The "Non Call"

Danno · 01-11-2010, 06:38 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.

skymike · 01-11-2010, 06:49 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, 07:51 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.

hagan714 · 01-11-2010, 10:23 PM

I hope the NFL gets on the refs about it because if they do not then it will happen in the dome.

QBREES9 · 01-11-2010, 11:44 PM

They should have made the call. Plain and simple

cargojon · 01-12-2010, 08:43 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."

Euphoria · 01-12-2010, 11:53 AM

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.

cargojon · 01-12-2010, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

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.

skymike · 01-12-2010, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by papz

... 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.

01-11-2010, 06:38 PM	#21
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	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, 06:49 PM	#22
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, 07:51 PM	#23
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,744	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.

01-11-2010, 10:23 PM	#24
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	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.

01-11-2010, 11:44 PM	#25
QBREES9 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: New Haven Ct Posts: 23,985	Re: The "Non Call" They should have made the call. Plain and simple

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-12-2010, 11:53 AM	#27
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 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

01-12-2010, 01:04 PM	#28
cargojon 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 576	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Euphoria 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 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 576

01-12-2010, 06:41 PM	#29
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by papz ... 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.

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 02:35 PM	1