Worst call ever

#26
#26
By rule it wasn't a safety, but the rule is asinine. The initial "touch" the defender made the ball was over the line but please this is football and that forward progress rule on the type of play is just ridiculous. In reality that should be a safety and exposed that rule for the bad rule it is. GBO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#27
#27
I don't think forward progress rule was an element in this play. Didn't have anything to do with the ref's call.
 
#29
#29
VFL-82-JP said:
So if you watched the play, and saw him tackled in the end zone, and assumed the play was still live at that point, the whistle may be the part you missed (along with me).
Click to expand...

i sit almost in that endzone and I don't recall the whistle blowing the play dead. I think it all happened to fast for them to whistle it dead. I did see every ref looking confused for a good couple of seconds before the ball was finally spotted by one of them.

never heard of the rule about going backward is forward as soon as he is contacted. fans in the stadium were livid.
 
#31
#31
volkyries said:
i sit almost in that endzone and I don't recall the whistle blowing the play dead. I think it all happened to fast for them to whistle it dead. I did see every ref looking confused for a good couple of seconds before the ball was finally spotted by one of them.

never heard of the rule about going backward is forward as soon as he is contacted. fans in the stadium were livid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty sure that's not an accurate interpretation or application of the forward progress rule. But I don't think that's why the refs spotted the ball where they did, either.
 
#33
#33
GAVol said:
Agreed. All the runner has to do is have any part of the football across the goal line.
Click to expand...
Continuing with your statement by rule if the ball is in the field of play when contact is made it is not a safety. By rule it was not a safety, but I don't like the rule it is taking forward progress to the extreme he was heading backwards and would have fell into the endzone. By todays rule once contact is made that is where he is at even if the contact isn't enough to tackle him and that is why the rule sucks. But if he would have bounced off and ran they would have allowed that. If should be obvious forward progress stopped not touches at the goaline that clearly haven't brought down the runner. n reality that should have been a safety he wasn't down when contact was made, not even close. GBO!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarms58 and volkyries
#34
#34
vollygirl said:
If you back into the endzone and get tackled it's not a safety?
Click to expand...
But the contact started before the ball was in the end zone. Even if he’s doing a dead sprint in the opposite direction and he gets pushed from behind, the ball is spotted where the contact took place first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarms58
#35
#35
thanks for the education on this rule everyone.! learned something today
 
#36
#36
Nobody is mentioning the fact that the ball moved in the quarterback’s hands when he was being tackled. Does that not constitute losing his forward momentum and allowing the safety?
 
#37
#37
KBVol said:
Correct. Kyle made contact with the qb at the foot line or less while the qb was retreating. There was zero “forward progress”. It was a safety.
Click to expand...

So the ball is spotted at the foot line since that was the QBs furtherest forward progress...it's like when a receiver is coming back to the QB and makes a catch -the ball is spotted where he caught ball not three or four yards back where the defender took him down.
 
#38
#38
While I'm OK with the way it was called I think an argument can be made for a QB fumbling on a sack. IF the QB loses control of the ball on the way to the ground (has control then re-grips in anticipation of hitting the ground and loses it) is the play over at the spot of contact or is the ball loose and live?
 
#40
#40
KBVol said:
Correct. Kyle made contact with the qb at the foot line or less while the qb was retreating. There was zero “forward progress”. It was a safety.
Click to expand...
It appeared to me that the runner's feet were on the half yard line but the ball was over the endzone line. I thought is should have been a touchback.
 
#41
#41
So the play is essentially dead when our DT touches the QB? Sounds like we should just play one hand touch. If the QB was moving forward I could understand the argument but he was retreating. So our DT would have to wait to touch him when he had fully ran back into his own endzone in order to get the safety? That’s nuts! Never heard of these rules until they make em up against us.
 
#42
#42
KBVol said:
Hahahahaha!!! This OL is so god awful. #fireWillFriend
Click to expand...
Don't worry there may be some coaches trying to run away after this season....from what I have seen on the side line Pruitt may be pretty rough on them...you can only take so much...crunch time for Pruitt
 
#43
#43
AaronUT said:
At the point of contact, the ball was out of the endzone. Good call.
Click to expand...
its tackle football...not touch football. when we made contact and if he would have spun away the play would have continued. he was tackled in the end zone. film don't lie. yes contact was made but its tackle football. refs do not like calling safeties and look for any reason not to call them but this was a safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange Maniac
#44
#44
When a player is retreating the ball is spotted at the point of initial contact by the defender provided he brings the ball carrier down. If this was not the rule you could just pick up a retreating ball carrier and carry them back for 30 yards before taking them down if you wanted to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and TeddyYeti
#45
#45
If the QB had broken away for a 30 yard gain, would they have brought the ball back to the one? No, they wouldn't so in my opinion, the play wasn't dead.
 
#46
#46
Vols_74 said:
So the play is essentially dead when our DT touches the QB? Sounds like we should just play one hand touch. If the QB was moving forward I could understand the argument but he was retreating. So our DT would have to wait to touch him when he had fully ran back into his own endzone in order to get the safety? That’s nuts! Never heard of these rules until they make em up against us.
Click to expand...
Just because you don’t know the rule doesn’t mean they make them up against us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, Firebirdparts and Notorious B.E.N
#47
#47
It’s not dead if the carrier re-establishes forward progress before the play is whistled dead. But he didn’t re-establish forward progress so it is spotted at point of initial contact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and TeddyYeti
#48
#48
NEVolFan said:
I thought you were talking about Banks not blocking on the flea flicker.
Click to expand...

After that play I told my wife that I thought Banks was supposed to stay there for at least a One Mississippi to block any defender(s) who might have converged on him or pick up any late blitzars, before he slipped out of the backfield. Oops!

I hope JG gave him an earful on the sideline.
 
#49
#49
Type Orange+ said:
After that play I told my wife that I thought Banks was supposed to stay there for at least a One Mississippi to block any defender(s) who might have converged on him or pick up any late blitzars, before he slipped out of the backfield. Oops!

I hope JG gave him an earful on the sideline.
Click to expand...
Agree... seems like Banks was indeed a check off, but he should have hung around for a bit to slow the rusher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type Orange+
#50
#50
vollygirl said:
If you back into the endzone and get tackled it's not a safety?
Click to expand...
He was standing at the one foot line and was pushed back into the end zone. So his established progress was the one foot line at the time of contact. It was pretty obvious on TV that it was not a safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top