Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
3 Pages123>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Barfarn  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:31:22 AM(UTC)
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  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:39:14 AM(UTC)
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.
PackFanWithTwins  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:56:10 AM(UTC)
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.
Barfarn  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:45:22 AM(UTC)
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  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:05:54 AM(UTC)
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.
beast  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:14:46 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.
Barfarn  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:21:27 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:24:44 AM(UTC)
Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post

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].


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.
buckeyepackfan  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:24:59 AM(UTC)
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.
beast  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:32:42 AM(UTC)
Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post
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!


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.
beast  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:51:48 AM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


I think the sky cam is now available in most stadiums.... weather the refs have access to that camera or it's just the TV crews, I have no idea about.

My interpretation of what the booth was saying, was that they were surprised the sky cam was the only cam that caught that extra reach, and that it was the best angle. In my interpretation, they seemed to be suggesting that it was very rare, for the sky cam to either be the best best angle and/or the only angle... and they found it surprising and funny for some reason. That's my interpretation, I am not sure that is the correct interpretation or not.
PackFanWithTwins  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:59:00 AM(UTC)
Barfarn

down by contact, Forward Progress, Player out of bounds. They have nothing to do with the position of the ball, they are solely for the purpose of blowing the play dead. Once the play is blown dead the officials then need to determine the spot of the ball. both Elliots and Beasley play were both spot of ball challenges and both plays were plays where the ball carriers forward momentum was stopped by a defender/defenders. both of them they got correct under the rules.



Barfarn  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 12:20:52 PM(UTC)
beast said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


beast said: Go to Quoted Post
I think the NFL refs clearly disagree with you.

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

But the 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.


To Buckeye's point: I was yelling at Mike McCarthy for throwing the flag on the Beasley play, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to find "indisputable visual evidence" that established Beasley being short of LTG. I hope someone told MM, "I looks short, but camera angle cannot be verified; we dont have indisputable evidence. This ref, however, has a history of judging these video books by their cover, he doesnt understand how camera angles can distort the actual location of the ball relative to LTG."

Both of those calls were wrong as neither camera angle afforded anyone the ability to conclude indisputable evidence existed. This is the reason they installed Pylon cams a few years ago; so they could at least review GL plays.

Beast, the "touching" thing is about was the guy touched while on the ground or did the touch cause a player to hit the ground. If not "touched" the player is not downed yet.

The Grant fumble in video is a perfect example of which I speak. Grant looks to have clearly fumbled, he was on his feet when the ball came out. But because the ref ruled him down by forward progress the play cannot be reviewed. The reason is that we dont know if the fumble occurred before or after he was ruled downed. If the replay identified the exact moment he was ruled down by forward progress [impossible], then it could be determined if he lost control before he was downed [a fumble] or lost control after he was downed [no fumble] and the play would be reviewable.

Likewise, if Elliot was stopped by FP, just like with the Grant fumble above, we dont exactly know when the play was deemed dead.
If play was dead before Elliot reached-no first.
If play was dead after Elliot reached but before he pulled ball back-Its a first.
If play was dead after Elliot drew ball back to his chest- no first.

Like I said, Elliot was on bodies he never touched the ground until he fell off backside of pile, which was short of First down. HAd Elliot kept his feet, when he fell off backside of pile he could have kept running unless the play was dead by FP.

Now tell me by the replay exactly where is the play blown dead? You don't know and cant know with the present technology. And the refs don't know either. I bet they reviewed it like a GL play, not thinking this is at the 20.
beast  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 12:51:35 PM(UTC)
Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post
The Grant fumble in video is a perfect example of which I speak.


Actually they're very different issues... and this is where you are mistaken, as a number of people have already told you, but you refuse to accept it.

Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post
Now tell me by the replay exactly where is the play blown dead? You don't know and cant know with the present technology. And the refs don't know either. I bet they reviewed it like a GL play, not thinking this is at the 20.


Right AFTER this happened...

see how the ball carrier is still going forward... and then gets pushed back. They're challenging the balls placement... he got to the 19.
Barfarn  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:10:56 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
Barfarn

down by contact, Forward Progress, Player out of bounds. They have nothing to do with the position of the ball, they are solely for the purpose of blowing the play dead. Once the play is blown dead the officials then need to determine the spot of the ball. both Elliots and Beasley play were both spot of ball challenges and both plays were plays where the ball carriers forward momentum was stopped by a defender/defenders. both of them they got correct under the rules


Yes, refs spot the ball after very tackle. But, when the official determines the spot by forward progress, IT CANT BE CHALLENGED.

Let's try example:

First down marker is at 29.5:

Example A: RB makes contact with a scrum of defenders at the 30, they hold him up at the 30 with his feet churning, then 2 OLmen plow in and push RB down at 29, the ball is spotted at 30, no first down, he's ruled down by contact. The review shows that the players knee didn't hit until 291/2 and at that moment the ball was at 29. The spot of the ball is challenged ball is moved forward to the 29, 1st down.

Example B: RB makes contact with a scrum of defenders at the 30, they hold him up at 30 with his feet churning, then 2 OLmen plow in and push RB down at 29, the ball is spotted at 30, no first down, he's ruled down by forward progress. Coach sees replay of the knee hit at the 291/2, when ball was at 29 and challenges the spot.

It dont matter where the knee hit and it dont matter what the ball's most forward progress was as shown by the video.

THE SPOT OF THE BALL PRODUCED BY THE DOWNING OF A BALL CARRIER VIA A FORWARD PROGRESS DETERMINATION CANNOT BE REVIEWED! [The reason is listed in my previous post!-the replay doesn't tell us exactly when the play was blown dead, so we dont know were to put the ball].
beast  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:13:34 PM(UTC)
Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post
Yes, refs spot the ball after very tackle. But, when the official determines the spot by forward progress, IT CANT BE CHALLENGED.

EXCEPTED IT WAS CHALLENGED!

You're saying the sky can't be blue... then we all look up... and guess what... the sky is blue!
beast  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:56:27 PM(UTC)
Note how the Forward Progress rule that is among "NON-REVIEWABLE PLAYS" is about "Whether a runner’s forward progress was stopped before he went out of bounds or lost possession of the ball", which is NOT what happened on the Elliott play!

While "Plays governed by the line to gain" which was the case of what happened, is among the "REVIEWABLE PLAYS".


atlantafalcons.com said:


Article 4. NON-REVIEWABLE PLAYS
The following play situations are not reviewable:
(a) Fouls, except for Article 5 (g) below.
(b) Spot of the ball and runner:
(1) Runner ruled down by defensive contact or out of bounds (not involving fumbles or the line to gain).
(2) The position of the ball not relating to first down or goal line.
(3) Whether a runner’s forward progress was stopped before he went out of bounds or lost possession of the ball.
(4) Whether a runner gave himself up.
(c) Miscellaneous:
(1) Field Goal or Try attempts that cross above either upright without touching anything.
(2) Erroneous whistle.
(3) Spot where an airborne ball crosses the sideline.
(4) Whether a player was blocked into a loose ball.
(5) Advance by a player after a valid or invalid fair catch signal.
(6) Whether a player created the impetus that put the ball into an end zone.

Article 5. REVIEWABLE PLAYS
The Replay System will cover the following play situations:
(a) Plays involving possession.
(b) Plays involving touching of either the ball or the ground.
(c) Plays governed by the goal line.
(d) Plays governed by the boundary lines.
(e) Plays governed by the line of scrimmage.
(f) Plays governed by the line to gain.
(g) Number of players on the field at the snap, even when a foul is not called.
(h) Game administration:
(1) Penalty enforcement.
(2) Proper down.
(3) Spot of a foul.
(4) Status of the game clock.
Barfarn  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:28:18 PM(UTC)
beast said: Go to Quoted Post
Actually they're very different issues... and this is where you are mistaken, as a number of people have already told you, but you refuse to accept it.

Right AFTER this happened...

see how the ball carrier is still going forward... and then gets pushed back. They're challenging the balls placement... he got to the 19.


I agree with you! "[Elliot was downed] right AFTER this happened" that's not a first down!

The reason why Grant's fumble video isnt reviewable is because we dont know if he fumbled before or after the play was dead and this is the EXACT dynamic at play in you're Elliot video.

The ball gets spotted where a ball carried is downed, right? Now show me where your video confirms where he was DOWNED!

Was he downed at 19? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Your video PROVES that Elliot was not down!!!!! He was not down thru that entire video. Go read Rule 7 it gives numerous examples of when a ball was down and that video doesn't show a single one!

Unless you're claiming he's down by forward progress.

The ball momentarily reaching the 19 is meaningless, because the video doesnt confirm that that is when the play ended; the play might not be over! If Elliot kept his feet after coming off pile and ran outside and got tackled at 21, can he claim that reach as forward progress at 19? Of course not!

If your saying when he stretched out he gave himself up, that cant be reviewed either.
beast  
#19 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:42:16 PM(UTC)
Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post
that cant be reviewed either


Again you say it can't happen... after it DID HAPPEN! It's already happened... you are just in denial.

And I've already shown where the rules say it is allowed... and the refs action suggest it's allowed, and very smart people on here say it's allowed. You just can't accept it.
beast  
#20 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:51:47 PM(UTC)
Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post
that cant be reviewed either


Again you say it can't happen... after it DID HAPPEN! It's already happened... you are just in denial.

And I've already shown where the rules say it is allowed... and the refs action suggest it's allowed, and very smart people on here say it's allowed. You just can't accept it.

As the NFL rule book showed above, your interpretation of what can and can't be challenged is wrong.

Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
3 Pages123>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
hardrocker950 (8m) : But I put it mostlt on the offense and poor playcalling
hardrocker950 (9m) : I have seen the defense take a lot of flak over the loss..
Cheesey (1h) : Rodgers would have hit open guys. The game plan wouldn't have killed us. Less 3 and outs, and maybe some scores.
beast (1h) : Rodgers wouldn't of abandon attepting to get the ball to Nelson and Adams.
Zero2Cool (2h) : Rodgers with that game plan would have came up short too.
beast (3h) : Yeah the Packers defense got wore out... being on the field so long. Giving longer breathers than 3&out would of helped a lot IMO.
Cheesey (4h) : There wouldn't have been so many 3 and outs, thus keeping our D off the field.
Cheesey (4h) : True, but with the low score we would have had a chance with Rodgers behind center.
Zero2Cool (4h) : Brees is a damn good QB, not giving Capers a pass, not even close.
Zero2Cool (4h) : Saints kicked Packers ass with Rodgers too.
Cheesey (4h) : That's just it. Rodgers needs a DEFENSE as well. And without him, there is NO chance.
beast (5h) : Just fire everyone! Rodgers can do it without them! Hell trade for the healthy Browns players!
Cheesey (7h) : Capers needs to GO. So do players that can't cut it.
Zero2Cool (8h) : Capers presser summed up? INjuries are why we suck. (shut up, coach and adapt)
Zero2Cool (8h) : nearly crapped myself hearing dom capers talk, forgot to close the tab after mccarthy haha
Zero2Cool (8h) : McCarthy said the communication was not good enough on defense yesterday. Injuries in secondary have complicated substitution patterns.
Zero2Cool (8h) : McCarthy again says "I believe in him"... sorry, BS, we saw how you believe in him yesterday.
Zero2Cool (9h) : @The_Green_Gold Highest graded players Kenny Clark & Blake Martinez. It wouldn't be possible to grade an entire defense
Porforis (9h) : Well, it WAS clean until someone 'shouted' in it...
Zero2Cool (9h) : QB Brett Hundley when targeting a WR against Saints: 6-for-15, 54 yards.
Zero2Cool (9h) : clean?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
9m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

13m / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Porforis

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

22-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

22-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines