Ravens/Steelers game

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

this is why officials and officiating in general gets criticized as it does. Officials like yourself think you are the only people on the planet with reading comprehension skills. Still waiting for anyone to post something that resembles a fact that leading with your helmet, regardless of whether the player recieving the hit is defenseless or not, does not constitute an infraction.

Officials being criticized have nothing to do with this site or the comments on here. The average fan of public has no idea this place exists. Usually the criticism comes from people like yourself that cannot understand how someone that does this for a living or a great deal of time know more about the game from a rules standpoint than you do. Also I am sure there is much more to the philosophy of how things are called than in the rules you referenced. Usually rules like this that involve personal fouls are listed in other areas along with definitions of those acts. But you know more than everyone, so I guess you have those references too?

Peace

[JasonTX]

What I haven't seen mentioned is the numerous memos and meetings that the NFL officials receive and attend in regards to the rules. You see, you first have a printed rulebook. When it comes to officiating and everyone that has ever officiated knows that there is only so much you can actually put into words and oftentimes a rule gets printed but its not really what was intended when the rule comes out. So, the NFL issues their memos and has meetings with the officials to discuss these rules. I can assure you that there have been numerous memos and meetings when it comes to helmet to helmet contact hits. The NFL officials have all the guidance they need to properly make the calls the way the NFL wants it done and no ammount of wording would give any outsider a true idea on the rule. Yeah, you got the book, but do you have the notes from the meetings or memos that the NFL sends to their officials. Highly unlikely. I trust that the officials working that game new exactly how the rule is supposed to be officiated. They are human and aren't perfect so its also entirely possible that they missed the call. That doesn't mean the end of the world and is no reason for anyone to get their panties in a wad. Life goes on.

[chymechowder]

JRut and PSU, I completely agree that it's the height of knuckleheadedness for anyone, especially a non-official, to take a bang-bang play/ruling and offer it as proof of the officials' incompetence...when someone might have an otherwise fair question, it hurts their overall argument when the conversation degenerates into claims like that.

I have a question on a ruling in this game:

When the Ravens successfully challenged the ruling of a Steeler completed pass down by the goal-line.

after review Carollo said the receiver failed to maintain possession while going to the ground. this surprised me. I've only got the NCAA rules (Massachusetts highschool) to go on, but my understanding is that this applies to plays when a receiver LEAVES HIS FEET to make a catch. when he subsequently comes to the ground (either all on his own or being hit/pushed while airborne), he must maintain possession throughout the process.

but in the steelers/ravens game, it looked as thought the WR leaned, made the catch, took two steps, GOT HIT ON THE LEG by ravens DB, THEN fell, arm outstretched. where the ball was jostled upon contact with the ground.

what do others think? does the NFL have a different rule about "going to the ground"? because unless I missed something, it looked like a catch, two steps, a tackle, then down by contact.

(ALSO: Major kudos to the wingman who correctly spotted ball mere inches from the goal line! in real time--and even in some replays--it looked like the ball was on the line.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

this is why officials and officiating in general gets criticized as it does. Officials like yourself think you are the only people on the planet with reading comprehension skills. Still waiting for anyone to post something that resembles a fact that leading with your helmet, regardless of whether the player recieving the hit is defenseless or not, does not constitute an infraction.

Why aren't you a football official? Still waiting on that answer from you and zm. I know zm is a basketball official.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

( g) using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/“hairline” parts)
or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such
violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent,
game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those
players who are in virtually 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 kickoff 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 and facemask that are described
in the roughing-the-passer rules (see Article 11, subsection 3 below of this
Rule 12, Section 2);

The irony is that the parts of the body contacted by an opponent's helmet in a manner like this are rarely injured seriously thereby. Injuries delivered by head hits are more commonly of the fluke kind, like head-on-knee. It's the player delivering the hit via the head who is in the far greater danger, because of what that can do to that player's own neck.

Robert