BS call againts Jets. - Page 3

His Boy Elroy · #21 10-30-2006, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with those saying he "might have" come down in bounds. He was way inside the plane, was close to the ground, and had hardly any left-right momentum. It would have taken some extraordinary physics for him to come down out of bounds on his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might have landed on his one foot, then inexplicably hopped off of it and landed out of bounds on the other foot...

Go Browns! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

MinRaise · #22 10-30-2006, 03:33 PM

This was a bad call, but nowhere near as bad as people are saying. It is not easy for the refs to determine momentum when also trying to determine if he has control of the ball, especially for a one-handed catch. The rule is the stupid part that it can't be reviewed.

The roughing the passer call that cost the Bengals vs. Tampa two weeks ago was way worse than this call.

UATrewqaz · #23 10-30-2006, 03:41 PM

It's amazing the NFL has as strong and loyal a fanbase as it does, considering how routinely the refs rape both the teams and the fans.

The review system is terrible, almost everythign should be reviewable or everything shouldn't be. None of this "if we call it this way we can, but if we call it this way we can't" crap.

Victor · #24 10-30-2006, 03:44 PM

i think they should eliminat this rule like in college. if you hit a guy out, congrats, good play, no catch.

also, in regards to fumbles and catches etc, refs should never whistle a play dead

MyTurn2Raise · #25 10-30-2006, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i think they should eliminat this rule like in college. if you hit a guy out, congrats, good play, no catch.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good idea

I'm all for giving Refs less judgment calls.

niss · #26 10-30-2006, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The roughing the passer call that cost the Bengals vs. Tampa two weeks ago was way worse than this call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to hijack or anything, but I think the roughing the passer penalty needs to be addressed way before review of a force out. Roughing the passer calls are generally game changers because they happen on passing downs (of course), typically third downs, and they award the "roughed" team a first down on what probably was 3rd and long. Instead of having a stop and forcing a kick, the "roughed" team now has a 1st down and a gift of 15 yards.

For instances where someone really goes out to hurt the QB, such a result is deserved. But if they are going to call a penalty every time some 300-lb. lineman rushing at full speed blows on the QB a few seconds after the ball is gone, then how can they justify making what often can be a game changing call?

My solution -- if they feel they need to protect the QB to such an extreme -- is to do what they did with roughing the kicker. Make a new 5-yd penalty for "running into the QB" or "unintentional contact with the QB", and keep the 15-yd personal foul for the worst cases.

Sluss · #27 10-30-2006, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My solution -- if they feel they need to protect the QB to such an extreme -- is to do what they did with roughing the kicker. Make a new 5-yd penalty for "running into the QB" or "unintentional contact with the QB", and keep the 15-yd personal foul for the worst cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this idea alot.

As for the OP that was a terrible call. There is some specific reason why a force out is not reviewable. It was one of the things that was looked at last year when they changed the down by contact fumble rule. Watch the NFL Network Wednesday night and I'm sure the director of officals will explain.

Assani Fisher · #28 10-30-2006, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I saw this, and it looked close at least. Yeah, he might have been able to get the feet in, it wasn't a horrible blown call though like what we see most weeks.
I don't see how it being a "judgement call" should make it unreviewable, such dumb rules. Don't they think that getting a better look of the play would make their "judgement" more accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

The battle to get instant replay back at all was a big one. Many many people didn't want it at all because of how it slowed down the game. Look at baseball for example, which still doesn't use it at all!

So they had to make many compromises to get it in at all. Judgment calls being unreviewable was one of them.

Assani Fisher · #29 10-30-2006, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was not reviewable because it was a judgement call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this part. Why wasn't it reviewable? Isn't every call essentially a "judgement call?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, some calls are clear cut. For example, whether a player stepped out of bounds or not. He either stepped out or he didn't. But this is a judgment call because since he did NOT come down in bounds you have to made a judgment about whether or not he would have. Its a complete hypothetical.

Assani Fisher · #30 10-30-2006, 05:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

also, in regards to fumbles and catches etc, refs should never whistle a play dead

[/ QUOTE ]This suggestion would last until a star player got hurt on a play in which he stopped playing because it was clear to him that the play was over but the refs didn't whistle it dead and he got hit when he wasn't ready. Imagine if this happened to a star QB...the outrage of the fans would be enormous.