NFL Week 14

Just saw the replay of the hit on Vick on the sidelines that Andy and the Eagles honks are complaining about. Two facts are immediately clear to me.

  1. It was a absolutely legal hit, Vick was a runner and he was still in bounds when the hit was delivered.

  2. There would have been a flag thrown if it was Brady, Brees or Manning. There may even have been a flag thrown for the other 28 QBs in the league too.

So, I’m not sure where the crime lies. I’m inclined to think that the second fact is the more irritating one. QBs use and abuse those rules to steal an extra yard or two near the sidelines by sidestepping downfield and/or extending the ball forward right before stepping out. Defenders need to be able to make a QB pay if he tries that. I would have been pissed if the refs had tossed the flag there for Vick though, he was in bounds, there is a double standard in place but they shouldn’t rectify it by throwing more uncalled for flags.

My statement is 100% true and that example confirms it.

The whistle blew AFTER Ben crossed the plane of the goal. Review showed that the ball was out BEFORE he crossed the plane and therefore before the whistle. The refs essentially blew a play dead while there was still a live ball. That the recovery for the 'Phins happened after the whistle and was disregarded conforms to the rule as I stated it.

ETA: The ball wasn’t not awarded to Miami because it couldn’t be seen on replay, it was because the play was blown dead. Even if it had been clear they recovered it it wouldn’t have mattered based on the officials explanation. The announcers speculation during the review notwithstanding.

But the official reason they couldn’t give the ball to the Dolphins directly contradicts what you said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/sports/football/25dolphins.html

Not a word about how the play was blown dead before the defense could recover it. Had they been caught on tape recovering the ball, they would have gotten it even though the whistle had blown.

Can’t find the offical NFL rule change announcement, but in discussion about the Steelers-Dolphins fumble someone posted this:

This is exactly my understanding.

Surely you’ve heard of the “must have clear possession to be awarded the fumble” replay rule they recently put into effect. What could that possibly mean except for awarded possession after the whistle is blown? (If it’s before the whistle is blown, there is no replay to determine who recovered. Whoever comes up with it gets it.)

None of this sounds familiar to you?

That wasn’t how I remembered the explanation on the field going. I hadn’t seen those postgame comments.

I found another discussion of the call by the ref who made it here too.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/25/referee-gene-steratore-explains-ruling-in-dolphins-steelers-game/

He reiterates the argument that you quoted in more detail. Interesting. I also note that he completely dodges the question about the whistle being blown.

I believe my understanding of the rule is correct and that the officials botched that explanation and/or were trying to avoid admitting a mistake was made in blowing the whistle. I’m curious what the NFLs replay was when the Dolphin’s sent the tape to the league.

Found a cite from yahoo. Hopefully it’s compelling enough.

This rule change was introduced to deal with the whole “down by contact” thing. Remember how annoying that used to be on fumbles?

I swear they’ve made a huge deal about this rule change for years. I’m frankly stunned you’re not aware of it.

I remember a rash of plays where an early whistle made some fumbles irrelevant upon review years ago. I remember the league also instructing the officials to delay blowing the whistle on some loose balls when there doubt about a player being down. I’m not familiar with any rule that allows possession to be awarded to a team after a whistle though. That’s not to say that there isn’t wording to that effect somewhere in the minutiae of the NFLs rulebook though.

You don’t find my cite compelling?

Note that the one concession to fairness in the current rule is that you don’t get yards advanced, but instead on a change of possession you get the ball back where you recovered it.

If you fumble but the whistle blows ruling you down by contact, the other team picks it up and runs it back for a TD, on review they’ll be awarded the post-whistle fumble recovery but not the TD. Instead, they’ll get the ball at the spot of the recovery.

Surely you’ve heard mention of this facet of the rule, yes? Logically, this part of the rule can only apply to post-whistle fumble recoveries. All pre-whistle fumble recoveries go to whoever comes up with the ball. Replay never overrules pre-whistle possession under any circumstances. Pre-whistle possession is not reviewable. (Apart from catching the ball, of course. I mean in the context of fumbles, or a WR and DB both catching the ball at the same time, or determining who first possessed the fumble in a pileup. Disputed possession is not subject to review.)

EDIT: You may not have seen my cite; timestamps indicate you may have been typing when I posted it.

I don’t remember those specifics. It’s an interesting conundrum. I’m curious what the specific wording and instructions from the league are on that. The Sellers fumble in that cite sounds very much like the play SenorBeef described and it was apparently ruled consistently. I feel like there’s supposed to be some gray area there in which a post-whistle recovery that happens within the immediate action is allowed but ones that happen well after the action has wound down are not. Seems like the league is being intentionally vague on that topic.

It seems like this subject has opened up an entirely different problem in games. Refs are now more hesitant to blow whistles on plays meaning that those “continuation” fumbles tend to get allowed more often than not. The end result is that a lot of “inconclusive” reviews tend to favor the defenses. The Knox fumble was one example. I don’t think it was clear at all if Knox was down or not, but the refs swallowed the whistles just in case. In the end the Pats got the benefit of the doubt since the refs let the play go even though most the guys on the field let up assuming he was down.

No, I do, that was just a simulpost.

That’s what the rule change is intended to address. The old way – when a whistle ended action no matter what – the refs hesitated out of fear of screwing the defense by blowing a fumble dead. After the rule change they can blow the whistle more freely since now they can clean it up later by review.

The problem is that most players let up when the refs blow the play dead, and even worse, if they don’t let up they risk a penalty.

I guess in today’s game, loose ball trumps all, even the whistle.

Ok, so I’m watching the play again on NFL Rewind. If you have access to Rewind or otherwise have access to the video, it’s in the 4th quarter with 11:13 left on the clock.

3 seconds after the snap, Delhomme is hit from behind while trying to throw the ball. The ball comes loose and tumbles forward along the ground. The officials immediately and unambiguously blow the whistle. This is about 1 full second after the ball was knocked loose. You can’t see it very well in that image, but the arm of the ref you see on the right side of the screen is from a ref running in, blowing the whistle, and waving the play dead.

As you cna see, several Browns are in position to take a shot at recovering the fumble here. But there is a loud, clear whistle, and officials running in waving their arms. So the Browns stop trying to recover it. The play is over.

This image was taken about 1 second later from a different angle. You can see the ref clearly waving the play dead, as he has been for about 1-1.5 full seconds at this point. You can also see the Browns players slowing down doing the half-ass jog thing players do when the play is over. Even the Bills players are only running at the ball at half speed at this point.

Then a Bills player scoops it up and runs it towards the end zone - with the refs still blowing whistles and frantically waving their arms. Everyone else on the field has stopped.

They review the play and award the bills the ball on the 23 yard line.

Now, I would say one clear difference between this and the Steelers/Miami play is that the reaction to that play occured fluidly and immediately… the whistle blew, but the players were still trying to grab the ball. In the Browns game, the whistle completely influenced the outcome of the play. There were several Browns players within recovery distance of the ball who didn’t even try to recover it because of the totally clear end of the play signalled by the refs, both by blowing the whistle and waving their arms. There was roughly full 3 seconds between when the whistles first started blowing and when a player recovered the ball. The whistle blowing the play dead clearly changed the play, and there was a huge gap between whistle and recovery.

Quite frankly, I don’t understand how this could stand. What were the Browns O-linemen in range of the ball supposed to do? Knock over some Bills players on the way to jumping on the ball, all the while there’s a ref right in their face signalling the play is dead? They’d have gotten a penalty. Yet somehow you can take that situation, a situation where the offense cannot reasonably try to secure the fumble, and declare it a Bills recovery?

I’ve never seen anything like it before, it seems like complete bullshit to me from every angle, the Browns were only down by 4 points at this point and it could’ve changed the outcome of the game - and yet, I haven’t heard a single NFL talking head even mention this fucking play. This is some bullshit.

Man, the part of the Jets game that I watched was brutal. I switched over to Ari-Den for a while and it was actually more exciting (they ran my favourite fake field goal play! :)). Looking at the schedule, the Jets are actually legitimately in danger of missing the playoffs. They are @Pit and @Chi the next two weeks, and if they lose those they could be out, even if they beat Buffalo in the last game. Even Baltimore is in a bit more trouble than I expected, if they go 2-2 the rest of the way.

The other thing I’m looking forward to seeing is something like 13-3 Saints @ 7-9 Seahawks in the wild card round :).

I dunno. From what I could see, first contact on Vick was made a split second before his foot landed on the stripe. He was already out in the sense that part of his body was over the line and there was zero chance of changing course and heading upfield. But yes, the initial contact was legal. But then the defense guy pushes Vick hard, and at the point he does they’re a full step out of bounds. I don’t see why just because you laid a hand on the guy a tenth of a second before he steps out of bounds you should get to launch him at a bunch of benches and shit a second later. Maybe I’m mis-remembering as I haven’t gone back to look at the clip, but I don’t recall it as being “legal hit but would have drawn a flag on Manning,” but as “very borderline hit that would have drawn a flag sometimes even on running backs.”

As a Patriots fan, it was an awesome game. Since that loss in Cleveland in Week 9, Brady has been playing like a man possessed. The whole team is firing on all cylinders now, right down the stretch when you want it to.

It was interesting for me watching the Patriots play the Bears. I’ve now been on both sides of the fence, first cheering on the Bears’ decisive win over the Patriots 25 years ago (:eek:) in Super Bowl XX. (I was living in the Chicago area at the time.)

I’ve now lived in New England for most of my adult life, and it was a bid odd for me to find myself cheering on the Patriots in their own decisive win over the Bears, especially on their home turf in Soldier Field.

I didn’t watch the game, but if the player extended his arms after Vick was out that would certainly make a difference for me.

ETA: Brady is the MVP right now. Not a question.

I may be in the minority, but when the play happened, I didn’t see it as a big deal at the time… the replays appear to show a split-second decision: the player was clearly running down the sidelines out of bounds and the coach extended his knee about 2 inches… a “flat out dick move” if he was intentionally trying to trip him, but it may have partially been a reflex, along the lines of “the guy is running in your direction, out of bounds and is possibly going to side-swipe you, so you create a little personal space for yourself”.

Obviously, the better route of action would have been to step back a bit, but I am curious if there is anything in the rule book about contact with players when they run out of bounds.

The Patriots and Brady esepcially are damn impressive. To do what they did against a good team and in a snowstorm was just ridiculous. If Rodgers doesn’t play next week the Packers have zero chance. If Rodgers does play then my Packers have a 10% chance.

As has been posted already, two or three years ago the NFL changed the rules to allow for a retroactively determined fumble to be recovered by the defense, provided there was clear visual evidence that they in fact made the recovery. The stated rationale at the time (aside from just getting more calls right, of course) was that their study of game footage had demonstrated that a whistle doesn’t stop players from going after a nearby loose ball. I actually like the rule change, and I think that in 95% of cases they’re justification is absolutely correct, though once in a blue moon it does seem like the whistle *may *have played a part in determining who recovered.

In answer to Beef’s rhetorical question from his last post: yes, the Browns who were closest to the ball should have kept going at full speed and risked the penalty (which, to be fair, would be pretty unlikely; the refs give players a lot of slack for contact after the whistle if they could plausibly think the play was still live). It sucks, and the league should probably do a better job explaining to players (and fans) about replay and loose balls, but there it is.

Nah, they showed it about 15 times on ESPN. The defender laid into Vick while he was still in play and before he touched the out of bounds area. Vick also was not surrendering himself, he was sprinting for the corner. There was no secondary push, the LB threw a 2 hand shiver (no helmet or pads involved) into Vick while the play was live and that contact alone sent Vick flying.

Remember both players were moving really fast towards the sideline and Vick is really light. It looked much worse than it was. See here: NFL Football Highlights, Clips & Analysis | NFL.com