Quote:
One thing I KNOW fans do not understand is that in major college and NFL a foul is ONLY a foul if it is a safety issue or occurs at the point of attack, meaning it had an impact on the play. A hold by the right tackle as the ball is being run over the left tackle is NOT a flag, and the official would receive a negative mark if he did call that on cuz it was not at the point of attack. Beyond that did you know there are seven “holding exceptions” in the NFL, meaning that even if holding is occurring, it is NOT a foul in these situations. I did not until I starting working NFL rules, and am a huge NFL fan. It is hard to argue with better than 99%.
We will continue to welcome good play questions from you RamTime!
|
This is very interesting and it is why I came here. I wanted to know if there were things I was overlooking or was ignorant to. I have sense acquired an NFL official rule book. After reading through it I found something else very interesting and that is they have another book called "Official NFL Casebook" which has actual cases in it.
Now so as not to be rude I will field some of the other statements that were not as educational as the one I just quoted above.
Remember I did not start this type of trash talking.
Quote:
Someone just lost what little credibility he had left.
Buddy, the game was played in January of 2002. Whether you're upset because your team lost, you lost money, or both, get over it!
|
Since intelligence is not required on the WWW some folks don't bother using it as in this case. What does the year the game was played have anything to do with someone that wants to understand the rules. Certainly you understand that because of that game a few rules had to start being enforced again. You must also be aware of the fact that because 7 seconds was allowed to run off the game clock 3 of which after the ball crossed the cross bar the NFL instated a rule that a FG attempt would run 5 seconds off the game clock from now on.
Quote:
I'm a Rams fan, and yeah I thought the IG no-call at the end was bad. But anyone who knows anything about football in general, knows that Martz lost that game because he forgot to use his #1 weapon ... Marshall Faulk. Tell me how you can have 1st and goal inside the 5 and not at all give the ball to Faulk?
That's why they lost, not because of officiating.
|
Only those who get their thoughts through the media believe that it was because Martz didn't utilize Faulk. However common sense and a look at the replay of the game holds much more realistic reasons. Remember the hold against McGinest on Faulk that negated a 99 yard fumble recovery for a TD?
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/015.wmv McGinest said:
"I'm not the referee so I don't know if it was holding or not, I played him the same way all game." If you look at that video and refresh your memory of that hold then think about the fact that he said he didn't know if it were holding and he also said "I played him the same way all game." This was confirmed by Faulk who said "It was going on all day for the most part" Now combine that with what the Patriots game plan was (Which was pretty smart) and that being they hit Faulk on every play with at least one player weather or not he had the ball made no difference. So your blanket conclusion of Martz being an idiot doesn't hold a thimble full of sense it does however echo the media's blanket conclusion. Unless of course you think Faulk was good enough to overcome holding all game and players putting hats on him all day. Probably would want to get the ball to someone else don't you think?
*Common sense rationally proven.*
Now to everyone here, I mentioned that I had acquired an NFL rule book and it specifically says
Article 8
There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:
(b) tackling the runner when he is clearly out of bounds:
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/018.wmv
d) running or diving into, or throwing the body against or on a ball carrier who falls or slips to the ground untouched and makes no attempt to advance, before or after the ball is dead;
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/010.wmv
It also says that it is up to the defensive player to know where the boundaries are.
As far as judgment calls it says, Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.
Now other rules say if in doubt there is no flag however because this is a safety issue if THERE IS DOUBT officials should ALWAYS call it.
Also relating to the helmet to helmet contact:
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/016.wmv
and
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/017.wmv
Note what the rule tells officials to look out for appears to be exactly what you see in these clips. "game officials will give special attention in administrating this rule to protecting those players who are in virtual defenseless postures (e.g. a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass + a runner already in the grasp of a tackler"
Article 8
(g) using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown, forehead/"hairline" parts) or face mask to violently and unnecessarily butt, spear, or ram an opponent although such violent and unnecessary use of the helmet and face mask is impermissible against any opponent , game officials will give special attention in administrating this rule to protecting those players who are in virtual defenseless postures (e.g. a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass, a receiver catching, or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the grasp of a tackler, a kick off or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player on the ground at the end of a play) All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet or face mask that are described in the roughing the passer rules.
Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.
Notwithstanding the recent explanation about there being exceptions to the rules such as holding
Quote:
|
a foul is ONLY a foul if it is a safety issue or occurs at the point of attack, meaning it had an impact on the play.
|
So far I have found much to support the claim that the officials missed a few calls however as I have stated over and over that is not why I came here if I wanted to argue the calls there are several places on the net to do so. My purpose is to understand the calls or non calls and if that means questioning the explanation of a call or non call it does not necessarily mean I am arguing it it could mean that Gasp! your actually missing something. As much as you all would like to be right all of the time its like you all say. Your not going to see everything.
Finally; those of you who see me as a fanboy or irritating, I have an idea. Don't read what I ask then you won't get upset.
For those who actually try to explain things to me I honestly do appreciate the time you take. I have learned some things here.