not, bounces into the goal instead of outside.

The rule as written gives kickers a modest advantage when the ball is kicked high. Actually very modest -- it probably only matters once or twice of year, but I guess Murphy's Law suggests that when it does matter, it's the difference between winning and losing.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Agree. If I were writing the rule from scratch, I'd write it to say that if the ball is above the upright, the entire ball must be within the center line of the post. I think that's the point at which a ball, more likely than not, bounces into the goal instead of outside.

The rule as written gives kickers a modest advantage when the ball is kicked high. Actually very modest -- it probably only matters once or twice of year, but I guess Murphy's Law suggests that when it does matter, it's the difference between winning and losing.

That would be too hard to judge, Id make it the inside of the post.

 

[Alfred]

Is this true?

Baltimore Ravens' winning field against New England Patriots not easy call - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

First,check out these pics. They really give us a better view of the ball.

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Next, YES Field goals ARE reviewable but only those that go over the crossbar AND between the uprights. That is the NFL rule.

And when the officials raised their arms to say it was good, then they are saying that it WAS between the uprights and thus REVIEWABLE.

 

[Alfred]

I think this extends well beyond just whether it is reviewable or not, and should focus directly on whether the referee understood the entire rule as Pereira explained it.

If the referee knew the entire ball had to be inside the edge of the upright and saw that, even if he was wrong, I could accept it.

But I have zero confidence the referee knew what the rule was. He probably saw part of it go inside and assumed that was good enough.

Throughout the last few weeks, the refs have shown they are not aware of many rules. I'm not saying I know every rule (as those in the chatroom last night with me can point out! ), but the fact that on that call, they didn't get together to discuss, and just ran the hell out of there as fast as they could makes me really upset.

If it's based on a good or bad judgment call, that's life.

If it's based on complete ignorance of the actual rule, that's a massive hit to the credibility of the NFL.

A few more weeks of this and we'll have to asterisk the entire season...

tHERE IS A LIST ON WIKIPEDIA OF ALL OF THE REPLACEMENT OFFICIALS AND THEIR EXPERIENCE. mOST ARE HIGH SCHOOL REFS AND ONE HAD LISTED THE FOLLOWING FOR EXPERIENCE.LINGEREE FOOTBALL LEAGUE