[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamTime

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.

I have a 2004 rulebook from an NFL official in my town and I haven't found any references to running 5 seconds off the clock during a field goal attempt.


Certainly NFL officials are guilty of missing calls. I don't think any of us here would dispute that.

You orignally came here asking if the plays were called correctly or not. I don't think any real NFL officials are here to positively answer the questions about how the NFL viewed those plays or if they are, they can't or won't comment.

I'm glad you got a rulebook, but bear in mind that rules are more than just the words written. While it is important to know the rules, game officials must know the spirit and intent of those rules and the philosphy of the person/people doing the assigning of those games. I am guessing the NFL makes its philosophy known through training, bulletins, phone calls and maybe other means. We don't have access to that information. The NFL Director of Officials also reviews each official after each game and grades their performance for each play. Again, we aren't privy to the grades an official gets. Frankly, most of us will never know if the plays you question were called correctly.

When a question is asked of non-NFL officials if the play was called correctly, we can only offer a semi-educated guess. Yes, some of us have the same rulebooks as the NFL uses because we officiate in leagues that use NFL rules, but owning and reading a rulebook doesn't make any of us experts of the rules. (Just because I buy and read a car repair manual won't make me a good mechanic).


Many of us have tried to answer your questions based upon our own understanding of an official's philosphy of calling the game and from our understanding of the NFL rules. The NFL may or may not share that same philosphy.


Personally, I believe the quality of NFL official is very good. There are a few officials I like better than others, but I am certain there is no conspiracy to cheat any teams.

Good post.
You know when I said that about the 5 seconds I thought to myself maybe this is not true since i read it on a fan board at football.com however I didn't check it's legitimacy so my bad. Believe it or not I am beginning to understand what you guys are saying probably because the officials here that do respond all are pretty much saying the same thing. that is you can not speak for another officials judgement. You guys say that they are reviewed after their games and I have heard that other places as well. In 35 - 40 years of watching football at the LA Coliseum, Anaheim Candlestick/3com/monster and Oakland I have never felt the officiating was bad. In fact I have always been amazed at how many close calls they get right. It still amazes me that they are almost never wrong. Furthermore if officiating never got any better then it is right now then that doesn't bother me at all. It was just this one game and perhaps I'm looking through blue and gold goggles while typing my posts with blue and gold pom poms on my hands but it just seemed very different then any of the hundereds of games I have watched in the past. Someone said it is completely laughable to think the officiating was corrupt and using common sense alone should make this clear and while I don't believe it was corrupt officiating I can't help but wondering about some of those non calls and this is why I am researching.

I honestly haven't had a chance to look at the video links because my workplace blocks them and I haven't been on my computer at home in a while. Anything we say is going to be pure speculation anyway. I can give you my opinions of what I would have done, but it is just an opinion in a sea of them.

I know watching things as a fan can skew our opinion. When I put on my own fan hat, I am far less likely to look at things objectively.

REPLY: I took a look at the video clips you pointed us to. Neither the first or the second give anyone enough information to make a call. One of the first principles of officiating is SEE THE WHOLE PLAY. Not just the end of it, but the WHOLE PLAY. Viewing these clips require you to look at a just a small part of the plays out of context.

In the first (less than 1 second long!!), it begins with the runner wrapped up by the defender near the sideline. It appears (just <u>appears</u>) that the initial contact with the runner is made just around the sideline--maybe inbounds, maybe out of bounds, but it certainly isn't clear in the video. All you see is a runner wrapped up and dragged (not thrown) to the turf in the two yard belt. Anyone calling that a foul based upon what the clip shows wouldn't last in HS ball more than a few seconds, let alone the NFL.

In the second (2 seconds in length), again it starts with a receiver just hitting the ground. SInce I have no real evidence as to what occurred before it, all I can do is surmise. It appears (again <u>appears</u>) that he made a laid out catch coming across the middle. As he hits the ground, a DB coming downfeld dives into him. Since the receiver just hit the ground, there's absolutely nothing to indicate that he was giving himself up. Since the NFL is a 'down-by-contact' league, he could have gotten to his feet and continued. The hit was legal. The rule you cited is there to protect the runner who gives himself up--the one who just lies there in a fetal position making it clear he has no intention of advancing. That's that play where you just see the defender come up and tap the runner to end the play. That's the player who needs to be protected.

In the third, there is helmet to helmet contact, but the runner is being tackled so that his head is dropping to the ground. It appears to be merely a coincidence that the defender's head hits him where it did--about two feet off the turf. I frankly don't know how the NFL wants that one called. Maybe others could offer their thoughts.

The fourth play is probably the only one where there is any possibility of a call for the Rams. From the movement of Warner's head, it does appear that there was intentional h-to-h contact. But...are you sure there was no flag?

Bob,

I agree with the majority of your post. There simply isn't enough to rule on the first two.

As for the second two, I have to say that I disagree with you, to me it looks like the first one is a definitely helmet to helmet contact. The defender does not even attempt to wrap the opponent up he just comes inwith his head down and nails him. The second one, against K. Warner looks like a legal play to me, I do not know NFL rules totally but unless the quarterback is specially protected against this because of roughing the passer then I do not have a call. It looks to me like the player was attemping to tackle the quarterback and their heads just slightly hit eachother. But again, I am not in the NFL and I do not know the NFL rules.

The fourth play is probably the only one where there is any possibility of a call for the Rams. From the movement of Warner's head, it does appear that there was intentional h-to-h contact. But...are you sure there was no flag?

Your just going to have to take my word for it. There were no personal fouls or unsportsmanlike conduct penalties called on either team.

REPLY: I appreciate your thoughts. Honest disagreement and discussion is good for this board.

[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.

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.

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.

Apparently, the covering official(s) had no doubt :)

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.

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.


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.

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 :D

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]

<b>Mike, that is one of the best lines I have ever heard!!!! It especially hits home cuz I am not only an official, but my real job is a high school science teacher. I will be writing that one down to always remember. </b>

"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.*"

Faulk only rushed the ball 17 times for 76 yards (superbowl.com), that's 4.4 yards a carry. Sounds to me like he had his way WHEN HE GOT THE BALL. When you have the best back in the league and he only gets to run the ball 17 times in the SB, that tells me you're not too smart. Like I said before, I'm a Rams fan, but no matter how many times you watch this game or blame everything under the sun for the loss, that's still what it is ... A LOSS. Get over it.

OK we disagree on this. No big deal. I'm just glad I found this forum. Though I still have questions many of the major questions I had have been answered to satisfaction. Furthermore the rule book alone could not have done this for me. Like I said before I feel the officiating in the NFL amazingly accurate nearly all of the time which is why I have questions about this game. Another thing I learned and perhaps you can confirm this but I read that the Head of officiating tells the officials not to change the way they call games just because it is the Superbowl which is contrary to what the average fan believes. Can't remember where I read it however it said something to the effect of "These are the best officials on the planet and they earned the right to officiate the superbowl so why change what works so well." Those are not the exact words but they were something like that.

RamTime,

You are correct in regards to how much time can now run off the clock. If it's a "clean" field goal (good snap, good hold), then it should not take more than 5 seconds off the clock.

It might not be in the rule book, but that is how they handle it.