Cowboys/Steelers question

[WindyCityBlue]

Anyone see the game between the Cowboys and Steelers yesterday?

Before this gets messy, most of you know that I am not a football official. I am confused by a play I saw and need someone to clear it up.

The specific play - please comment if you saw it and not give suppositions - involved a Cowboy receiver trying to catch a pass on the sideline. The pass was high and as he grabbed it, the D-back popped him. he was able to get one foot down, but the other landed on theline as his body hit the turf. The covering official (LJ/SJ?) ruled completion and signalled for the clock to stop. Imediately anothe official came running down the sideline, looked him in the face and signalled incomplete vehemently. He kept shaking his head and signalling it as the two announcers said that it was clear that he was out of bounds. One supposed that the first was ruling that he would have come down in bounds had he not been pushed by the defense. The other said that the other official could not over rule it that way and was only able to judge whether he had control with both feet in bounds. Now, I know that these clones "clowns" usually don't ave a clue as to the rules, but why would the one official so vehemently over rule another? Is that the mechanic?

Again, I'm only looking for people that actually saw the play. It was challenged by Parcells, btw.

[JasonTX]

One official has the feet and the other official is looking at the ball. If this is the play I'm thinking of they ruled it a catch after replay because he got three feet in. Anyhow the official that seen the ball bobble came in and said incomplete which is proper. Also, if the first official who ruled catch would have ruled he would have caught it if he wasn't pushed out he would have given the "push out" signal and the play couldn't have been reviewed. A "push out" is non reviewable.

[WindyCityBlue]

I'll try to clarify.

The first official on this out route was looking right at it. It was going to be tough, but he immediately signalled that it was complete, stop the clock and placed his foot on the spot where he thought the player went OOB. He was facing the middle of the field while signalling. The other official (BJ?) came running down the line and was signalling incomplete while he was moving. He was trying to make eye contact, but not until he was just a few feet away, did the calling official acknowledge him. His signals were definitive and the calling official acquiesced. The original call was not a juggle or control question. It was all about feet and the catch was made with he and the calling official face to face. The only thing I can think of is that the BJ came in to say that both feet had not come down in bounds.

I'm more concerned with teh mechanic.

[JRutledge]

Football officials have a lot of dual coverage areas and responsibilities. In this situation two officials have the catch and can determine independently if the catch was good or not. No one can "overrule" the other, because each has an equal opportunity to make the call. If the pass was clearly incomplete, many officials can come in and indicate it was. A throw in the middle of the field might have 6 officials (7 Man crew) with the possibility being able to rule on a catch. If one of them sees the ball hit the ground, they can come in and rule accordingly. Football does not have the same kind of mechanics where one official has a call and we have to live with it. Football has many situations where several officials might see the very same action and make a ruling.

Peace

[MI Official]

I saw the play you are talking about....although I only do HS football, I believe that one has control and the other (official) has footing. they ruled it incomplete, and it replay upheld the decision. what the announcer was saying was this: since he wasn't originally ruled 'pushed out' by the covering official, the replay cannot show that he was. so all the R was looking for was possession inbounds (which he wasn't---arm hit b4 the 2nd foot was down). good call

[Snake~eyes]

Like everyone has stated, there is dual coverage, most of the times there is disagreement, you just don't see the two opposite signals. Usually one has a catch and looks at the other, the other is probaly saying "yes yes catch" or "No no no incomplete." In this case the other official came in and signaled incomplete. If we don't consider the forceout part, which is a big judgement call then the officials made the correct decision as stated after the challenge. Whether it was a forceout or not is another discussion and again a big judgement call.

[WindyCityBlue]

Thank you to those officials that didn't feel compelled to remind me that my football question had nothing to do with baseball. I didn't think I confused the two sports.

I'm not surprised that with two officials looking at the same play, they will sometimes see it differently. As I said a couple of times, I was more concerned with the mechanic of correcting the call. I like the fact that it was immediate and emphatic. No egos were bruised and the replay showed that the second official was correct. It seems to me that the replay system works as well as the original official. Both have faults, but the goal remains the same. Get the call right! They did and it looked good.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
I'm not surprised that with two officials looking at the same play, they will sometimes see it differently. As I said a couple of times, I was more concerned with the mechanic of correcting the call. I like the fact that it was immediate and emphatic. No egos were bruised and the replay showed that the second official was correct. It seems to me that the replay system works as well as the original official. Both have faults, but the goal remains the same. Get the call right! They did and it looked good.

One thing to clear up, the officials didn't see it differently, they just were looking at different things, they have to make a decision using shared information, the first official did not see anything that would have made it incomplete, so he did not signal incomplete. Infact I will describe to you what could be a posibility on what happened.

LJ comes in and gets the spot, looks over to the SJ who doesn't signal but comes running over. LJ signals complete, SJ asks if the player was forced out, LJ says no, SJ signals incomplete and explains that he did not get two feet inbounds.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Thank you to those officials that didn't feel compelled to remind me that my football question had nothing to do with baseball. I didn't think I confused the two sports.

Everyone does not know your history, I do. The use of the word "overrule" suggests that you are totally unaware of the practices of football officials and if that bothers you so what. And I also need to make it clear (you asked the question) the difference in the sports.

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
I'm not surprised that with two officials looking at the same play, they will sometimes see it differently. As I said a couple of times, I was more concerned with the mechanic of correcting the call.

There was no call made. The call that was made was by the official that signaled incomplete. He saw what he saw and made a decision. It was not like they moved the chains or spotted the ball. The officials got together and a decision was made.

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
I like the fact that it was immediate and emphatic. No egos were bruised and the replay showed that the second official was correct. It seems to me that the replay system works as well as the original official. Both have faults, but the goal remains the same. Get the call right! They did and it looked good.

What you witnessed is a typical football call. It happens every single weekend on a game. That is why I made the baseball comment. It was not a slam; just illustrating that is very typical and not even a major issue with football officials. No self respecting football official is ever going to get their panties in a bunch over an incomplete call. Not the nature of a football official especially at that level.

Peace

[PSU213]

As it has been mentioned many times before, there is dual coverage on the play.

The wing (LJ or HL) signaled it complete but not because of a "forceout" (which, with the benefit of seeing many, many replays, it may have indeed been a forceout).

The deep wing (FJ or SJ) saw that he did not have 2 feet in and signaled it incomplete.

The play was reveiwed, but the forceout issue cannot be reviewed. The review showed that the receiver did not have 2 feet down, so the call was correctly upheld (sans the forceout part).

Now I don't remember how emphatic the wing was about the complete call, but he probably should not have made a signal without talking with the FJ or SJ first (but I shouldn't really talk on the matter since I never worked with a deep wing).

[JugglingReferee]

I have found that the NFL officials are very good with sideline/deadline rulings.

Even when Buffalo lost to Jacksonville at home.

[WindyCityBlue]

PSU213 -
That was well put. I understand that the two officials have different responsibilities. You obviously saw the play (unlike our Wheaton colleague who erroneously said that I asked about the difference in sports - please show me where I said that).

My question from the very beginning concerned the proper mechanic. You were the only one that said that the second official should have done something different. It looked awful.

The receiver may not have been in bounds but two sets of eyes missed him being forced out. The replay system may not afford the ability to correct this call, but it was horrible.

As an aside, I was flipping back and forth between the Red Sox/Yankees and Rams/Bucs games. There was a brutal Clipping/Illegal block call made on a punt return. Every replay showed that it was butchered. I've tried looking for a site that provides which plays are reviewable. Any ideas?

[Snake~eyes]

Basically any call that involves an official's judgement is not reviewable.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
The receiver may not have been in bounds but two sets of eyes missed him being forced out. The replay system may not afford the ability to correct this call, but it was horrible.

Being "forced out" is complete judgment call. It is very possible they did not feel it fit the "force out" rule.

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
As an aside, I was flipping back and forth between the Red Sox/Yankees and Rams/Bucs games. There was a brutal Clipping/Illegal block call made on a punt return. Every replay showed that it was butchered. I've tried looking for a site that provides which plays are reviewable. Any ideas?

Why was it brutal? There is more to just having contact with the back to have clipping. You would have to explain why this was such a bad call. Penalty judgments are not reviewable.

Peace

[WindyCityBlue]

It was brutal because it was the incorrect call to make at that time. The offensive blocker hit the would be tackler almost head on - at the worst, the tackler was side ways. there was no contact with the back of that player at all. they must have showed the replay a dozen times and it was obvious that it was brutal. I take what the commentators say with a grain of salt, but they were dead on with this one.