Ravens/Steelers game

[pmarz1]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Beautiful when non-officials tell the officials what the rules mean.

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.

[waltjp]

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.

I never questioned your reading skills. Listening skills are a whole other matter, but that's not the issue. The problem you have is understanding that there's a lot more to officiating a sport than reading the rule book. It takes many years to understand the meaning of the rules and how they're applied in game situations. It takes years of training and film work to understand the mechanics of the game to know where you're supposed to be and what you're supposed to be looking at.


The first thing I was told after passing my certification test was, "Now that you know the rules we'll take you out on the field and teach you how to be an official."

There are some officials who can recite the rule book, chapter and verse. Some of them are the absolute worst officials you'll ever see on a field. There's a whole lot more to officiating the game than knowing what the rules say.

[PSU213]

Here is what I don't comprehend about this 'discussion'...

Someone comes on this website (a website for officials to discuss issues, not for fans to complain about the outcome of a game), and they ask a question about a particular call in the game. There are given a fair, unbiased response. It is not the answer they want, so they call us clueless, rip the NFL officials, and refused to listen to anything constrctive any of us have to say.

The truth is: (1) no matter how much they complain about a call or we discuss it, criticize it (if necessary), etc.--the call does not change. I know it is hard to believe, but what we say on here on Monday, will not affect a call made Sunday evening. (2) We have no control over NFL officiating. NFL officials make some bad calls and a lot more good ones. Even if the officials on the field were to make bad calls on 50% of the plays, that does not give us (or any of the fans) control over the NFL when they make decisions about their officials. It might make fans feel better to argue with officials on this board, but it does not have any influence on this board. (3) Fans who want to keep up a silly argument about a play at the end of the game yesterday (and, yes, as a safety issue it is a valid debate--on a fan site) can go somewhere else to do it.

[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.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

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.

First off all I must state that I did not see the play. But the common interpretation at the NFL and NCAA levels are that a receiver attempting to catch the ball must maintain control through the ground. In other words if the ball is not controlled after hitting the ground, then it is not a catch. That is the interpretation from both the NFL and NCAA. And frankly at the high school level is a common practice where I live to require the same thing.

Originally Posted by chymechowder

(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.)

Did not see this play either, but I will take your word for it.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First off all I must state that I did not see the play. But the common interpretation at the NFL and NCAA levels are that a receiver attempting to catch the ball must maintain control through the ground. In other words if the ball is not controlled after hitting the ground, then it is not a catch. That is the interpretation from both the NFL and NCAA. And frankly at the high school level is a common practice where I live to require the same thing.

I believe you are correct in your understanding of making a catch while the defender is in contact with the receiver. In this case, I recall he was not in contact with the receiver. chymechowder described it as I recall so I didn't think the "control through the ground" would apply in this case. On another forum someone pointed out he thought the contact was pretty immediate with the catch so then I guess it would apply. I thought it also had to be an airborne receiver but I've been told that is not a factor in this type of play in the NFL.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I believe you are correct in your understanding of making a catch while the defender is in contact with the receiver. In this case, I recall he was not in contact with the receiver. chymechowder described it as I recall so I didn't think the "control through the ground" would apply in this case. On another forum someone pointed out he thought the contact was pretty immediate with the catch so then I guess it would apply. I thought it also had to be an airborne receiver but I've been told that is not a factor in this type of play in the NFL.

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

I know you did not see the play. I am just looking for clarification. Consider these three hypothetical situations:

1. A80 goes up to catch a pass while airborn where he is immediately contacted and tackled
2. A80 catches a pass with both feet already on the ground. He is contacted as he catches the ball and is immediately tackled
3. A80 catches a pass with both feet on the ground and runs another 3 yards before he is contacted and tackled

In each case, A80 maintains possession throughout the catch until his arms contact the ground and the ball comes loose.

My understanding was this was an incomplete pass in situation (a). Someone else has told me it's also an incomplete pass in situation (b) but not (c). Those who have seen the play debate whether (b) or (c) is what happened. I leaned toward (c) but I would have to see it again. Regardless of what actually happened on this play, do you know if the rules support situation (b) as complete or incomplete?

[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.