Tubby Rapistberger and the Stealers Strike again

[MDC 7,881]

I don't know which NFL you watch but they changed that rule a couple years ago. Correct me if i'm wrong but it was in light of the Ed Hochuli SD-DEN incident. If the play was blown dead but upon further review it was fumbled before the play should have been blown dead then if the other team clearly makes a recovery they are awarded the ball. Secondly the refs are stupid focks for not breaking up the scrum to see who came out with the ball even though a touchdown was called. The line judge signaled touchdown and Steratore ran to the middle of the field, turned on his mic and said "the play has been ruled a touchdown" all the while people are still fighting for the ball in the endzone. Steratore is a piece of dog sh!t who can rot in hell

 

Oh well. Miami would've lost anyway.

[surferskin 31]

The real question is, why didn't the line judge with the best view of the play, signal fumble?

[Dan 66]

The real question is, why didn't the line judge with the best view of the play, signal fumble?

 

Cause he blew the call. Wasn't the only one of the weekend, either.

 

Oh . . . and that blown call took two camera angles to overturn - another thing that they're allowed to do now.

[MDC 7,881]

Cause he blew the call.

 

The officiating has been hideous this year.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The real question is, why didn't the line judge with the best view of the play, signal fumble?

 

You mean the guy on the right side who signaled TD, blew the whistle?

 

The same one whose only view was obscured by Ben's right shoulder and arm as it crossed the goalline?

 

The same one who wasn't up above the goal post looking down at the same angle that was needed to provide the clear proof it was a fumble?

 

Dunno how he missed that call in real time.........

[surferskin 31]

You mean the guy on the right side who signaled TD, blew the whistle?

 

The same one whose only view was obscured by Ben's right shoulder and arm as it crossed the goalline?

 

The same one who wasn't up above the goal post looking down at the same angle that was needed to provide the clear proof it was a fumble?

 

Dunno how he missed that call in real time.........

 

Man, you steeler fans are some defensive poosays. The line judge that ruled it a TD was the one furthest from Rapistberger. The one closest should have a clear view that the BALL WAS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR and not in the rapist's hand. Yeah, you really needed 10 camera angles to see that it wasn't a TD.

 

ETA: Sorry, it wasn't the furthest ref but the one with the least clear view.

[edjr 6,898]

I'm new here, has anyone mentioned Super Bowl 40 yet

[PackYourNut 47]

You mean the guy on the right side who signaled TD, blew the whistle?

 

The same one whose only view was obscured by Ben's right shoulder and arm as it crossed the goalline?

 

The same one who wasn't up above the goal post looking down at the same angle that was needed to provide the clear proof it was a fumble?

 

Dunno how he missed that call in real time.........

 

 

Funny your post is the EXACT reason it SHOULD NOT have been ruled a TD. You just said it yourself... HE COULDNT SEE! So, why the fock did he signal TD and fock everything up?

[donhaas 19]

not in the rapist's hand.

 

[edjr 6,898]

Funny your post is the EXACT reason it SHOULD NOT have been ruled a TD. You just said it yourself... HE COULDNT SEE! So, why the fock did he signal TD and fock everything up?

 

PWNED!

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Funny your post is the EXACT reason it SHOULD NOT have been ruled a TD. You just said it yourself... HE COULDNT SEE! So, why the fock did he signal TD and fock everything up?

 

What I (and the rest of the sane world) saw from the angle he had was Ben's dive toward the goalline with the ball in his arms (we now know it was indeed coming loose) and he crossed the goalline. Unless you had the revealing top down view (AND THEY DON'T IN REAL TIME) you wouldn't know the ball was loose. You can't expect the guy NOT to make the call that he THOUGHT he saw. They're there to make a call based on what they see or think they see. It's a lightening fast game being officiated by humans and yes, humans make mistakes.

 

Monday morning QBing at it's worst. See ya guys in February after the Steelers win another Superbowl and you guys point back to this game saying The Fix started here.

 

Bunch of focking crybabies.

[PackYourNut 47]

What I (and the rest of the sane world) saw from the angle he had was Ben's dive toward the goalline with the ball in his arms (we now know it was indeed coming loose) and he crossed the goalline. Unless you had the revealing top down view (AND THEY DON'T IN REAL TIME) you wouldn't know the ball was loose. You can't expect the guy NOT to make the call that he THOUGHT he saw. They're there to make a call based on what they see or think they see. It's a lightening fast game being officiated by humans and yes, humans make mistakes.

 

Monday morning QBing at it's worst. See ya guys in February after the Steelers win another Superbowl and you guys point back to this game saying The Fix started here.

 

Bunch of focking crybabies.

 

 

Oh I see! They just guess! Makes perfect sense now... Moron!

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Oh I see! They just guess! Makes perfect sense now... Moron!

 

Wow, intelligent response. Speaking of mistakes; be sure to hug your mom and dad for deciding to go through with the pregnancy. The world weeps but you get a birthday every year.

 

They make a decision based on what they see or think they see (i.e. they're mistaken).

[Gepetto 1,454]

http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af148/phat_maka/MIAMISUCKS.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/172358698_b0259eb1cb_o.jpg

[Houston Texans 10]

I'll go ahead and chalk you up to someone who didn't watch the game. The official took time to explain that he couldn't clearly determine who established possession. Therefore your stupid fkn argument doesn't hold water. Does this make things at all any clearer for you? Some how I doubt it.

 

Yeah, I watched the game. I'll go ahead and chalk you up as someone who doesn't read the entire thread, or just doesn't comprehend what posts mean before he goes and makes himself look foolish by posting something foolish like this.

 

The official explained that since they could not determine Miami had established possession, by rule the Steelers get the ball at the spot of the fumble.

 

As I've explained several times, the rules say that in order to award a fumble recovery (via replay), the officials must have CLEAR AND CONCLUSIVE evidence of possession AT THE TIME THE PLAY IS RULED DEAD. Since the officials (and you, me, and anyone watching the game yesterday) saw that loose ball AS THE FIELD JUDGE WAS SIGNALING TD, they could not determine that Miami had established possession when the play was dead, therefore the ball was awarded to the Steelers.

 

Does this make things at all any clear for you? Some how I doubt it. You're ignorant of the rules, and without understanding the rules, you can't understand why the officials made the correct replay ruling, based on the incorrect TD signal by the Field Judge.

[Houston Texans 10]

I don't know which NFL you watch but they changed that rule a couple years ago. Correct me if i'm wrong but it was in light of the Ed Hochuli SD-DEN incident. If the play was blown dead but upon further review it was fumbled before the play should have been blown dead then if the other team clearly makes a recovery they are awarded the ball.

Okay, I will.

 

You are wrong. The NFL didn't change the rule, but they did instruct their officials to avoid blowing plays dead if there is question in their minds if a ball is/should be live or not. Obviously, that was not done in this case, since the Field Judge signaled TD prematurely.

 

There is no rule, however, that says a team can be awarded possesion (upon replay) if a play was already blown dead.

[Houston Texans 10]

Funny your post is the EXACT reason it SHOULD NOT have been ruled a TD. You just said it yourself... HE COULDNT SEE! So, why the fock did he signal TD and fock everything up?

 

There are two possibilities, I guess.

 

1) He made a mistake.

 

2) He is part of some massive league-wide conspiracy to help the Steelers be successful. (Evidently Roger Goodell isn't part of this conspiracy since he suspended their Pro-Bowl QB for 6 games; I guess the part of the NFL who hands out fines isn't part of it either, because they fined their All-Pro LB $75,000 for what most experts agree were 2 legal hits).

 

I'm going to guess it's the first one.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

You don't get it. There was no telling what would have happened even if the Dolphins were given the ball at their own 20 as a result of that play. The Steelers still had all 3 of their time outs left. It certainly wasn't out of the realm of possibility that they stopped the Dolphins, got the ball back and scored to win it anyway.

This happens a lot in sports where everyone wants to focus on one call as being the ultimate deciding factor in the outcome of the game but it simply wasn't so. There were numerous other plays in the game that weren't influenced by the refs and thus were not controversial that ultimately had an equal part in determining the Dolphins fate yesterday.

 

And America should have gotten a chance to see that situation play out. But once again, the officials do most the work for Pittsburgh. Nothing new, its been happening for a while now.

 

It looks like it isn't just "bitter Seahawks fans" noticing either.

[Houston Texans 10]

And America should have gotten a chance to see that situation play out. But once again, the officials do most the work for Pittsburgh. Nothing new, its been happening for a while now.

 

It looks like it isn't just "bitter Seahawks fans" noticing either.

 

So when the Calvin Johnson TD was negated in week 1, was that the officials "doing most of the work for Chicago?"

 

When the Cutler fumble was ruled an incomplete pass against Denver a few year ago, was that the officials "doing most of the work for Denver?"

 

When Brady was ruled to have not re-tucked the ball, was that the officials "doing most of the work for New England?"

 

Or were these actually 4 instances of the officials making the correct application of the rules (which may have been bad rules), based on the situations that played out?

 

Oh, yeah; its' that last thing.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

So when the Calvin Johnson TD was negated in week 1, was that the officials "doing most of the work for Chicago?"

 

When the Cutler fumble was ruled an incomplete pass against Denver a few year ago, was that the officials "doing most of the work for Denver?"

 

When Brady was ruled to have not re-tucked the ball, was that the officials "doing most of the work for New England?"

 

Or were these actually 4 instances of the officials making the correct application of the rules (which may have been bad rules), based on the situations that played out?

 

Oh, yeah; its' that last thing.

 

Yeah those were all terrible calls.

 

Roethilisberger fumbled the ball before he crossed the goal line and Miami recovered it in the endzone. It's right there, preserved for all of time from multiple angles. I dont give a FOCK about whistles, premature TD signals, or quotes from rapists and inept officials.

 

It should have been Miami's ball on the 20. End. Of. Story. Feel free to argue otherwise, it just makes you look like a jackass, homer, or a homer-jackass hybrid.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Okay, I will.

 

You are wrong. The NFL didn't change the rule, but they did instruct their officials to avoid blowing plays dead if there is question in their minds if a ball is/should be live or not. Obviously, that was not done in this case, since the Field Judge signaled TD prematurely.

 

There is no rule, however, that says a team can be awarded possesion (upon replay) if a play was already blown dead.

 

 

There are soo many inconsistencies in the NFL rules. Instead of using common sense, they leave themselves open to interpretation. I thought the whole point of the Ed Hochuli rule was to make loose balls reviewable even after the whistle had blown. There are plenty of instances where a whistle is blown (down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), where the play is reviewed, determined to be a fumble, and the team who ends up with the ball is awarded the football (it just can not be advanced). Why is it any different at the goalline when a TD is signaled, reviewed, and determined to be a fumble? Any other time there is a fumble on the field, and the refs can't immediately determine who recovered it, the ball is awarded to whoever ends up with the ball at the bottom of the pile. In this instance, Miami ball. Seems like waaay too much interpretation to me, and not enough common sense.

[Dan 66]

There are soo many inconsistencies in the NFL rules. Instead of using common sense, they leave themselves open to interpretation. I thought the whole point of the Ed Hochuli rule was to make loose balls reviewable even after the whistle had blown. There are plenty of instances where a whistle is blown (down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), where the play is reviewed, determined to be a fumble, and the team who ends up with the ball is awarded the football (it just can not be advanced). Why is it any different at the goalline when a TD is signaled, reviewed, and determined to be a fumble? Any other time there is a fumble on the field, and the refs can't immediately determine who recovered it, the ball is awarded to whoever ends up with the ball at the bottom of the pile. In this instance, Miami ball. Seems like waaay too much interpretation to me, and not enough common sense.

 

Come on, now. You cannot possibly be advocating measuring what happens after a play is dead by rule. Please tell me that's not what you're suggesting. Folks are arguing UNFAIR! now; what do you suppose it would be like when someone is awarded a ball because the opponent stopped playing? And if the argument is to keep playing, then what's the point of the whistle?!? Or are we looking to get someone killed?

 

I really hate to throw cold water on the whole scandal, but you really need to go back and watch the replay. If the play isn't made dead, we're not having this conversation. Ben tucks the thing away before anyone gets there.

[Houston Texans 10]

Yeah those were all terrible calls.

 

Roethilisberger fumbled the ball before he crossed the goal line and Miami recovered it in the endzone. It's right there, preserved for all of time from multiple angles. I dont give a FOCK about whistles, premature TD signals, or quotes from rapists and inept officials.

 

It should have been Miami's ball on the 20. End. Of. Story. Feel free to argue otherwise, it just makes you look like a jackass, homer, or a homer-jackass hybrid.

OK.

 

You are wrong, and you have nothing to support your belief (NFL rules say the opposite of what you believe). So, you say "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree, you're a jackass, homer, or a homer-jackass hybrid."

 

Way to not make yourself look like a moron, there guy.

[Houston Texans 10]

There are soo many inconsistencies in the NFL rules. Instead of using common sense, they leave themselves open to interpretation. I thought the whole point of the Ed Hochuli rule was to make loose balls reviewable even after the whistle had blown. There are plenty of instances where a whistle is blown (down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), where the play is reviewed, determined to be a fumble, and the team who ends up with the ball is awarded the football (it just can not be advanced). Why is it any different at the goalline when a TD is signaled, reviewed, and determined to be a fumble? Any other time there is a fumble on the field, and the refs can't immediately determine who recovered it, the ball is awarded to whoever ends up with the ball at the bottom of the pile. In this instance, Miami ball. Seems like waaay too much interpretation to me, and not enough common sense.

Actually, there's not.

 

There are examples of a fumble occurring, and a team recovers, BUT THEN the officials rule the runner was down by contact. The play wasn't blown dead originally, so replay can give the ball to the recovering team.

 

There are examples where a team appears to recover a fumble or intercept a pass only to have the play blown dead (after the fumble/int happened), and then replay shows the play shouldn't have been blown dead & the ball is awarded to the defense.

 

There are times when a pass is ruled incomplete, and then replay shows that it was complete, so the offense gets the yardage.

 

But there are no examples of a play being blown dead, the defense (or offense) gaining control of the ball AFTER THE PLAY IS DEAD, and then being awarded the ball upon replay.

 

The reason there are no examples of this is because it goes against the NFL rules.

 

The reason it is against the rules is because that would promote action after the whistle, and the NFL doesn't want action after the whistle.

 

The officials are supposed to refrain from whistling plays dead until they are absolutely sure a play is dead, but they CAN NOT award possession unless it can be established before the whistle is blown (or TD is signaled).

[Stewburtx8 67]

Come on, now. You cannot possibly be advocating measuring what happens after a play is dead by rule. Please tell me that's not what you're suggesting. Folks are arguing UNFAIR! now; what do you suppose it would be like when someone is awarded a ball because the opponent stopped playing? And if the argument is to keep playing, then what's the point of the whistle?!? Or are we looking to get someone killed?

 

I really hate to throw cold water on the whole scandal, but you really need to go back and watch the replay. If the play isn't made dead, we're not having this conversation. Ben tucks the thing away before anyone gets there.

 

 

A play can already be reviewed AFTER THE WHISTLE blows. The "down by contact" rule was changed before the 2007 season. Down-by-contact could then be reviewed by instant replay to determine if a player fumbled the ball before he was down, and who recovered it. Previously, these plays could not be reversed once officials blew the whistle.

 

Before the 2009 season, the Ed Hochuli rule was put in place, where if the referees called an incomplete pass on the field, they could now review the play to determine if it was a fumble and who recovered it. Previously, if an incomplete pass was ruled and the whistle was blown, these plays could not be reviewed.

 

Again, I will ask, why was this play any different? You CAN review the continuation of a play after the whistle was blown in BOTH of the above scenarios.

 

And any time a ball is on the ground, players should continue to try to recover it whether the whistle has blown or not. To say Ben eased up on recovering the ball because he "heard the whistle" or saw the official signal TD is giving him waaay too much credit. According to his own statements after the game, he said he had the ball at the bottom of the pile. So i guess he eased up and didn't try to recover it, then changed his mind and tried to recover it? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

The Miami Dolphins did not lose that game because of that call. They had plenty of chances long before that and even after that. I'm not even crying foul and could care less who won the game. I just don't understand all the inconsistencies in the NFL rules.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Actually, there's not.

 

There are examples of a fumble occurring, and a team recovers, BUT THEN the officials rule the runner was down by contact. The play wasn't blown dead originally, so replay can give the ball to the recovering team.

 

There are examples where a team appears to recover a fumble or intercept a pass only to have the play blown dead (after the fumble/int happened), and then replay shows the play shouldn't have been blown dead & the ball is awarded to the defense.

 

There are times when a pass is ruled incomplete, and then replay shows that it was complete, so the offense gets the yardage.

 

But there are no examples of a play being blown dead, the defense (or offense) gaining control of the ball AFTER THE PLAY IS DEAD, and then being awarded the ball upon replay.

 

The reason there are no examples of this is because it goes against the NFL rules.

 

The reason it is against the rules is because that would promote action after the whistle, and the NFL doesn't want action after the whistle.

 

The officials are supposed to refrain from whistling plays dead until they are absolutely sure a play is dead, but they CAN NOT award possession unless it can be established before the whistle is blown (or TD is signaled).

 

 

If I am wrong on this, then I stand corrected. Please read my previous post. Were these rule changes not put in to place?

[murf74 461]

Screw the replay. The ref completely blew it by signalling touchdown and not fumble. Steelers steal another win.

 

Probably 1/2 the games in the NFL have a fumble vs. non-fumble done incorrectly.

 

Hell, last night GB was given a TD incorrectly.

 

Doesn't mean anyone is stealing anything.

 

Besides game was not over no matter what pretend ending to the non-fumble recovery you want.

 

2:30 left, Miami up by 1 and Steelers had 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning. Game wasn't over folks.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

OK.

 

You are wrong, and you have nothing to support your belief (NFL rules say the opposite of what you believe). So, you say "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree, you're a jackass, homer, or a homer-jackass hybrid."

 

Way to not make yourself look like a moron, there guy.

 

How am I wrong? Video evidence shows Rapistberger fumbling and Miami recovering the ball in the endzone. NFL rules state that the Dolphins should have had the ball on the 20.

 

Pretty clear clut buddy

[murf74 461]

Probably 1/2 the games in the NFL have a fumble vs. non-fumble done incorrectly.

 

Hell, last night GB was given a TD incorrectly.

 

Doesn't mean anyone is stealing anything.

 

Besides game was not over no matter what pretend ending to the non-fumble recovery you want.

 

2:30 left, Miami up by 1 and Steelers had 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning. Game wasn't over folks.

 

In fact, Miami got the ball back with 2:30 minutes left needing only a FG to win...result? 4 and out.

[Houston Texans 10]

A play can already be reviewed AFTER THE WHISTLE blows. The "down by contact" rule was changed before the 2007 season. Down-by-contact could then be reviewed by instant replay to determine if a player fumbled the ball before he was down, and who recovered it. Previously, these plays could not be reversed once officials blew the whistle.

This is correct, but it DOES NOT allow officials to award possession (upon replay) to a team that gained control of the ball after the play is dead. All this does is allow the officials to use replay to determine if a player was down by contact. If he was ruled down, and then the ball comes out, replay CAN NOT be used to award possession to the other team.

 

Before the 2009 season, the Ed Hochuli rule was put in place, where if the referees called an incomplete pass on the field, they could now review the play to determine if it was a fumble and who recovered it. Previously, if an incomplete pass was ruled and the whistle was blown, these plays could not be reviewed.

 

The "Hochuli" rule merely states that officials can review a play to determine if a loose ball was the result of an incomplete pass or a fumble. Previously that was not reviewable. It DOES NOT allow possession to be awarded if possession was established AFTER the play was blown dead. As I've posted, officials have been instructed to refrain from blowing plays dead unless they are sure it's over.

 

Again, I will ask, why was this play any different? You CAN review the continuation of a play after the whistle was blown in BOTH of the above scenarios.

It's different because those rules allow officials to use replay to clarify what did happen. Once the whistle is blown, the play is over, and all players are expected to stop play. You can't use replay to determine what "might have" happened. If the NFL allowed replay for this, you would have players continuing to play after the whistle (which should be penalized with unsportsmanlike conduct, or late hit penalties).

 

And any time a ball is on the ground, players should continue to try to recover it whether the whistle has blown or not. To say Ben eased up on recovering the ball because he "heard the whistle" or saw the official signal TD is giving him waaay too much credit. According to his own statements after the game, he said he had the ball at the bottom of the pile. So i guess he eased up and didn't try to recover it, then changed his mind and tried to recover it? Doesn't make sense to me.

The bolded may be your opinion, and it may be the right opinion, but it most definitely IS NOT the stance of the NFL. They don't want players continuing action after plays are over, that's why the penalize late hits and officials can penalize players for not stopping action (whether in a fumble scrum or otherwise) when an official instructs them to do so. As for what Roethlisberger said, you're absolutely right. He didn't "have the ball," (he may have touched it, I'm not sure) he just said that. Kind of stupid of him to do so, since it's easy to see on TV that he didn't have it.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Probably 1/2 the games in the NFL have a fumble vs. non-fumble done incorrectly.

 

Hell, last night GB was given a TD incorrectly.

 

Doesn't mean anyone is stealing anything.

 

Besides game was not over no matter what pretend ending to the non-fumble recovery you want.

 

2:30 left, Miami up by 1 and Steelers had 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning. Game wasn't over folks.

 

In fact, Miami got the ball back with 2:30 minutes left needing only a FG to win...result? 4 and out.

 

 

I agree completely with you. My problem is with the inconsistencies in the NFL rules and how the referees interpret them. The Dolphins did not lose that game because of one call. They lost the game because they settled for 5 field goals, and also because they could not drive for a FG at the end to win the game.

[Houston Texans 10]

How am I wrong? Video evidence shows Rapistberger fumbling and Miami recovering the ball in the endzone. NFL rules state that the Dolphins should have had the ball on the 20.

 

Pretty clear clut buddy

How are you wrong? The same way you are wrong in this post. Your last line states:

"NFL rules state that the Dolphins should have had the ball on the 20."

 

That's WRONG!

 

NFL rules say that if a TD is signaled, the play is over. True

 

NFL rules say that a coach may challenge certain calls, if he has challenges remaining, up to the last 2 minutes of each half. True.

 

NFL rules say that if a play is blown dead before a change of possession occurs, the officials CAN NOT award the change of possession to the defending team. True

 

In the Miami game, a TD was signaled, and the play was over. NFL rules followed.

 

Sparano challenged the TD ruling. NFL rules followed.

 

The officials reviewed the play and saw that the ball didn't break the plane of the goal-line. TD over-turned. NFL rules followed.

 

The officials also saw that when the TD signal was being given, the ball was still loose, hence not in the possession of Dolphins OR Steelers. According to the rules, the offensive team was given possession at the spot where control of the ball was lost. NFL rules followed.

 

Nowhere in the NFL rules does it indicate that based on what happened in yesterday's game, the Dolphins should have gotten the ball on the 20.

 

If a TD wasn't signaled, AND the Dolphins recovered, then they should have gotten the ball on the 20. But that isn't what happened. That's why you're wrong.

 

You were right about one thing, though: it was pretty clear cut (not clut), buddy.

[Stewburtx8 67]

This is correct, but it DOES NOT allow officials to award possession (upon replay) to a team that gained control of the ball after the play is dead. All this does is allow the officials to use replay to determine if a player was down by contact. If he was ruled down, and then the ball comes out, replay CAN NOT be used to award possession to the other team.

 

 

 

The "Hochuli" rule merely states that officials can review a play to determine if a loose ball was the result of an incomplete pass or a fumble. Previously that was not reviewable. It DOES NOT allow possession to be awarded if possession was established AFTER the play was blown dead. As I've posted, officials have been instructed to refrain from blowing plays dead unless they are sure it's over.

 

 

 

This makes absolutely zero sense to me. Why would you review a play to determine if it was fumbled, but not be able to award possession of the ball? The only results of the replay are "he was in fact down by contact" or "he fumbled the ball, but because the whistle blew for down by contact, the offense will retain possession at the same spot." Why would anyone review this play, and why was the rule changed? Again, doesn't make any sense. If it was determined the ball was fumbled, how can you not award possession to the team that recovered it?

[Joey Gladstone 33]

How are you wrong? The same way you are wrong in this post. Your last line states:

"NFL rules state that the Dolphins should have had the ball on the 20."

 

That's WRONG!

 

NFL rules say that if a TD is signaled, the play is over. True

 

NFL rules say that a coach may challenge certain calls, if he has challenges remaining, up to the last 2 minutes of each half. True.

 

NFL rules say that if a play is blown dead before a change of possession occurs, the officials CAN NOT award the change of possession to the defending team. True

 

In the Miami game, a TD was signaled, and the play was over. NFL rules followed.

 

Sparano challenged the TD ruling. NFL rules followed.

 

The officials reviewed the play and saw that the ball didn't break the plane of the goal-line. TD over-turned. NFL rules followed.

 

The officials also saw that when the TD signal was being given, the ball was still loose, hence not in the possession of Dolphins OR Steelers. According to the rules, the offensive team was given possession at the spot where control of the ball was lost. NFL rules followed.

 

Nowhere in the NFL rules does it indicate that based on what happened in yesterday's game, the Dolphins should have gotten the ball on the 20.

 

If a TD wasn't signaled, AND the Dolphins recovered, then they should have gotten the ball on the 20. But that isn't what happened. That's why you're wrong.

 

You were right about one thing, though: it was pretty clear cut (not clut), buddy.

 

The only thing you are right about is the spelling of the word "cut".

[WhiteWonder 2,925]

Guess what? Bad calls get made all the time, in every game. Guess what? Sometimes they look at replay and it still isn't resolved in the proper way.

 

Its time to get over the pity party that started 4 years ago and concentrate on the fact that your team looks like an NFL franchise again.

[LoOnAtIk 75]

This makes absolutely zero sense to me. Why would you review a play to determine if it was fumbled, but not be able to award possession of the ball? The only results of the replay are "he was in fact down by contact" or "he fumbled the ball, but because the whistle blew for down by contact, the offense will retain possession at the same spot." Why would anyone review this play, and why was the rule changed? Again, doesn't make any sense. If it was determined the ball was fumbled, how can you not award possession to the team that recovered it?

 

took the words right out of my mouth. Are you a former official with a firm grasp of the rulebook, houstontexans? Or does the NFL send you a copy of their updated rulebook each year? If not can you put a link that confirms what you're preaching? Its got to be online somewhere right?

[Stewburtx8 67]

took the words right out of my mouth. Are you a former official with a firm grasp of the rulebook, houstontexans? Or does the NFL send you a copy of their updated rulebook each year? If not can you put a link that confirms what you're preaching? Its got to be online somewhere right?

 

 

Agreed. It seems like he knows what he is talking about, so I am not going to say he is wrong. I can not find anything "official" online to prove what I am saying. I have found several sources that are saying the same thing that I am, but because they are not "official" from the NFL rulebook, I can't say for sure if I am right. I can't find any instant replay/coaches challenge rules on NFL.com. For some reason I can recall several instances over the last couple years where "down by contact" was reviewed, it was determined a player fumbled the football and was not actually down by contact, and the football was awarded to the team that recovered it. It would only make sense to do that in my opinion if the play is reviewable, which it is. If HoustonTexans could provide a link to what he is saying, I would enjoy reading it. I always want to be as informed as possible when I watch several games every Sunday. If I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first or last time.

[Houston Texans 10]

This makes absolutely zero sense to me. Why would you review a play to determine if it was fumbled, but not be able to award possession of the ball?

Sparano challenged the ruling that the ball broke the plane of the goal-line. That was what they actually reviewed.

 

Never the less, They didn't know that no one had possession of the ball when the TD signal was given until they watched the replay. At that point, they knew that they couldn't award possession to the Dolphins. If the replay had shown that the ball bounced directly into a Dolphin's hands before the Field Judge was signaling TD, then they could have awarded possession to Miami.

 

The only results of the replay are "he was in fact down by contact" or "he fumbled the ball, but because the whistle blew for down by contact, the offense will retain possession at the same spot."

I'm not sure why you are bringing up "down by contact." That had nothing to do with the play yesterday. The whistle didn't blow because Roethlisberger was down by contact, but the TD signal was given because the Field Judge (mistakenly) believed that he had scored. Either way, the play is over, but not because of "down by contact."

 

Why would anyone review this play, and why was the rule changed? Again, doesn't make any sense. If it was determined the ball was fumbled, how can you not award possession to the team that recovered it?

I'm assuming that you are still referring to the "down by contact" rule. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The Pitt-Miami situation is unique, because it not only deals with the player being down or fumbling, but also with the goal-line. Let me try to explain.

 

The "down by contact" plays used to be unable to be reviewed. What this normally applied to was when a player appears to have fumbled, but the officials rule he was down by contact. Prior to the rule change in 2006, if the officials ruled that a player was down by contact, they couldn't use instant replay to change that (on the field) ruling. After the change, coaches became able to challenge those calls.

 

If you think about it, virtually all "down by contact" rulings are made after the fact. What I mean is that, Adrian Peterson is running, takes a hit, appears to go down, the ball comes out, a defender jumps on it or scoops it up, and then you see/hear the officials stopping the play, saying Peterson was "down by contact." Before 2006, that was it, end of story. Since the rule change, a coach could challenge and if there was clear proof that the runner wasn't down and the fumble was recovered, possession could be rewarded.

 

You rarely see a play blown dead for "down by contact," especially since the officials have been told to hold off on blowing the whistle.

 

Another factor is that it's very hard to hear a whistle on the television, and I'd imagine it would be equally as difficult to hear it when viewing a replay, it's usually not very easy to determine when a play has been blown dead.

 

The play yesterday happened to involve a TD signal, which could be clearly seen on the replay. If you have DVR, watch it again. When you see the Field Judge running in along the goal-line, he is signaling TD, and you can clearly see the ball loose, in no one's possession.

[Houston Texans 10]

Agreed. It seems like he knows what he is talking about, so I am not going to say he is wrong. I can not find anything "official" online to prove what I am saying. I have found several sources that are saying the same thing that I am, but because they are not "official" from the NFL rulebook, I can't say for sure if I am right. I can't find any instant replay/coaches challenge rules on NFL.com. For some reason I can recall several instances over the last couple years where "down by contact" was reviewed, it was determined a player fumbled the football and was not actually down by contact, and the football was awarded to the team that recovered it. It would only make sense to do that in my opinion if the play is reviewable, which it is. If HoustonTexans could provide a link to what he is saying, I would enjoy reading it. I always want to be as informed as possible when I watch several games every Sunday. If I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first or last time.

Nope, not an NFL official, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Just kidding, seriously, I have officiated high school and smaller college games, but never even close to the NFL, and I have had no personal experience with the NFL replay policy. I am fairly familiar with the rules, however.

 

I don't have a link, but I have a PDF copy of the 2010 NFL Playing Rules and Casebook of the NFL that I can send to anyone who would like a copy.

 

Here are the pertinent rules.

Rule 4, section 4, article 4.b

Whistle During Backwards Pass or Fumble

If the ball is a loose ball resulting from a fumble, backward pass, or illegal pass, the

team last in possession may elect to put the ball in play at the spot possession was

lost or to replay the down.

Rule 15, section 9.8

Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to:

8. Inadvertent Whistle

The TD signal constitutes an "inadvertent whistle" as it stops play, just as a whistle does. Inadvertent whistles (and inadvertent TD signals) kill the play, and while what happened prior to the whistle can be reviewed, what happened afterward, can not.

[Houston Texans 10]

The only thing you are right about is the spelling of the word "cut".

OK, whatever you say.