Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
6 years ago
Elliot supposedly extended the ball past the marker. But was tackled with it well behind the marker. On goal line once ball crosses the GL, the play is dead; but it doesn't work this way at the 20.

To argue the ball should be ruled down at its furthest point, one must argue that this is the furthest point were forward progress was achieved. Unfortunately, review is only available to determine where a guy got tackled with the ball; it cannot be used to review forward progress.

It's amazing a room full of refs forgot this point during review; but ultimately, its GB's fault.

Our staff, like most others, simply doesn’t have unerring expertise with the rules. I’ve said this before, they need some sort of expert to tell these things to McCarthy.
Zero2Cool
6 years ago
Only flag/play that really kind of ticked me off was the penalty on Blake Martinez on 3rd down that ended up giving the Cowboys 4 more points. I do not know the rule well enough to know it was/was not a penalty. But, the broadcasters and people on twitter and that former head of officials said it was a bad call. I just don't know why New York can't chime in and say hey, pick up that flag. If it's going to change points or who has the ball, I think you gotta make that a little more accurately.


Edit, I think Elliott's reach was the peak of his forward progress. No issue with that play at all.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
6 years ago
When they say forward progress cannot be reviewed, it means the decision to call the play dead because of stopped progress, that cannot be reviews.

Spot of the ball always can be.

If you say, they can't review the Elliot play, they also wouldn't have been able to review McCarthy's challenge prior that took the 1st down away.


I've never liked the forward progress rule in situations like this, but I don't know if there is a way to fix it. In this case it is clear Elliot pulled the ball back under his own power, not that he was pushed backwards.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
6 years ago
The Martinez penalty was BS; but ya gotta give the refs a break based on what they may have seen in real time. If that was reviewed, I'd bet the flag gets picked up. Not sure this stuff should be reviewed, it's lead to 3-4-5 reviews per game.

PFWT,

The play before, McCarthy challenged the spot of the ball where Beasley was tackled.

Elliot was tackled and ball spotted 1/2 yard short, that spot was reviewable and it was correct, that's where Elliot was tackled with the ball. But, the refs didn't review the spot of the ball; they reviewed the point of Elliot's most forward progress [the reach].

Forward progress is a judgment as to "when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends." Of course, once a ref believes FP was achieved he blows the whistle. The review doesn't let us know when the whistle blew, nor can it be used as a substitute for a ref's judgment call.

If they saw the ball extended and Elliot's knee or elbow down, then okay, that's reviewable and I get the reversal. But, Elliot had flown thru the air and landed on a pile of bodies; he was not down unless a ref judged his forward progress stopped. Had he got pushed back and landed on his feet; he could have kept running first down around end or tried diving again, unless play was blown dead.

Note: if Elliot pulled ball back on his own accord, then that's is not the point of forward progress!

Note: On GL, the forward progress doesn't come into play because once the ball breaks the plane, the play is dead.
PackFanWithTwins
6 years ago
I don't remember how the announcers or officials described it but Let me see if I can explain it better for you.

Forward progress has nothing to do with the ball. It is about the forward movement of the ball carrier. So the challenge wasn't about forward progress, it was about the spot of the ball at the time of the forward progress being stopped.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
beast
6 years ago

Only flag/play that really kind of ticked me off was the penalty on Blake Martinez on 3rd down that ended up giving the Cowboys 4 more points. I do not know the rule well enough to know it was/was not a penalty. But, the broadcasters and people on twitter and that former head of officials said it was a bad call. I just don't know why New York can't chime in and say hey, pick up that flag. If it's going to change points or who has the ball, I think you gotta make that a little more accurately.


Edit, I think Elliott's reach was the peak of his forward progress. No issue with that play at all.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I agree with the announcer's ref... that Martinez hit was not a penalty because the rule states it needs to be a forcible blow to the head/neck and Martinez's arm was a glance blow at best... and as Aikman added, if anything Martinez was avoiding the hit, not causing it... as Martinez went around, playing the ball, not the WR.

I still believe the ref saw Martinez arm glace Dez's helmet, saw Dez laying there motionless and flat on the ground and threw the flag to cover his own ass, because I think IF it was a penalty and he doesn't call it, his ass is going to be chewed out big time... where IF it isn't a penalty and he calls out, he's just going to be told he got it wrong. As I think the refs are told to side towards calling player safety rules.

But Dez was laying there motionless and flat on the ground because he was pouting about his dropped touchdown... not because he was injured by a hit in the head.
UserPostedImage
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
6 years ago

I don't remember how the announcers or officials described it but Let me see if I can explain it better for you.

Forward progress has nothing to do with the ball. It is about the forward movement of the ball carrier. So the challenge wasn't about forward progress, it was about the spot of the ball at the time of the forward progress being stopped.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



EXACTLY! And that is not reviewable!

A ball spotted at a certain point due to FP [as opposed to a ball spotted at a certain point due to a player downed by contact] is not reviewable!
beast
6 years ago


The play before, McCarthy challenged the spot of the ball where Beasley was tackled.

Elliot was tackled and ball spotted 1/2 yard short, that spot was reviewable and it was correct, that's where Elliot was tackled with the ball. But, the refs didn't review the spot of the ball; they reviewed the point of Elliot's most forward progress [the reach].

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



If I understand the rule correctly (and I am NOT sure that I do), the reviews got both the Beasley and Elliot calls correct. As the ball gets marked at the furthest distances while the player is either downed, touched or held up.

In the case on Beasley on his horizontal route... the ball went further than he did and he grabbed the ball and brought it back to him while he was NOT being touched or held up. So the ball does NOT get placed at the further distances, because he was not downed, touched or held up there.

Meanwhile Elliots extra reach forward happened while he WAS being touched or held up and therefore that counts, and the fact that he brought it back doesn't matter. So the ball does get placed at the further distance, because he was either downed, touched or held up there.

UserPostedImage
buckeyepackfan
6 years ago
My only question on the Zeke play was the camera they used to make the final call.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I got from the guys in the booth was that camera angle is not available in most stadiums.

Would like to hear others thoughts on that.

In the end it all worked out.

Most of the time, bad calls will even themselves out over the season, with exceptions (FAIL Mary 😁).

So maybe we have one in the bank for the future.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
beast
6 years ago

EXACTLY! And that is not reviewable!

A ball spotted at a certain point due to FP [as opposed to a ball spotted at a certain point due to a player downed by contact] is not reviewable!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



I believe the NFL refs would disagree with you.

I think Forward Process can't be reviewed, to say if the play was over or not.

But the actual ball spot is reviewable even during forward process plays.


This is the forward process part that is nor reviewable... they blew the play dead, so what happened after the whistle does not count. But the Vikings could of challenged the ball spot.



UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (9h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (10h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (12h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (13h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (16h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (17h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
4h / Around The NFL / beast

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.