Tubby Rapistberger and the Stealers Strike again

[LoOnAtIk 75]

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.

 

 

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."

 

 

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.

 

So you're saying the whistle that blows a play dead for "down by contact" is different than the whistle that blows the play dead for a touchdown?

[Stewburtx8 67]

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.

 

 

So this rule is different when it has to do with a play at the goal line than when it happens in the field of play? Or are you saying the officials just don't "hear" the whistle most of the time, and therefore award possession to the recovering team in the field of play. My point on the "down by contact" rule is that most of the time it appears the whistle is blown prior to the ball actually be secured by the recovering team. But when challenged, the officials still award the ball to the team that recovered it. From what I've read regarding the rule, the whistle being blown for "down by contact" does not necessarily end the play, and if review confirms a fumble and subsequent recovery by the defense, the ball is awarded to the defense.

 

If in fact the correct call was made, the official last night did a very poor job of explaining it in my opinion. His explanation was "it was determined that the ball was fumbled prior to the ball crossing the goal line, but through video evidence we are unable to determine who obtained possession of the ball." According to the rule you are stating, possession was irrelevant once a TD was signaled and the whistle was blown. If he would of stated that "because the whistle had blown and the TD was signaled, the play is dead, and therefore Pittsburgh will retain possession at the 1 yard line." This would of made sense.

 

I appreciate your back and forth on this. I'm just trying to understand the rule(s) completely here. I am not a Pittsburgh or Miami fan or hater, and really could care less about the outcome of the game. I will stick to my point that the NFL rulebook is open to far too much interpretation in my opinion.

[Gepetto 1,454]

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.

 

But they did review what happened after the touchdown signal. After reviewing the replay they clearly stated that they could not tell from the replays if the defense recovered. If that is the correct rule and there is no overriding rule, then to correctly announce the replay review to the fans he should have said the play is overturned to be a fumble and review after the touchdown was signalled clearly showed no possession of the ball as the play was ruled dead by the touchdown signal before any player reached it. They did not say that; they said the replay did not show which team had the ball.

 

The touchdown signal came a split second after the fumble and no one could have recovered it based on the rule that the play is then dead.

 

Is there any additional rule that you have that specifically addresses replay (in relation to this situation)?

[Joey Gladstone 33]

"We did have a fumble, but we did not have video evidence and a confirmation on who recovered the football so we changed an aspect of the play by not awarding Pittsburgh the touchdown."

- Gene Steratore

Referee On the lengthy explanation on the field: "Naturally the ruling on the field was a touchdown by Pittsburgh. After review it was confirmed in replay that the ball did come loose and it was a fumble prior to the ball breaking the goal line. That's where we go into the second aspect of that. In order to overturn this and give another team the football, I have to have clear video evidence of the team recovering the fumble. ... That is what I explained. We did have a fumble, but we did not have video evidence and a confirmation on who recovered the football so we changed an aspect of the play by not awarding Pittsburgh the touchdown. Miami is not charged a time out because we changed an aspect of that play, but we could not award the defense in this situation the football because we don't have video evidence of the defense recovering the ball."

 

 

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/25/referee-gene-steratore-explains-ruling-in-dolphins-steelers-game/

 

Looked like Miami recovered it to me. I dont know how you could say otherwise, unless you're a Steeler's fan, blind, or whatever Houston Texans is.

 

Dolphin fans can expect an apology in about 5 years.

[Houston Texans 10]

So this rule is different when it has to do with a play at the goal line than when it happens in the field of play? Or are you saying the officials just don't "hear" the whistle most of the time, and therefore award possession to the recovering team in the field of play. My point on the "down by contact" rule is that most of the time it appears the whistle is blown prior to the ball actually be secured by the recovering team. But when challenged, the officials still award the ball to the team that recovered it. From what I've read regarding the rule, the whistle being blown for "down by contact" does not necessarily end the play, and if review confirms a fumble and subsequent recovery by the defense, the ball is awarded to the defense.

No, the rule isn't different. Rather, that when the officials are watching a slow-mo replay, they don't have the ability to hear the sound (whistle), so unless there is some visible indication by an official that the play is dead, they aren't always able to determine that. On this play, there happened to be an official in one of the replay views that showed a loose ball at the same time as the Field Judge signaled a TD. At that point, the play is dead, and since the ball is loose, no one had possession, so it reverts back to the offense.

 

Furthermore, if you look at most (not all) down by contact reviews, the play continued after the runner was/wasn't down. After the fact, the official will rule if the runner was down by contact or not, and that is often what is challenged/reviewed.

 

If in fact the correct call was made, the official last night did a very poor job of explaining it in my opinion. His explanation was "it was determined that the ball was fumbled prior to the ball crossing the goal line, but through video evidence we are unable to determine who obtained possession of the ball." According to the rule you are stating, possession was irrelevant once a TD was signaled and the whistle was blown. If he would of stated that "because the whistle had blown and the TD was signaled, the play is dead, and therefore Pittsburgh will retain possession at the 1 yard line." This would of made sense.

I agree that his explanation was bad. If you looked at his face before he actually gave the explanation, I was able to predict what he was going to say. He knew it was going to be an unpopular decision, and I think that was partially why the explanation wasn't bad.

 

However, possession wasn't irrelevant. IF the replay had shown that the ball bounced directly into a Dolphin's hands while the Field Judge was signaling TD, the officials could have cited that as Dolphins having possession as the play was blown dead, and awarded the ball to Miami.

 

I will stick to my point that the NFL rulebook is open to far too much interpretation in my opinion.

Perhaps you are right, but when the rules get more specific, and try to explain exactly what should/shouldn't be done, that opens up other problems. The Calvin Johnson catch/non-catch, for example. According to the rule, which was very specific, it wasn't a catch, but according to virtually all viewers, it should have been. IMO, (but I'm biased) the rules should allow the officials to use their best judgment. I don't think that was the case yesterday.

[Houston Texans 10]

But they did review what happened after the touchdown signal. After reviewing the replay they clearly stated that they could not tell from the replays if the defense recovered. If that is the correct rule and there is no overriding rule, then to correctly announce the replay review to the fans he should have said the play is overturned to be a fumble and review after the touchdown was signalled clearly showed no possession of the ball as the play was ruled dead by the touchdown signal before any player reached it. They did not say that; they said the replay did not show which team had the ball.

 

The touchdown signal came a split second after the fumble and no one could have recovered it based on the rule that the play is then dead.

 

Is there any additional rule that you have that specifically addresses replay (in relation to this situation)?

They reviewed the play. When Sparano challenged, they couldn't have known that at the time of the TD signal, the ball was loose. They are allowed to review fumbles, TDs, etc. When they saw on the replay that the ball was fumbled, they COULD HAVE awarded possession to Miami, IF A DOLPHIN HAD THE BALL BEFORE/WHEN THE FIELD JUDGE SIGNALED TD. No Dolphin did. At that point, the review is over. He said that they didn't have conclusive evidence that Miami recovered the football, and that is true, because when the play was blown dead, they hadn't.

 

Could he have explained it better? Sure.

 

Does that make the ruling wrong? No.

 

As far as additional rules, the ones I've posted covers it. It would be redundant to have another rule that basically states the same thing.