NFL vol. 5

[Rockroi]

God, I love it when I get the people I normally argue with to talk like me on these boards; I have kal using ALL CAPS and Chuck K. pulling the "Iron Giant Nicknames-For-Little-Kids" montage. God; we are just a few posts away from Jaime declaring "Take it easy, Champ... why don't you sit this next one out; try not talking for a while."

... and one win from a sig change...

[Chuck Klingbeil]

God, I love it when I get the people I normally argue with to talk like me on these boards; I have kal using ALL CAPS and Chuck K. pulling the "Iron Giant Nicknames-For-Little-Kids" montage. God; we are just a few posts away from Jaime declaring "Take it easy, Champ... why don't you sit this next one out; try not talking for a while."

... and one win from a sig change...

Hahaha! Dammit Rock, I didn't even realize I was doing that till you said something! Get out of my head!

[DanteGabriel]

Giants continue their dirty play. If they can manage to keep injuring every starting QB they play yet somehow never drawing a flag or a fine, they might end the season over .500

Come on now. I loathe the Giants as much as anyone who isn't a fan of another NFC East team, but that was a textbook legal hard hit on a QB. He wrapped up Romo and Romo fell awkwardly on his shoulder. It wasn't Boley's fault that Gronkowski totally forgot to block him.

[The Dude]

Seriously. I understand why it could make some sense form an ownership standpoint, but is there are player or a fan out there who really wants things to move from 16 to 18?

I've thought maybe it's been my terrible luck in fantasy football, but this year really seems like there's been a lot more injuries to big name players. I haven't seen any stats of course - just the revolving door that is my fantasy team and a few particularly nasty injuries in the headlines, along with all of the big hit/concussion talk.

I never wanted to see 18 games anyway. As a fan, sure I'd like to see more games, but I think the cost is too great to the players and the game.

[Slurktan]

The ruling on the field was a TD, no one was supposedly awarded the fumble (Dolphins and Steelers both claimed they were), but the TD rule was overturned. So at that point the refs have to make the best call using replay that they can. And while the ball was in the endzone replay showed that several different Miami players had their hands on the ball first and one in particular came out of the pile with it. That should be the call. As shown by replay.

I understand the rules. It was a bad call and a bad interpretation of the rules. I won't be surprised if they change the rule regarding endzone fumble scrums to just replay the down, as that seems most fair, but in this instance the refs did not call what was shown in the replay.

Going by the above paragraph you don't understand the rules unfortunately. In order to switch possession on a replay there has to be 100% visual evidence that the team gained possession. Not 80%, or 90% or even 99.9999%. In this case there was not 100% certainty and so the refs made absolutely the correct call on the replay as according to the rules. There is no "interpretation" at that point, they called it correctly by the rules.

The problem was with the TD call which was a bad call(and the refs admitted so). However once the TD call was made there was absolutely no way Miami was going to get the football based on the replays.

EDIT:

I want to see an 18 game season. All the arguments against were the same arguments used when the league switched from 14 to 16 games back in the 70's. Roster sizes are going to expand by 10 or so and teams will need to draft/sign good backup QB's. Yay for more meaningful football.

[Rockroi]

The problem was with the TD call which was a bad call(and the refs admitted so). However once the TD call was made there was absolutely no way Miami was going to get the football based on the replays.

Yes and No. While I agree that the TD was a bad call, I do think there was a way to have Miami take possession. It would have required a ref to "look up." This is the only area I really disagree with. The refs HAVE to be aware that everything they call on the field is, by-in-large, subject to replay. Therefore, even when they blow the whistle. The other refs have to treat every play as if its live and that what they uncover- especially in the middle of a free-for-all for a fumble -is going to be reviewed. And this is true EVEN WHEN one ref calls TD- because oftentimes another ref will call FUMBLE.

The refs blew this when they signaled TD and further compounded their mess when they did not try to ascertain who came up with the ball.

Finally, the refs could EASILY see that a Miami player landed on the ball, with his hand clutching the ball. Possession. He is then touched by a Steelers player. Down by contact. Play is over. Miami's ball. It then gets even worse when you have a Miami player come out of the pile with the ball (I am unsure how that is NOT indisputable evidence IF the refs are claiming that when there was a pile they WERE NOT actively looking for the ball; therefore, once you see on replay a guy with the ball... how is that NOT indisputable? When does "having the ball" not count as "having the ball"?).

I know what the rule says. I just think that the refs called the play bad in real time, then compounded the problem by not acting as if the play was live (and given the contours of Instant Replay, this seems like a no-brainer: EVERY play can and will be reviewed and potentially overturned), and then failed to act on both the fumble recovery and the team that ultimately claimed the ball.

[Chuck Klingbeil]

Going by the above paragraph you don't understand the rules unfortunately. In order to switch possession on a replay there has to be 100% visual evidence that the team gained possession. Not 80%, or 90% or even 99.9999%. In this case there was not 100% certainty and so the refs made absolutely the correct call on the replay as according to the rules. There is no "interpretation" at that point, they called it correctly by the rules.

The problem was with the TD call which was a bad call(and the refs admitted so). However once the TD call was made there was absolutely no way Miami was going to get the football based on the replays.

EDIT:

I want to see an 18 game season. All the arguments against were the same arguments used when the league switched from 14 to 16 games back in the 70's. Roster sizes are going to expand by 10 or so and teams will need to draft/sign good backup QB's. Yay for more meaningful football.

I know the rule-

In the case of a touchdown-turned-fumble, case study 15.126 of the NFL's Instant Replay Manual states that ``if there is a pile-up and you can't see who recovered the ball or a long delay with players stopping before the ball is recovered, the offense retains possession but the ball will be placed at the 1-yard line.''

In the replay you see Alama-Francis get his hand on the ball first, then afterwards emerge from the scrum with the ball. Did he need to do a dance with the ball? Give it to a ref and then pat him on the ass like Hines Ward did after the TD was initially ruled? Spit the ball out of his mouth like he was Harry Potter catching the snitch?

A little common sense on the part of the officials is not too much to ask.

And I'm not saying Miami would have won had the call went their way. There was a few more minutes for them to throw that game away.

[Bronn Stone]

The ruling on the field was a TD, no one was supposedly awarded the fumble (Dolphins and Steelers both claimed they were), but the TD rule was overturned. So at that point the refs have to make the best call using replay that they can. And while the ball was in the endzone replay showed that several different Miami players had their hands on the ball first and one in particular came out of the pile with it. That should be the call. As shown by replay.

I understand the rules. It was a bad call and a bad interpretation of the rules. I won't be surprised if they change the rule regarding endzone fumble scrums to just replay the down, as that seems most fair, but in this instance the refs did not call what was shown in the replay.

The refs made the right call and the rule is best as it is, barring X-ray vision to see inside scrums.

I thought the MNF guys did a good job explaining it after the Witten fumble Monday night.

The whistle has blown. The play is dead. The ruling on the field was touchdown. By rule, the only exception to 'the whistle ends the play' is if there is indisputable visual evidence that a team recovered the ball unaffected by the whistle. That condition was not met - recovering the ball after an extended post-whistle scrum does not qualify. A Dolphins defender (Karlos Dansby?) had a clean shot at the ball before the scrum formed and missed.

Good rule - you don't want players to have excuses to continue scrapping after the whistle blows. Good exception - it is reasonable and just to have an exception if and only if someone picks it up cleanly post-whistle and you can reasonably conclude that the whistle didn't affect the outcome.

You are just plain wrong on this one. Really bad call by the side judge (or was it the linesman?) to indicate TD. But from that point on, the refs got it right. Fumble on the 1, ball not recovered by either team, remains in possession of offense.

Replaying downs would be silly. Even worse for the defense than the current rule. At least in this case the Steelers lost the down.

A little common sense on the part of the officials is not too much to ask.

This is a horrible concept. The point of replay is that you can only call what you see. There is no crystal ball under the hood. And if you can't see it, you don't call it! I'd be very disappointed if this ever changed. But it won't.

[Jaxom 1974]

Seriously. I understand why it could make some sense form an ownership standpoint, but is there are player or a fan out there who really wants things to move from 16 to 18?

I'm all for 18 games if it means that two of the pre-season "games" are gone. Otherwise, I'm up in the air on it. Bottom line for me: Less essentially meaningless pre-season games.

[Chuck Klingbeil]

The refs made the right call and the rule is best as it is, barring X-ray vision to see inside scrums.

I thought the MNF guys did a good job explaining it after the Witten fumble Monday night.

The whistle has blown. The play is dead. The ruling on the field was touchdown. By rule, the only exception to 'the whistle ends the play' is if there is indisputable visual evidence that a team recovered the ball unaffected by the whistle. That condition was not met - recovering the ball after an extended post-whistle scrum does not qualify. A Dolphins defender (Karlos Dansby?) had a clean shot at the ball before the scrum formed and missed.

Good rule - you don't want players to have excuses to continue scrapping after the whistle blows. Good exception - it is reasonable and just to have an exception if and only if someone picks it up cleanly post-whistle and you can reasonably conclude that the whistle didn't affect the outcome.

You are just plain wrong on this one. Really bad call by the side judge (or was it the linesman?) to indicate TD. But from that point on, the refs got it right. Fumble on the 1, ball not recovered by either team, remains in possession of offense.

Replaying downs would be silly. Even worse for the defense than the current rule. At least in this case the Steelers lost the down.

This is a horrible concept. The point of replay is that you can only call what you see. There is no crystal ball under the hood. And if you can't see it, you don't call it! I'd be very disappointed if this ever changed. But it won't.

The TD was signaled but from every source i've read the whistle wasn't blown till after the scrum had formed. And the replay shows Ikaika Alama-francis get a hand on the ball and then later emerge from the scrum with the ball. That is a fact as shown by the replay. The common sense the refs should have is that the player who grabbed the ball first came up with the ball and therefore has possesion. It's not a judgement call, it's what the replay showed.

I guess i'm too stupid to see what is so clear to you guys. Leave it be and let the Miami fan wallow in his stupidity. :)

[Maithanet]

I want to see an 18 game season. All the arguments against were the same arguments used when the league switched from 14 to 16 games back in the 70's. Roster sizes are going to expand by 10 or so and teams will need to draft/sign good backup QB's. Yay for more meaningful football.

But the "meaningfulness" is a zero sum game. I would say that part of the reason baseball is boring is because the regular season features 162 essentially meaningless games. As a whole, they make up the season, but each individually is completely not worth watching.

Whether there are 16 or 18 games, the meaningfulness of each game is going to be 1/number of games in the season.

We could have a 32 team single elimination tournament and no regular season. Each game would be meaningful as hell. It would of course be ridiculous, because half the teams in the league would get only one game.

I think the NFL season is plenty long. I'm a big Skins fan, and I still have never seen every game in a season, because I have things to do on the weekend. But I try and see it if at all possible, and I usually can catch 13-15 games a year, which is good enough. But I would never miss a Skins playoff game (there aren't many to begin with), because it is just so much more important that I would cancel whatever I'm doing. Importance of the games is decreased whenever you have more games to play. "More meaningful games" is not a compelling argument to expand the season.

I think they should increase the roster size by 3-5 spots, and that's all. There are already enough walking-wounded teams in the playoffs, we don't need more.

[Kalbear]

The problem is the scrum.

If they had visual evidence that a person grabbed the ball and took it in one smooth set of film, that would be the evidence they need. As soon as a scrum happens, they have no idea what could have gone on in there or if people were stopping struggling for the ball because of the whistle.

On fumbles, any time the fumble result is overturned from a non-fumble, you essentially need visual evidence of someone establishing possession directly. Not in a scrum, not bobbling the ball, but picking the ball up off the turf and holding on to it (or alternately, being the only one around and laying on it).

[Rockroi]

The problem is the scrum.

If they had visual evidence that a person grabbed the ball and took it in one smooth set of film, that would be the evidence they need. As soon as a scrum happens, they have no idea what could have gone on in there or if people were stopping struggling for the ball because of the whistle.

On fumbles, any time the fumble result is overturned from a non-fumble, you essentially need visual evidence of someone establishing possession directly. Not in a scrum, not bobbling the ball, but picking the ball up off the turf and holding on to it (or alternately, being the only one around and laying on it).

But kal, think about the alternative.

The same guy (according to Chuck K.) who fell on the ball (hand grasping it for dear life) is the same guy who appeared from the scrum with the ball. That would mean that in order for the ref's interpretation to be correct, the guy who got the ball MUST have been interrupted by a Steelers player AND THEN that Steelers player must have gained possession AND THEN lost that very same ball to ... the very same Miami player? Well... that seems for more crazy than "the same guy who grabbed the ball and held it was the same guy who reappeared from the scrum with the ball," and therefore Miami recovered. That, I think, is what Chuck was saying when he said "common sense." Which is more likely?

Oh, and its been like 3 posts... so ... God I hate Ben Rothlesberger.

[Lord O' Bones]

I guess i'm too stupid to see what is so clear to you guys. Leave it be and let the Miami fan wallow in his stupidity. :)

I don't think it's like that.

I think we all want the calls to go the way our gut tells us it should have. But the rules-smiths are arguing about/pointing out why it didn't happen this time. I think most posters in here know in their heart it was a Miami recovery of a Roethlesberger fumble. But the rules are. And I think the NFL does a pretty good job of modifying them with alacrity when called for. But the rules are what make the game officiable.

The game goes at 100 miles an hour. The officials have that handicap every play.

[Kalbear]

Doesn't matter what's more likely. As long as something else could have happened that wasn't seen by the tape, there is not 100% video evidence that says what actually happened. I agree - it's very likely that the Miami guy ended up with the ball and kept it, but as long as there's some doubt you can't overturn it. That's the rule. The alternate is to give refs even more subjective power, and that's also a poor choice.

Bad calls suck. This was a bad call that was made slightly less bad by the replay. Common sense doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Rockroi]

Common sense doesn't have anything to do with it.

I think this should be the ref's new motto.

[Swordfish]

I'm all for 18 games if it means that two of the pre-season "games" are gone. Otherwise, I'm up in the air on it. Bottom line for me: Less essentially meaningless pre-season games.

No 18 games.

In addition to all the injury problems, you also have to probably expand rosters. Essentially, adding an expansion team, which dilutes talent and harms the game.

Sixteen games are plenty.

Hell, 14 games would be plenty.

[Bronn Stone]

No 18 games.

In addition to all the injury problems, you also have to probably expand rosters. Essentially, adding an expansion team, which dilutes talent and harms the game.

I don't think roster expansion would be necessary. They probably would have to eliminate the practice of having so many inactive players.

The extra players would only fill in after injuries. I don't think the dilution of talent would be that big a deal.

I would enjoy having two more weeks of Fantasy Football.

[Swordfish]

I don't think roster expansion would be necessary. They probably would have to eliminate the practice of having so many inactive players.

The extra players would only fill in after injuries. I don't think the dilution of talent would be that big a deal.

I would enjoy having two more weeks of Fantasy Football.

Additionally, you're also talking about shortening careers.

I think dilution of talent is a HUGE consideration, no matter how you look at it.

I'd love two extra weeks of fantasy too, but not at that price. It's already almost a war of attrition. I'd prefer that it stay as much about skill and as little about luck (avoiding injuries over the course of a season) as possible.

[Kalbear]

After watching college and watching how lame a lot of the last couple games of a season are, I'd actually be okay with shortening the season and making each game be a bit more important. At the very least they need to fix the stupid 'rest my starters' crap somehow, and 18 games isn't going to make that better.