NFL Week 13

Cafe Society
81

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
And I was right. Even though after the emotion of the moment has faded (and I was emotional when I posted Sunday), I re-examined both and declared that both should’ve been called the same way, you’ve decided ahead of time you were going to think negatively of my response regardless of what it was.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it would’ve helped if you hadn’t come to the wrong conclusion. Both were force-outs. (It would also help if you ever apologized for, or at least acknowleged, your prior screeds that you subsequently disavow. A quick mea culpa goes a long way.)

As for the force-out rule itself, it’s actually pretty consistent for the rules of football. Momentum is a big deal in football rules, with “forward progress” being the main embodiment. Think of a sack on the offense’s 1 yard line resulting in the QB being tackled in the endzone. That’s never ruled a safety because the QB’s momentum didn’t carry him backwards, the tackle did.

Now instead of a sack, imagine the QB just gets off a duck of a swing pass, and the RB jumps up to get it at the 1 yard line along the sideline. While in mid-air, the RB makes the catch and gets hit. His feet still haven’t touched the ground. Here’s where the consistency comes in:[ul][li]If he’s tackled backwards into the endzone, it is NOT a safety; he is awarded forward progress to the 1.[/li][*]If he’s tackled sideways out of bounds, it is NOT an incomplete; he is awarded a force-out at the 1.[/ul]That’s the underlying principle of the rule, at least.

82

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Well, it would’ve helped if you hadn’t come to the wrong conclusion. Both were force-outs. (It would also help if you ever apologized for, or at least acknowleged, your prior screeds that you subsequently disavow. A quick mea culpa goes a long way.)

[/quote]

What am I disavowing? On Sunday, when my emotions were high and the memory of the baker catch was a year away, I said they were different. Upon a more objective review, I said they should be treated the same way. I disagreed with your assertion that Baker’s call was a thousand times more egregious, but I said they should’ve been called the same way.

[quote]

As for the force-out rule itself, it’s actually pretty consistent for the rules of football. Momentum is a big deal in football rules, with “forward progress” being the main embodiment. Think of a sack on the offense’s 1 yard line resulting in the QB being tackled in the endzone. That’s never ruled a safety because the QB’s momentum didn’t carry him backwards, the tackle did.

Now instead of a sack, imagine the QB just gets off a duck of a swing pass, and the RB jumps up to get it at the 1 yard line along the sideline. While in mid-air, the RB makes the catch and gets hit. His feet still haven’t touched the ground. Here’s where the consistency comes in:[ul][li]If he’s tackled backwards into the endzone, it is NOT a safety; he is awarded forward progress to the 1.[/li][li]If he’s tackled sideways out of bounds, it is NOT an incomplete; he is awarded a force-out at the 1.[/ul]That’s the underlying principle of the rule, at least.[/li][/QUOTE]

I would have to see the actual rule and guidelines about calling a force out. If it has to do with how much of a person is in bounds at the time of the contact, then these rules may be similar. But if not, then I disagree that they’re entirely analogous. Forward progress rules (which I also think are far too generous - yet another one of those offense encouraging rules the NFL has adopted over time) attempt to judge where a person was at when something happened - how far they were forward when the play became dead. While it’s something of a judgement call too, they’re fundamentally trying to figure out something that actually happened - where a person was at a particular moment in time.

Unless the force out rules say something about where the receiver’s body was at the time of the contact, they’re asking the referees to speculate where a receiver could’ve been, rather than trying to determine where they actually were.

83

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
What am I disavowing?
[/quote]
You describe it in the sentence following this one.

Mike Pereira (sp?) – the head of officiating – was on Inside the NFL and basically torpedoed the “most of the body was inbounds” idea. He flat-out stated that the officials must determine if the receiver would have come down inbounds.

Apart from that, I don’t think you understood my comparison. The RB catches the ball in the air and the first thing he touches is:[ul][li]endzone. Not a safety.[/li][*]out of bounds. Completed pass.[/ul]

84

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
You describe it in the sentence following this one.
[/quote]

I don’t understand. You said that I disavowed what I said last year, but as I said, after reviewing both plays, that I’m in agreement with what I said last year. I may be wrong, but I’m not inconsistent.

The next statement you quoted was about how force outs are actually determined, so I don’t understand what bearing that statement has on my supposed disavowing.

85

[QUOTE=Xema]

So while we can’t be absolutely certain he’d have come down in bounds, the evidence strongly suggests this.
[/QUOTE]

I’d bet my life Baker would have landed in bounds had he not been touched. I mean, he’s about three feet inbounds with his right foot coming down before he gets knocked the heck out. It would have taken some amazing acrobatics for his left foot not to have come inbounds, too. I’ve watched this replay over about a dozen times (I missed it last year) and showed it to about five other people, and I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody with a knowledge of earthly gravity could conclude Baker would not have landed in bounds. It’s not even close. The call really, really baffles me.

86

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
I don’t understand. You said that I disavowed what I said last year, but as I said, after reviewing both plays, that I’m in agreement with what I said last year. I may be wrong, but I’m not inconsistent.
[/quote]
I was refering to this year’s screed, not last year’s rationalization. And I do give you credit for at least being consistent(ly wrong.)

It doesn’t have any bearing at all. It’s a whole separate part of the conversation, which is why I quoted it separately. I was letting you know that the head of officiating contradicted what Golic said.

87

[QUOTE=pulykamell]
I’d bet my life Baker would have landed in bounds had he not been touched. I mean, he’s about three feet inbounds with his right foot coming down before he gets knocked the heck out. It would have taken some amazing acrobatics for his left foot not to have come inbounds, too. I’ve watched this replay over about a dozen times (I missed it last year) and showed it to about five other people, and I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody with a knowledge of earthly gravity could conclude Baker would not have landed in bounds. It’s not even close. The call really, really baffles me.
[/QUOTE]
I’m right there with you. You’ve heard of the “new math;” not calling Baker’s catch a force-out has to be the “new physics.”