[mikesears]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamTime
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"

The video clearly shows a hold and apparently, it was flagged. I can't comment on stuff I don't see. And player comments after a game are not a good indication of if there were fouls that weren't called. I say this because players maybe don't fully understand the rules against holding, chucking, etc. I say this with all serious, but the typical player usually only knows the rules about as well as the average fan.

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

I have to agree with Bob on this one. Clip is too short. My initial reaction is that it looks like the tackle began inbounds and continued out of bounds (which is legal as long as the continuation isn't unnecessarily rough). At the start of the clip, the defender's feet (B45) are nearly off the ground and he is trying to drag down the offensive player (A50) from behind. It doesn't look to me like B45 threw A50 down out of bounds. They both merely went down and B45 took the brunt of the fall. A50 landed on top of him.

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

This one is too short to really say, but again, my initial reaction is that it was a good no call. It appears the receiver just made a catch and was trying to demonstrate control and the defender came in to try to knock the ball out. I can't say that I think this play fits the rule cited. We don't know if the receiver was going to try to get up because he had just gone down and was still trying to keep the ball under control.

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.

Apparently, the covering official(s) had no doubt

Also relating to the helmet to helmet contact:
http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/016.wmv

There was helmet to helmet contact. But not all helmet to helmet contact is illegal.

The defenders head did compress as he made contact and it was dangerous to himself.

At the levels I work, my gut reaction was a flag. But I'd have to see the entire play.

http://stlouisrams.net/xxxvi/clips/017.wmv

I can see how they wouldn't flag this one either. The defender makes contact with the chest of the quarterback and slides up and possibly nudges the side of the quarterbacks' helmet. It doesn't appear that the QB's head goes backwards so the contact wasn't violent. If you read further through the rules, you will see that if the defensive player makes contact with his facemask to the passer's head, it isn't an automatic foul. The severity of the contact is what counts. In my opinion, the contact wasn't severe enough for a flag.

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.

I hope I have done my part to introduce some doubt into your statements. What has been provided as support is not a smoking gun.

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.

I think anyone who comes here with the purpose of understanding the rules has come to the right place. If you really want to understand the game, may I suggest you get involved in officiating? It really is great fun, even when we have to deal with the fanboys

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.

Most of us are glad to teach those who are willing to learn. Those who come here to complain about the officiating aren't going to feel as welcomed. That's like a student going to the teacher's lounge and complaining about the teachers.

[Edited by mikesears on Jul 14th, 2005 at 11:04 PM]