Quote:
Originally Posted by mv7267
|
I wrote to this guy, and CC'd his editor.
Quote:
Hello,
I've read your online article titled, "NFL officiating a punchline" dated Oct 19th, 2009.
A quick Google search found me the NFL rulebook in PDF format. Granted, it is the 2006 version, but I happen to know the yearly rule changes from that recent version of the rulebook, and this situation isn't one of them. Here is the link: http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/...20RULEBOOK.pdf
You ended the article in way to suggest that the officials were to blame for an incorrect ruling, or at the very least, to cause confusion. The situation revolved around what you called "interception momentum". Doing a search for the term "momentum" in the above PDF document, you'll find this on page 13, less than 10% of the way intot he document, and only the 5th instance of this word. I quote (my emphasis),
Note: It is not a safety if a defensive player in the field of play intecepts a pass; catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team’s possession. Instead the ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the ball was intercepted, caught or recovered. (11-4-1)
The total time used to find this information was less than 4 minutes. I can only attribute your neglect for this portion of misunderstanding due to laziness, or not having my savvy when it comes to internet searches.
Regarding the measurement earlier in your article. The view can be affected by the angle that you have. The Referee Walt Coleman is correct. Example: Find an analogue clock and look at it straight on when it says, says 6:30pm. While it still says 6:30 (take the batteries out if need be), walk 10 feet to the left or to the right and look at the time again. The time will appear to be slightly before or after the previously observed time, respectively.
You and Roethlisberger have something in common: not understanding this phenomenon.
A third case in your article dealt with a change of possession while a player, who initially had the ball, was on the ground, and person on other players. Again, you mentioned that some body parts were on the ground, giving the appearance that the officials erred. However, you did not quote which body parts were on the ground. In fact, only two body parts hitting the ground cause the play to be over. That leaves 1,998 of our 2,000 parts (reference: Lever commercial, if you're unaware of pop culture) to allow the play to continue.
In short, your article is incorrect, missing required information, and incomplete.
Next time do your homework.
Regards,
JugglingReferee
|
__________________
Pope Francis
|