Super Bowl XLIII (43) Crew

[BigGref]

Anyway, the official review is out for the SB.

He was split...ish. He admitted that they blew the USC with the ball prop. He said that it happend so late after the play, like 20 seconds, and a relatively quick talcum impersonation, that the officials were already moving to extra point positions.

In a game that tends to last 3-4 hrs, and pregame starting 5 hrs before, there is a lot of dead ball time, they missed one here.

He admitted that the final AZ play should have at least been reviewed, though he agreed that the play was right, but was close enough that it should have been looked at.

Everything else seemed pretty close to current NFL dogma. Roughing the passer has gotten to the point of near absurdity, I know that nobody wants to watch a lot of NFL w/o star QBs, but common, it's football! But seriously Defense, get the clue... DONT GO NEAR THE HEAD!

Overall grade for the Crew as whole 1-7, I would give a 5.

[jjrye22]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Yeah, the "football guys" really showed me. Defend the NFL guys at all costs really put me in my place.

I guess playing football and being successful at it means I don't know anything about it.

I agree with that. After having played for 16 years, I stepped into officiating as well - and working my way through the rule book had my head spinning, and I remember saying out loud "Really, I can't do that?" (relating to defensive holding, for a DL to pull an OL player out of a gap to let the LB blitz - Never knew it was wrong until then).
There are SO many things that a player doesn't know about the rules. Even if they were commited enough to read the rulebook, there are so many nuances, philosophies and interpretations!

Yes - playing football and being successful at it still means you don't know anything about the RULES.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Theismann was a pretty good player. I wouldn't want him explaining the rules.

Joe Morgan was a pretty good baseball player. He's another that doesn't have a clue about the rules.

Shall we go on?

Saw a thing on HBO sports before the SB about Michaels. Someone who was being interviewed (Ebersol maybe) said Al had a great knowledge of the rules. I don't think its great, its not bad for an announcer though.

But he kicked one in the SB, on the play at the end of the half, he kept proclaiming it was either a TD or the half was over. AZ had a penalty after the change of possession. Pitt got the ball with clean hands, and had the TD not stood, would have gotten an untimed down from some spot on the field (wherever the infraction was +15/H.o.D.). Correct?

I know I was screaming at my TV.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Saw a thing on HBO sports before the SB about Michaels. Someone who was being interviewed (Ebersol maybe) said Al had a great knowledge of the rules. I don't think its great, its not bad for an announcer though.

But he kicked one in the SB, on the play at the end of the half, he kept proclaiming it was either a TD or the half was over. AZ had a penalty after the change of possession. Pitt got the ball with clean hands, and had the TD not stood, would have gotten an untimed down from some spot on the field (wherever the infraction was +15/H.o.D.). Correct?

I know I was screaming at my TV.

I thought I heard McAuley say the penalty was before the change of possession. If that's true, Pittsburgh still got the ball with clean hands so they could decline the penalty and keep the ball. But if they accepted the penalty, it would have been enforced from the previous spot and the down replayed. What I heard the announcers say was the penalty was against Arizona and even though they were the offense at the beginning of the play, they became the defense after the COP (they never specifically indicated if the foul was before or after COP). They kept going on and on about how the half can't end on a defensive penalty and I was screaming that it doesn't matter who the foul is on. If accepted (in most cases), you have one untimed down. It's just very unusual for the defense to accept a penalty to give the offense one more chance to score.

I've got the game on DVR so I need to go back and watch to hear what McAuley had to say again. Does anyone know for sure if the penalty was before or after the COP?

[jaybird]

Here is the official review with Mike Pereira.
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e8fa89

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I thought I heard McAuley say the penalty was before the change of possession. If that's true, Pittsburgh still got the ball with clean hands so they could decline the penalty and keep the ball. But if they accepted the penalty, it would have been enforced from the previous spot and the down replayed. What I heard the announcers say was the penalty was against Arizona and even though they were the offense at the beginning of the play, they became the defense after the COP (they never specifically indicated if the foul was before or after COP). They kept going on and on about how the half can't end on a defensive penalty and I was screaming that it doesn't matter who the foul is on. If accepted (in most cases), you have one untimed down. It's just very unusual for the defense to accept a penalty to give the offense one more chance to score.

I've got the game on DVR so I need to go back and watch to hear what McAuley had to say again. Does anyone know for sure if the penalty was before or after the COP?

It was before. BTW "clean hands" refers to a penalty by each team, one on A before the COP and then on B after.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by daggo66

It was before. BTW "clean hands" refers to a penalty by each team, one on A before the COP and then on B after.

It actually refers to when a penalty by the team last in possesion occurs. If it occured before they last gained possesion then it is not clean hands, if it occurs after they last gain possesion, then they have clean hands and get to keep the ball. There does not have to be 2 penalties to have a clean hands discussion.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by daggo66

It was before. BTW "clean hands" refers to a penalty by each team, one on A before the COP and then on B after.

I did re-watch the play on DVR and McAuley did say the penalty was before the interception. I also watched official review and learned about a difference between HS and NFL penalty enforcement. Pereira said a personal foul by the offense prior to a change of possession does tack on the penalty at the end of the run and a period is extended if the penalty is accepted. There would have been one untimed down if Harrison had not made it to the end zone.

[ajmc]

It's really surprising, since most of us, justifyably, think a lot less of people who "think" they know the rules we play under, but actually don't and choose to offer instruction anyway, feel so comfortable critiquing NFL official's rule knowledge.

Considering all the extra time most officials, at lower levels, spend on rules review, debating interpretations, discussing topics, arguing perspectives down to the gnat's eyelash level, while acknowledging that NFL officials likely spend a lot more time on these activities than us, there's some reluctance to accept the simple fact that it is highly likely that every NFL official understands NFL rules better than ANYONE else.

Maybe it's just the nature of the beast.