Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

The "Non Call"

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by UK_WhoDat With you there completely. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Keep your lip shut and get on with it. O/T - It makes "soccer" games stupid. And the NBA already allow drawing the foul so ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2010, 05:38 PM   #21
Site Donor 2014
Truth Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spanish Fort Alabama
Posts: 16,532
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by UK_WhoDat View Post
With you there completely. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Keep your lip shut and get on with it. O/T - It makes "soccer" games stupid. And the NBA already allow drawing the foul so play to the flag / whistle.
Agreed, and something should be done. I wouldn't call a penalty, but I'd inform players that paychecks will be docked for visibly complaining about calls or visibly begging for calls.

It also irritates me to see a defender tackle someone for a 5 yard gain and start beating his chest or flappin his gums like he stuffed a guy 8 yards behind the LOS.

Maybe the new CBA can include some 5 yard "Idiotic Behaviour" penalties.
Danno is online now  
Latest Blogs
MID TERM ELECTION Last Blog: 10-29-2014 By: teddybarexxx


2015 Saints Bye Week Draft Last Blog: 10-16-2014 By: hagan714


"IRONY" Last Blog: 10-01-2014 By: teddybarexxx


Old 01-11-2010, 05:49 PM   #22
Im BACK!!!!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: humble texas
Posts: 4,869
Re: The "Non Call"

I didnt see the facemask at the last play, but I did see a referee "Hat Trick" on the last Fitzgerald TD.

1. Holding, offensive lineman on top of Warner.
2. Offensive pass interference on Fitzgerald. (push off)
3. Wacky "roughing the passer" call.

Bottom line, the Packers gotta show up in the 1st quarter.
But I agree they got some bad breaks from the officiating.
skymike is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 06:51 PM   #23
Retired
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 10,560
Re: The "Non Call"

I just understand how you could miss something so blatant that helped GB lose that game. Terrible officiating and it wasn't a judgment call. It was exactly what it was... a face mask penalty that was clearly missed. I do have to say this... I'm glad they missed the call as I did not want to face Green Bay.
papz is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 09:23 PM   #24
LB Mentallity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,421
Blog Entries: 40
Re: The "Non Call"

I hope the NFL gets on the refs about it because if they do not then it will happen in the dome.
hagan714 is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 10:44 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Haven Ct
Posts: 18,685
Re: The "Non Call"

They should have made the call. Plain and simple
QBREES9 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 07:43 AM   #26
500th Post
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 576
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post
Not true... if defensive play puts his hand in the face of the QB or blow to the head while he is in the pocket, I don't care what happens its 'roughing the passer'. If its an INT or fumble by the QB then that team/QB maintains possession 15 yards and a first down.

The ball didn't hit the ground so its really not up for debate weather it applies to the tuck rule or not.

By the letter of the rule the Ref judges the intent of the QB weather he is passing or tucking. If the Ref feels he is neither passing or tucking and the Cardnial player simply knocked the ball out of his hand then its a fumble. Its really another judgment call and based on my viewing of the play even in slow-mo I'd call it a fumble because the intent of thowing the ball isn't there at that moment. The QB's intent was to dodge being hit by evidence of the play.

What some people tend to forget this is a game that leaves a lot to be inturpret. Even some of the rules or left up for the refs judgement. some of the rules aren't so hard fast, black and white.
Re-watch the play. It's obvious Rogers was passing/tucking, as his arm clearly moves forward, stops, and the ball comes out. If the ball had hit the ground it would have been ruled an incomplete pass.
The point of the tuck rule is to take away the official's need to judge intent. The tuck rule does not "go away" because the ball does not touch the ground.
From Wikipedia (yes I know it's not the NFL rule book but it's a pretty accurate description):

"Ordinarily, if the
drops or loses the football while he is bringing the ball forward in a
, and the ball touches the ground, it is considered an
. If the quarterback drops or loses the football at any other time, it is considered a
, as if any other player had dropped it.
The tuck rule is an exception to this rule. It applies if the quarterback brings his arm forward in a passing motion, but then changes his mind and tries to keep hold of the football rather than making a pass. In this situation, if the quarterback loses the ball while stopping his passing motion or bringing the ball back to his body, it is still considered a forward pass (and thus an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground).[1] Mike Pereira, the NFL's director of officiating, notes that the design of the rule obviates the need to consider the quarterback's intent.[2], though this seems to be incorrect, since the rule states that "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass", thus meaning that the referee must judge whether the forward movement of the arm was intentional on the part of the player or not. However, the rule does mean the referee need not judge whether the player was intending to check his throw."

cargojon is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 10:53 AM   #27
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 6,446
Blog Entries: 5
Re: The "Non Call"

Why is everyone caught up in the tuck rule on this... its a freakin INT!!! nothing to do with a fumble. Get over it game is over.

I don't blame the ref's for missing the call they were eyeing the ball to make the right call on that situation developing. The only way they could make that call is if they had 28 refs on the field at once one designated for each player the OL and the DL as well as line of scrimmage, play clock, game clock. Until that happens the game is over Cards win and rightfully so.

E U P H O R I A
Euphoria is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 12:04 PM   #28
500th Post
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 576
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post
Why is everyone caught up in the tuck rule on this... its a freakin INT!!! nothing to do with a fumble. Get over it game is over.

I don't blame the ref's for missing the call they were eyeing the ball to make the right call on that situation developing. The only way they could make that call is if they had 28 refs on the field at once one designated for each player the OL and the DL as well as line of scrimmage, play clock, game clock. Until that happens the game is over Cards win and rightfully so.
Because according to Adam Schefter, the reason that roughing the passer was not called when they hit Rogers was due to the fumble. Can't have RTP on a fumble. You CAN, however, have it on an interception - just ask Vilma and Sharper from the Giants game.
It changes the whole dynamic of that last play.
cargojon is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 05:41 PM   #29
Im BACK!!!!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: humble texas
Posts: 4,869
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by papz View Post
... I'm glad they missed the call as I did not want to face Green Bay.
you and me both Kemosabe. Not that I think
the Cardinals will be easy, but I had a bad feeling about the Packers matching up with us this year.
skymike is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/saints/23597-non-call.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News | SportSpyder This thread Refback 01-11-2010 01:35 PM 1


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts