Did anybody else see the safety call in the last 2 mins of the Falcons-Panthers game? After reviewing the rules of the leage and reading this article I understand the call. But I’ve never seen that call before in my life. Granted, I have only been following football closely for about 5 years. But anyway, who else has seen a play and a call like this before?
I’ve watched football for quite a while, and I had never seen that, nor had I ever heard of that rule. Evidently, neither had the players or most of the coaches…George Siefert wants an explanation on why it is different for a fumble than an interception…crazy…
I was actually at that game in Charlotte. We had 6th row behind the endzone. In other words - I was physically 20 yards away when the “infraction” occured. I am mystified. Everyone in the stadium thought we had the ball on the 20. It is obvious both at the time and on the replay that the lineman went out of bounds to cause a touch-back. He thought that. We thought that. Let me tell you one thing - the Falcons did not win that game, the refs did.
That was the sloppiest NFL game I have ever witnessed. Four missed field goals, countless turnovers. It was quite sad - the Panthers should have stomped the birds.
Oh well. At least the Broncs beat those hated Raiders. (Griese injured ?!!)
Griese isn’t injured badly. He may be out next Sunday, but he’ll be back the week after. He should be fine.
NothingMan…get over it, you said:
To be exact, Altanta missed 2 field goals, from 47 and 50 (no real shame in that) and Carolina had one blocked from 25 yards (not the ref’s fault). Atlanta had 2 fumbles lost, one of which was the freak call at the end. Carolina had 2 fumbles and 2 interceptions.
Um, I’d say any team that commits 4 turnovers and misses a short field goal lost the game fine without any help from the refs. Not to mention the call on the safety was the right call based on how the rules are written, those refs beating up on your poor Panthers.
I’ll say that the Panthers did a nice job of handling a tough break, Siefert was very classy and the league did the right thing by explaining it. If it gets changed for next season, thats fine, its the way things work. I say hats off to the ref for knowing a rule that the other 100 or so people on the field had no idea about.
I was wierd though…
When I said I was at the game I did not lie. Cunningham missed a field goal prior to the one being blocked. I am not sure where you are getting your info from - but it’s wrong. Carolina missed two field goals.
If you had seen the game in its entirety you would know a few thing about those refs. Like for instance it took them 10 minutes to decide a call was not able to be challenged. Hello ? What, did they have to go look at the rule book ? They were as sloppy as the play, not on the ball for the length of the game and therefore not trustworthy.
Finally I do understand that the rule is as it is written, but it needs to be be re-written because of this. The lineman who recovered the ball could have run it out of the endzone, but thought as did the rest of us football fans, that going out of bounds in the endzone meant a touchback.
You have your belief on your side, (and quote every rule for me will you - like you know them all) I have 20 thousand screaming true football fans on mine - and they where as baffled as I.
BTW - the Panthers are not my fave team - the Broncos are.
Tough to see Denver games in Charlotte though. The Panthers would be my second fave team.
OK, the second missed field goal wasn’t a missed field goal, its was a fumbled span and an incomplete pass, turnover on downs. So eaither way you cut it Carolina had 4 turnovers and 2 missed field goals, or 5 turnovers and 1 missed field goal. Both cases indicate the Panthers screwed the pooch on their own volition. The loss had nothing to do with the refs and everything to do with the fact that they suck and played like shit. Grow up, and show half the class that the Panthers as a team do. No wonder it took 95 years for the Carolina’s to get a NFL team.
span = snap of course…
I responded to the OP with my opinion, corrected your false statements - yet you say I have no class and insult where I live ?
Seems to me you are the one who needs to get out of grade school . . .
I have a different POV than you. If its the first time this has happened I apologize greatly. :rolleyes:
Hey, guys, chill.
I’d like to throw in my two cents about the rule. I think it’s a perfectly fine rule as written; changing it would not be a crime of course, but neither would leaving it as it stands.
The rule essentially says that a player brings the ball into his own end zone at his own risk. What’s wrong with that?
The operative term here is “brings”; the player is perfectly free to dive on a loose ball (in the end zone or out), or advance a loose ball; but if he chooses to retreat into his own territory, he does so at the risk of a safety. The same theory applies to all other plays, why not this one? (Interceptions are, of course, an exception – because they have “momentum,” not because a turnover is involved; and, I suspect, interceptions without momentum are ruled like the fumble in question.)
Furthermore, I think that in most fumble situations this would not seem like such a wacky rule at all. And, we can probably construct a few plays where, if the rule were changed, the resulting call would seem as unfair as the one we’re discussing.