Law School Discussion

congratulations to the steelers

FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2006, 01:06:41 AM »

This has all already been addressed in other threads.  Hasselbeck's fumble WAS a fumble (go read the rule books - he was lucky to get it back). 

Hey, nobody's saying that the Seahawks didn't blow some chances, but two of the blown touchdowns were the pass interference and the "hold" that called back first and goal from the 1. The clock mismanagement was bad, no doubt, but the refs took points off the board.

As for the fumble, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. He was touched by a defender, his elbow and knee had hit the ground, ergo fumble.

Only a hardcore Steelers fan who was blind drunk by the fourth quarter could possibly say that all the calls except one were fair, and that it was balanced by the "fumble."

He was touched by a defender PRIOR to hitting the ground.  Look, either a defender HOLDS YOU and MAKES YOU hit the ground, or YOU HIT THE GROUND, then the defender TOUCHES YOU WHILE YOU'RE DOWN.  Those are the only two ways of being downed.  Hasselbeck was barely scraped by a player's fingertips as he was slipping.  AFTER being touched, his knee and then elbow hit the ground.  As such, I was amazed they called back the fumble.  He was not downed. 

Ask yourself this: if he'd gotten up again and recovered the ball, would they have questioned it?  No.

check01

Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2006, 01:34:09 AM »
Sorry, not true. Any contact by a defensive player means the player will be down as soon as the knee or elbow hits the ground. The rule is any contact to avoid a situation where the zebras decide whether the contact caused the ball carrier to fall.

If a RB bounces off a linebacker, breaks free, runs 30 yards, and trips over his own feet and falls to the ground, he's down. Nobody caused the fall, but contact with a defensive player at any point during the play negates his right to get up and keep running. By that same token, the ground can't cause a fumble in that situation (unless he falls ball-first and the ball is out before either his knee or elbow hits the ground).  A receiver who catches the ball, then runs and falls must be touched to be down.

In this case, though, I think it's hard to say that the contact didn't cause the fall. You'd have to believe he tripped over his shoelaces if you don't think a shove to the ribs made him lose his balance.

FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2006, 01:48:49 AM »
Sorry, not true. Any contact by a defensive player means the player will be down as soon as the knee or elbow hits the ground. The rule is any contact to avoid a situation where the zebras decide whether the contact caused the ball carrier to fall.

If a RB bounces off a linebacker, breaks free, runs 30 yards, and trips over his own feet and falls to the ground, he's down. Nobody caused the fall, but contact with a defensive player at any point during the play negates his right to get up and keep running. By that same token, the ground can't cause a fumble in that situation (unless he falls ball-first and the ball is out before either his knee or elbow hits the ground).  A receiver who catches the ball, then runs and falls must be touched to be down.

In this case, though, I think it's hard to say that the contact didn't cause the fall. You'd have to believe he tripped over his shoelaces if you don't think a shove to the ribs made him lose his balance.

A SHOVE TO HIS RIBS?

Were we watching the same play?  He was barely f-ing touched! 

A take on the rule:

Could you please explain the down-by-contact rule? I was curious about the a play in the Giants-Chiefs game where the receiver made a nice catch and it appeared that his shin touched the ground as defenders attempted to tackle him. The receiver escaped and scored. From the replay, it appears that his knee was not down. I saw this replay on a NFL network show where a former referee was explaining the rule. From my understanding, the receiver should have been called down and the TD nullified. His explanation was somewhat confusing, so would you please give me the scoop? --Stephen, Michigan City, Ind.

A runner is down by contact when he is contacted by an opponent and subsequently goes to the ground with anything other than his hands or feet. If, after the contact, he regains his equilibrium, and then goes to the ground, he is not down by contact. In the play that you describe, the officials ruled that the receiver's leg had not hit the ground and they allowed the play to continue. This play was challenged and replay was inconclusive. Whenever a ruling on the field is made, only conclusive evidence can affect a change.

{from http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/
cs-051228askjerrymarkbreit,1,1174018.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Seems your definition isn't accurate.

In any case, this is not a play I'm going to dispute for too long.  It made no real difference to the game, as far as I'm concerned.  The others did, and they were fair calls.

SCgrad

Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2006, 05:29:44 AM »
.

If a RB bounces off a linebacker, breaks free, runs 30 yards, and trips over his own feet and falls to the ground, he's down. Nobody caused the fall, but contact with a defensive player at any point during the play negates his right to get up and keep running.

this is false, the defensive player has to touch him in the act of falling.  If a player is stumbling off-balance down the field and you graze him with a finger tip and he continues stumbling for 10 more yards and falls, yes, he is down.  But not in the situation you described.  It must be in the "act of falling"

Also, I did not see the game or the holding call.  But anyone who ever actually played football or who watches more than just the Super Bowl will tell you there is holding on every play.  If that is part of your argument for poor officiating, I imagine you are reaching.

Paikea

  • ****
  • 282
  • One year down, two more to go!
    • View Profile
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2006, 03:28:35 PM »

Lame retort.  As I've said in other thread, offensive pass interference (ESPECIALLY in the endzone) merely requires contact in the case of a pushoff.  Any push is enough to give you the half second to get open for that catch, even if it's just a soft one.  There is only ONE call in that situation, and the referee made it. 

And don't buy the crappy, overrated Fox commentary team's version of the Locklear call.  The fact that his man was by him but that he still had his arm around his shoulder clearly indicates a hold.  Even if it's a 50/50 call, I would've made it on the field. 

Also, by definition, if a call is a judgement call, then you can't say it's a bad call.  If you acknowledge it's a judgement call, then the call the referee makes is fair as it is. 

For the record, I'm not a Steelers fan.  I'm just a reasonable fan of the game. 
 



Actually you are wrong.  For offensive interference, or interference in general, the one "interfered" with has to be able to be in position to make a play on the ball.  If you actually watched the play, you would have noticed that the defensive back was already headed to his right and Jackson was breaking to his left.  Jackson did touch him (the defensive back also had his arm on Jackson as well by the way) but there was already clear separation and there was no way the d-back had a play on that pass.  Bad call plain and simple.

As for Locklear?  Again, watch the play.  Did he have his arm hooked?  Possibly.  But the "hook" occured as the d-end was falling to the ground.  As numerous commentators have said, you do not call a hold when the guy is falling down and about 5 yard away from the QB.  Again, bad call.

Again, this does not mean that the Steelers would have still not won.  But the mere fact that even in today's news they are still talking about the officiating, imho, takes credence away from victory.  And that is a shame. 

Oh, and by the way, every call is a judgment call.  And, absolutely, there are bad judgment calls.  Don't fool yourself by thinking otherwise.

FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2006, 04:15:34 PM »

Lame retort.  As I've said in other thread, offensive pass interference (ESPECIALLY in the endzone) merely requires contact in the case of a pushoff.  Any push is enough to give you the half second to get open for that catch, even if it's just a soft one.  There is only ONE call in that situation, and the referee made it. 

And don't buy the crappy, overrated Fox commentary team's version of the Locklear call.  The fact that his man was by him but that he still had his arm around his shoulder clearly indicates a hold.  Even if it's a 50/50 call, I would've made it on the field. 

Also, by definition, if a call is a judgement call, then you can't say it's a bad call.  If you acknowledge it's a judgement call, then the call the referee makes is fair as it is. 

For the record, I'm not a Steelers fan.  I'm just a reasonable fan of the game. 
 



Actually you are wrong.  For offensive interference, or interference in general, the one "interfered" with has to be able to be in position to make a play on the ball.  If you actually watched the play, you would have noticed that the defensive back was already headed to his right and Jackson was breaking to his left.  Jackson did touch him (the defensive back also had his arm on Jackson as well by the way) but there was already clear separation and there was no way the d-back had a play on that pass.  Bad call plain and simple.

ACTUALLY, I think you should watch the play again.  If the ball is IN THE AIR (thus out of the quarterback's hand), any of the players involved in the area that the ball is targeting are in a position to make a play on the ball.  The defensive back was not breaking anywhere (in fact, as a DB, you don't predict the receiver's movements, you react to them, so what you're saying makes no f-ing sense - this is further corroborated by the fact that there was only one receiver near that DB, so it's not like he was making a break on another player).  The arm on Jackson made no difference - it wasn't interfering with the play BEFORE the ball left Hasselbeck's hand, which is all that mattered at that point.  Receivers and DBs jostle - if this occurs before the pass is thrown, this is only an issue if there is clear and deterrent contact.  Once the pass is thrown, TOUCHING THE OPPOSING PLAYER IS MORE THAN LIKELY TO RESULT IN PENALTY.  You make a play on the ball, not on the player.  Even a soft push is enough to disrupt a DB reacting to your movements.  I know that, and so do the refs.  Therefore, IT IS A PENALTY.

As for Locklear?  Again, watch the play.  Did he have his arm hooked?  Possibly.  But the "hook" occured as the d-end was falling to the ground.  As numerous commentators have said, you do not call a hold when the guy is falling down and about 5 yard away from the QB.  Again, bad call.

If you're hooking a guy from behind and the guy goes down, it looks like a hold.  You can't blame the referees for this one.  I don't even agree that the hook only occurred "as the d-end was falling to the ground", because it clearly looked to me that Locklear was struggling from behind to contain him almost from the beginning of the play.  And, considering Locklear got away with holding MURDER the rest of the game, this is almost poetic justice.

Again, this does not mean that the Steelers would have still not won.  But the mere fact that even in today's news they are still talking about the officiating, imho, takes credence away from victory.  And that is a shame. 

I agree.  And it's unfair to the Steelers, because the officiating really wasn't that bad.

Oh, and by the way, every call is a judgment call.  And, absolutely, there are bad judgment calls.  Don't fool yourself by thinking otherwise.

I'm not going to bother debating this.  Sure, whatever.  I'm not fooling myself by thinking anything.  I have been scrutinizing referees in many different sports since I was about 5, especially in rugby, which has one of the most refined and complicated refereeing systems in sport.  There are clear calls, and there are judgement calls.  If you want to leave a call to someone's discretion, you have to accept that call as is, otherwise there should've been another system of review. 

But I won't go further into that.  We'll just agree to disagree.


TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2006, 04:31:11 PM »
There are a lot of reporters and analysists that think the game was terribly officiated and I havent heard of ONE that said it was a well called game.

That alone should settle this debate.

FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2006, 04:37:55 PM »
There are a lot of reporters and analysists that think the game was terribly officiated and I havent heard of ONE that said it was a well called game.

That alone should settle this debate.

Clearly.  They're all brilliant and non-partisan.   ::)

Besides, nobody said it was a WELL-called game.  The closest claim to that has been that the game was called FAIRLY.  And I've seen that from a number of sources.
 

Paikea

  • ****
  • 282
  • One year down, two more to go!
    • View Profile
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2006, 05:02:52 PM »

ACTUALLY, I think you should watch the play again.  If the ball is IN THE AIR (thus out of the quarterback's hand), any of the players involved in the area that the ball is targeting are in a position to make a play on the ball.  The defensive back was not breaking anywhere (in fact, as a DB, you don't predict the receiver's movements, you react to them, so what you're saying makes no f-ing sense - this is further corroborated by the fact that there was only one receiver near that DB, so it's not like he was making a break on another player).  The arm on Jackson made no difference - it wasn't interfering with the play BEFORE the ball left Hasselbeck's hand, which is all that mattered at that point.  Receivers and DBs jostle - if this occurs before the pass is thrown, this is only an issue if there is clear and deterrent contact.  Once the pass is thrown, TOUCHING THE OPPOSING PLAYER IS MORE THAN LIKELY TO RESULT IN PENALTY.  You make a play on the ball, not on the player.  Even a soft push is enough to disrupt a DB reacting to your movements.  I know that, and so do the refs.  Therefore, IT IS A PENALTY.






LMAO...It must burn inside knowing that a girly girl like myself knows the rules better than you.


Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

Sorry, but Jackson "touching" the DB's forearm is not applicable here. He neither shoved nor pushed off, and separation had already been created.

(c) Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.


Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiverís hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved players.

Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.



FossilJ

  • *****
  • 11330
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: congratulations to the steelers
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2006, 05:11:59 PM »

ACTUALLY, I think you should watch the play again.  If the ball is IN THE AIR (thus out of the quarterback's hand), any of the players involved in the area that the ball is targeting are in a position to make a play on the ball.  The defensive back was not breaking anywhere (in fact, as a DB, you don't predict the receiver's movements, you react to them, so what you're saying makes no f-ing sense - this is further corroborated by the fact that there was only one receiver near that DB, so it's not like he was making a break on another player).  The arm on Jackson made no difference - it wasn't interfering with the play BEFORE the ball left Hasselbeck's hand, which is all that mattered at that point.  Receivers and DBs jostle - if this occurs before the pass is thrown, this is only an issue if there is clear and deterrent contact.  Once the pass is thrown, TOUCHING THE OPPOSING PLAYER IS MORE THAN LIKELY TO RESULT IN PENALTY.  You make a play on the ball, not on the player.  Even a soft push is enough to disrupt a DB reacting to your movements.  I know that, and so do the refs.  Therefore, IT IS A PENALTY.






LMAO...It must burn inside knowing that a girly girl like myself knows the rules better than you.


Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

Sorry, but Jackson "touching" the DB's forearm is not applicable here. He neither shoved nor pushed off, and separation had already been created.

(c) Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.


Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiverís hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved players.

Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.




I don't understand why you want to make this personal.  This has nothing to do with you being a girl.  I don't see why that would bother me in the least.  My girlfriend pwns me in sports conversations all the time.  Weak sauce with the personal attack.


Right, so you've established that the receiver is allowed to make a play on the ball.  Jackson wasn't doing this - he was gaining separation, and the contact was not incidental.

You've also established that the receiver is not allowed to "shove" or "push off".  Jackson clearly was doing so, no matter how you want to cut it. 

I don't understand what tape people have been watching if they're thinking there wasn't a shove - you can clearly see Jackson putting his hand on the DB's torso and pushing off as he breaks.  It doesn't have to be a hard shove (which most people probably assume), because it takes very little effort to put a DB off-balance when he has to react to you.  All you need is a light shove as you're breaking.  This gets called CONSTANTLY.  Why?  Because it's OFFENSIVE PASS INTERFERENCE - by pushing in any way, you're preventing the DB from making a fair play on the ball.  I'll bet you that, in 95% other such cases, the same call would've been made. 

It's a fair call.