Shayna,
I am absolutely dismayed at your post, above. It shows a complete lack of consideration. You address every point cogently and completely, leaving me no room to even weasel, much less argue coherently.
You are, of course, exactly right. And for the record, I do support instant replay, no matter how baffled this particular application thereof leaves me.
But I absolutely agree it wasn’t the reason for the loss.
Cheers,
Rick
Terrible call.
Seeing it happen live on TV, it didn’t even look like there was any question as to whether it was a catch… Looked pretty clean, and then out of the blue they decide to review it? And then they reverse it?
Makes me wonder… You know the NFL just loves a story and the Kurt Warner story just wouldn’t be complete without a Super Bowl… Anyone listen to Jim Rome today (I’m at work :mad :)? He’s always up for this kind of speculation…
:mad:
There would be much greater outrages without the replay system. I think it was last year the Seahawks were kept out of the playoffs because on the final play the other team scored a touchdown that replay clearly showed was short. THAT’s robbery. Not some judge correctly ruling that the ball can’t hit the ground when a reciever comes down with it. I think it’s fair to charge a timeout for a review if it isn’t overturned. Otherwise EVERY play that can be reviewed will be.
http://www.madpoet.com
Computers have let mankind make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns.
Here’s a question for you that has nothing to do with replay, but does have to do with a missed call. This might be more of a Great Debate, and if so, I’ll head over there and start a new thread.
Last night, Brian was watching SportsCenter, when he told me of something that happened during that final drive of the Bucs-Rams game. After the Bucs missed that Hail Mary on 4th and 23, a player from the Rams began to harangue the Bucs players on the sidelines. He was waving goodbye to them and taunting them, even going so far as to taunt Trent Dilfer, who was wearing street clothes on the sidelines.
Now that’s about as unsportsmanlike conduct as you can get. Thing is, if it’s called, Tampa Bay gets an automatic 1st down, and that penalty could have easily decided the game. Obviously, it wasn’t called. Should it have been? Perhaps. I think it would have sent a very strong message that such a thing will not be tolerated. Plus, I’ve seen many lesser offenses called for unsportsmanlike conduct, so I don’t see why this one was ignored, other than the fact that the officials didn’t want the game to be decided on such a penalty.
But isn’t that a case when you SHOULD throw the flag?
“Buffalo Bills? Oh, yeah. The guys that always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” --WallyM7
Bricker said:
This is precisely my opinion as well. I cannot understand how anybody could be in favor of a system that would allow more errors! Maybe this one was a mistake, maybe not. But I remember the years without instant replay, and I remember a number of missed calls that would have probably been reversed. I remember thinking how stupid it was to have the technology available and purposely not use it.
Actually, the league would take the opposite stance from what we both just said. I saw the instance too, and it wasn’t that bad on the part of the Rams - the Bucs were the ones who went through the roof.
It might have been enough to throw a flag, but then the Bucs would have gotten a first down and then how does the league look when the Bucs win the game? It almost looks like favoritism for the Bucs instead.
With the outcome of the game already decided (however questionably), I think the official made the right call in that circumstance, else all HELL would have broken loose being at the Rams’ home field and all.
That kind of crap normally happens at the end of a big/close game and it usually ignored.
The Bucs got robbed, plain and simple!
The reversal was bad. But no team with as inept an offense as the Bucs deserved to make the big dance.
As a frustrated-annually Lions fan (Please snicker here. What can I say? I’m Michigan born-and-raised), I watched the Bucs advance into and through the playoffs with my mouth agape, on an awesome defense and a popgun offense consisting of 3-yard passes and 2-yard runs.
Too imbalanced to be NFC-Championship-worthy, IMHO.
“In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” - Ecclesiastes 1:18
Drain Bead:
No, an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty call on Jenkins (my last name, BTW) would not have resulted in a Buccaneer first down, since it occurred after the play was over. It would have been a dead ball foul on the Rams, and they would have been penalized 15 yards. However, they still would have retained possession.
My $.02 on the matter:
As a native St. Louisan used to terrible football, I was excited to see my hometown Rams on the verge of a Super Bowl. But to reverse the call on the field on the catch by the Bucs was a serious injustice. BAD CALL!!!
GO RAMS!!!
“I never lie, but I don’t always say what I’m thinking.”
ENC Heel
Some things I’ve noticed:
If it’s a bad call that benefits your team: “Stop whining; it’s part of the game”
If it’s a bad call that hurts your team: “We wuz robbed (never mind the other 59 minutes of the game)”
If your team suffers from a turnover: “If it wasn’t for that fluke fumble, we would’ve won”
If your team benefits from a turnover: “We forced the turnover”
My favorite excuse: “Yeah, well if we played better, we would’ve won.”
DrainBead, no, the taunting would not have given the Bucs a first down. It was 4th and 23, an unsportsman like is a 15 yard penalty, and NOT an automatic first down. The net result obviously being 4th and 8. This point is moot in that it was a DEAD BALL foul and would be enforced against the spot of the ball in the Bucs favor. It also would remain 1st and 10 Rams, FYI.
I was pulling for the Rams, and that taunting was disgusting, I would respect Vermeil much more had he punsihed the player somehow, namely not starting him in the Super Bowl and/or a fine. It isn’t just up to the league to make these decisions, poor choice on the Rams part.
All this said, it is appaling that the officials nor the league called any foul or instituted any punishment. Ugly top to bottom.
AFAIK, it would be up to the officials as to whether it was part of the play or not.
The official in that case could rule it happened at the end of the play (as opposed to after it ended) and it would have been 15 yards and an automatic first down.
The ref could have ruled it after the play, which would have just marched the Rams back - in this case, no big whoop.
But they COULD have ruled it either way.
And if they did call it, it would have been enforced as the former, since there would be no reason to call it if they didn’t enforce it that way.
Yer pal,
Satan
Satan, I think you’re off on this one. Its not a judgement call. The refs can’t “decide” to call it during the play to make it a meaningful play. It was quite obvious to me that the taunting was well after the play. Looking through the digest of rules, it doesn’t specifically indicate if this would have been an automatic first down or not. A unsportsmanlike conduct IS an automatic first down if it is against the defense during the play. It does not specify what occurs on a dead ball foul, nor does it specify if the Rams are still considered the defensive team in this case since it occured AFTER the play, and therefore AFTER the ball changed posesion due to loss of downs.
From my experience of excessive celebration penalties (technically the same foul) after a loss of downs or possesion the penalty is enforced after the change of possesion and therefore would NOT be a first down.
While it should have been called a foul, it in no way could have influenced the outcome (presuming there is no turnover on the ensuing snap). The implication that it could have been called during the play is a major stretch. That implies the player was taunting before the outcome of the crucial play was decided, pretty silly don’t you think?
Back to the OP: Is the rule that if a player is in the air when he makes a catch, and when he comes down (in bounds) the ball touches the ground before any part of the player does, then it is an incomplete pass, regardless of whether he has control of the ball?
It is too clear, and so it is hard to see.
Two points:
First of all, just to clear up some real football issues, I would like to note that FIFA is investigating the technical aspects of some sort of electronic confirmation of goals in soccer, and the English Football Association is expecting to put into place some such apparatus within a couple years. So much for the idea that soccer won’t implement a way to over-rule official calls.
Second, I think that the issue on whether the replay call was right has to do with interpretation of the rules of NFL football regarding catches. The only thing that was clear from the replays was the fact that the point of the ball beat the hands to the ground. If the rule in the NFL is that the player must demonstrate control of the ball before it hits the ground, and there is no unwritten rule that the hands must be under the ball for this to be true, then the replay call was poor. For this reason, I suspect that there is some aspect to the rules that mandates the hands be under the ball in this situation. The fact that it is some sort of technicality to the rule would explain why the upstairs official asked for a replay review, when no one else watching the game thought there was anything wrong with the play.
Finally, it must be noted that call by an official will EVER be dispositive of a game, with the exception of a call on the last play of the game that either provides a winning score or precludes a winning score. A bad call falls into the ‘what if?’ category. That aside, ask the Bucs if they would have preferred 3d and 10 or 3d and 23. Better yet, ask the Rams defense.
David B. wants youse guys to come over by him and argue about dem nasty refs.
And HEY! I’m gonna start imposing fines if y’all don’t stop questioning my calls.
Bricker wrote:
The time-out situation was one of the things I really didn’t like about that replay reversal. The only reason the Bucs used up their last time-out was to stop the clock after the completed pass. When the pass was ruled incomplete, the Bucs should have gotten that time-out back!
DS said:
I tried to state earlier that I am looking at the Official NFL Digest of Rules, and there is not any aspect to the rules which madates that. There are occasionally memos and indications from the officals office which indicate how certain judgement calls are to be interpereted, but nothing implicitly described in the rules.
tracer, I can’t recall if that was the order of events in the game off hand, but I have seen the circumstances described occur a few time this year, and you are absolutely right. I also believe that this is going to be addressed in the offseason by league officals as a adjustment to the replay policy.