The "Non Call"

RealDeal37 · 01-11-2010, 03:44 PM

LoL... Im not try'n to be an ass or nothing, but i have NO idea were some folks get the rules of football from...

To sum it all up for u all... YES, the ball was knocked loose before he grabbed his facemask, but unless the Cards had recovered & had complete control of the ball prior to it, it would've been 15yd penalty & Packer's ball.

The only way the Card's could've gotten the ball, like i said wuz if they had complete posession of it BEFORE the facemask was grabbed!!!

I can promise u all this much... Had there not been a fumble, the official would've called!!!

That sum's it up... Either way though... Ref's obviously did'nt see it & was focused more on the fumble than anything else. I would hate to be the Packer's & lose that way, but its to NO surprise that official's dictate a team winning or losing!!!

cargojon · 01-11-2010, 03:51 PM

I called Bob Papa and Randy Cross this morning on Sirius to discuss this - unfortunately my cell phone got cut off before I could finish my point.

There cannot be a roughing the passer penalty on a fumble (so I've read anyway on Schefter's twitter). However, the call SHOULD have been an interception which means RTP is in force.

I guarantee you if that ball had hit the ground before Dansby grabbed it and headed towards the end zone, it would have been overturned as an incomplete pass. Terrible job of officiating.

Euphoria · 01-11-2010, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by cargojon

I called Bob Papa and Randy Cross this morning on Sirius to discuss this - unfortunately my cell phone got cut off before I could finish my point.

There cannot be a roughing the passer penalty on a fumble (so I've read anyway on Schefter's twitter). However, the call SHOULD have been an interception which means RTP is in force.

I guarantee you if that ball had hit the ground before Dansby grabbed it and headed towards the end zone, it would have been overturned as an incomplete pass. Terrible job of officiating.

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.

cargojon · 01-12-2010, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

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

quarterback
quarterback

drops or loses the football while he is bringing the ball forward in a

passing motion
passing motion

, and the ball touches the ground, it is considered an

incomplete pass
incomplete pass

. If the quarterback drops or loses the football at any other time, it is considered a

fumble
fumble

, 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."

lynwood · 01-11-2010, 04:39 PM

I blame making a bunch of sissy rules up that are difficult to enforce, and determine game outcomes. This wouldn't be an issue 10-20 years ago.

Also notice how everytime a receiver misses a catch he looks for a flag? This is going to get worse than soccer or the NBA.

He got smacked,lost the ball, play football.

I could care less who one that game.

Rant done

UK_WhoDat · 01-11-2010, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

Also notice how every time a receiver misses a catch he looks for a flag? This is going to get worse than soccer or the NBA.

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.

Danno · 01-11-2010, 05:38 PM

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 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.

strato · 01-11-2010, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

I blame making a bunch of sissy rules up that are difficult to enforce, and determine game outcomes. This wouldn't be an issue 10-20 years ago.

Also notice how everytime a receiver misses a catch he looks for a flag? This is going to get worse than soccer or the NBA.

He got smacked,lost the ball, play football.

I could care less who one that game.

Rant done

I bet you wouldnt feel that way if that happened to us...it was bad officiating..lets hope those damn zebras dont ruin our season..

skymike · 01-11-2010, 05:49 PM

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.

papz · 01-11-2010, 06:51 PM

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.

01-11-2010, 03:44 PM	#1
RealDeal37 $aint'z "101" Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Shreveport (Port City), La Posts: 113	Re: The "Non Call" LoL... Im not try'n to be an ass or nothing, but i have NO idea were some folks get the rules of football from... To sum it all up for u all... YES, the ball was knocked loose before he grabbed his facemask, but unless the Cards had recovered & had complete control of the ball prior to it, it would've been 15yd penalty & Packer's ball. The only way the Card's could've gotten the ball, like i said wuz if they had complete posession of it BEFORE the facemask was grabbed!!! I can promise u all this much... Had there not been a fumble, the official would've called!!! That sum's it up... Either way though... Ref's obviously did'nt see it & was focused more on the fumble than anything else. I would hate to be the Packer's & lose that way, but its to NO surprise that official's dictate a team winning or losing!!!

01-11-2010, 03:51 PM	#2
cargojon 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 576	Re: The "Non Call" I called Bob Papa and Randy Cross this morning on Sirius to discuss this - unfortunately my cell phone got cut off before I could finish my point. There cannot be a roughing the passer penalty on a fumble (so I've read anyway on Schefter's twitter). However, the call SHOULD have been an interception which means RTP is in force. I guarantee you if that ball had hit the ground before Dansby grabbed it and headed towards the end zone, it would have been overturned as an incomplete pass. Terrible job of officiating.
cargojon 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 576

01-11-2010, 05:23 PM	#3
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by cargojon I called Bob Papa and Randy Cross this morning on Sirius to discuss this - unfortunately my cell phone got cut off before I could finish my point. There cannot be a roughing the passer penalty on a fumble (so I've read anyway on Schefter's twitter). However, the call SHOULD have been an interception which means RTP is in force. I guarantee you if that ball had hit the ground before Dansby grabbed it and headed towards the end zone, it would have been overturned as an incomplete pass. Terrible job of officiating. 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.
	E U P H O R I A

01-11-2010, 04:39 PM	#5
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Re: The "Non Call" I blame making a bunch of sissy rules up that are difficult to enforce, and determine game outcomes. This wouldn't be an issue 10-20 years ago. Also notice how everytime a receiver misses a catch he looks for a flag? This is going to get worse than soccer or the NBA. He got smacked,lost the ball, play football. I could care less who one that game. Rant done
	Last edited by lynwood; 01-11-2010 at 04:43 PM..

01-11-2010, 05:05 PM	#6
UK_WhoDat 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Wherever I lay my hat Posts: 4,004	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by lynwood Also notice how every time a receiver misses a catch he looks for a flag? This is going to get worse than soccer or the NBA. 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.

01-11-2010, 05:38 PM	#7
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,758	Re: The "Non Call" 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 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.

01-11-2010, 05:26 PM	#8
strato Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: "Little Ole Town in Tejas" Posts: 7,586	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by lynwood I blame making a bunch of sissy rules up that are difficult to enforce, and determine game outcomes. This wouldn't be an issue 10-20 years ago. Also notice how everytime a receiver misses a catch he looks for a flag? This is going to get worse than soccer or the NBA. He got smacked,lost the ball, play football. I could care less who one that game. Rant done I bet you wouldnt feel that way if that happened to us...it was bad officiating..lets hope those damn zebras dont ruin our season..

01-11-2010, 05:49 PM	#9
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	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.

01-11-2010, 06:51 PM	#10
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,797	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.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://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