Questionable Calls Superbowl 43

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the penalty was before change of possession then that means it was on the offense. An accepted offensive penalty does not require an untimed down, the half would have ended.

Not true. An accepted live ball penalty would require an untimed down unless it was a loss of down or a dead ball penalty 3.3.4b. There would be no reason for the defense to allow another play so it would naturally be declined. 3.3.3.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Not true. An accepted live ball penalty would require an untimed down unless it was a loss of down or a dead ball penalty 3.3.4b. There would be no reason for the defense to allow another play so it would naturally be declined. 3.3.3.

I don't think that is the case in the NFL (based on my 39 years of watching multiple games on most Sundays during the months of Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec/Jan ), but I could be wrong.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't think that is the case in the NFL (based on my 39 years of watching multiple games on most Sundays during the months of Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec/Jan ), but I could be wrong.

I don't know about the NFL either. I am quoting NFHS. However, watching certainly doesn't qualify for rules knowledge by any means.

[pedr]

Originally Posted by daggo66

I'm not sure about NFL rules, but under NFHS the foul at the end of the half would not have been "tacked onto the end of the run." The foul occurred before the change of possession, in order to keep the ball Pittsburgh would have to decline the penalty. If the penalty was accepted Arizona would have had an untimed down after the penalty was administered.

That was my thought while watching: if they ruled him down short, Pittsburgh could accept the penalty, giving Arizona the ball back, and one last shot at the end-zone (unlikely), or go into the locker room having nearly but not quite pulled off one of the greatest interceptions in Superbowl history!

The idea that a foul before a change of possession is still assessed against the possession-surrendering team seemed very odd - but that's what Pereria said the rule was in the NFL (and, I suppose, the justification is that 'Personal Foul' is not a foul because it is an unfair game-altering act like holding, but an offence of unauthorised violence towards another player which ought to be penalised when ever it takes place.)

The technicalities on whose penalties extend the half are well beyond my amateur status, of course!

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by pedr

That was my thought while watching: if they ruled him down short, Pittsburgh could accept the penalty, giving Arizona the ball back, and one last shot at the end-zone (unlikely), or go into the locker room having nearly but not quite pulled off one of the greatest interceptions in Superbowl history!

The idea that a foul before a change of possession is still assessed against the possession-surrendering team seemed very odd - but that's what Pereria said the rule was in the NFL (and, I suppose, the justification is that 'Personal Foul' is not a foul because it is an unfair game-altering act like holding, but an offence of unauthorised violence towards another player which ought to be penalised when ever it takes place.)

The technicalities on whose penalties extend the half are well beyond my amateur status, of course!

What you say makes sense. The NFL rule essentially states no personal foul shall go unpunished. In the case of the Super Bowl half ending play if the Pittsburgh player had been tackled that foul would have been HUGE.

The NFHS philosophy would have disadvantaged Pittsburgh because you cannot have the ball and the foul if the foul against you was pre-possession.

NFHS has been leaning toward no personal foul goes unpenalized in the area of scoring. Personally, I think that should be the rule. My pet peeve over the years has been chipping -- contact on a defenseless player -- by the offense on the long run which officials hesitate to penalize per the rule.

[wisref2]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The worse no-call on the 100 yard return was the blatant block in the back at about the 10 or 15 yard line.

When I first saw the play live I thought that was a block in the back. Upon further review - it was obvious he got him on the shoulder - no foul, not even in a high school game.

Roughing the snapper was so obvious that I'd fire anyone who didn't flag it.

[football-1]

Originally Posted by wisref2

When I first saw the play live I thought that was a block in the back. Upon further review - it was obvious he got him on the shoulder - no foul, not even in a high school game.

Roughing the snapper was so obvious that I'd fire anyone who didn't flag it.

really sure ?

live wire
9:48 and
at stop 10:12 you can see his left arm in the back and his right arm (i think) from behind is over the right shoulder. that is correct?
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e9de21

anatomy
3:33
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e97cd9

[JRutledge]

It does not matter whether he hit him in the back or not. The fact that he jumped in front and turned would not be a foul at any level. He did not see him in the back and hit him in the back; he might have made contact with the back after he ran in front of him. That is not a foul by the philosophy I have been working under for years.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by pedr

That was my thought while watching: if they ruled him down short, Pittsburgh could accept the penalty, giving Arizona the ball back, and one last shot at the end-zone (unlikely), or go into the locker room having nearly but not quite pulled off one of the greatest interceptions in Superbowl history!

The idea that a foul before a change of possession is still assessed against the possession-surrendering team seemed very odd - but that's what Pereria said the rule was in the NFL (and, I suppose, the justification is that 'Personal Foul' is not a foul because it is an unfair game-altering act like holding, but an offence of unauthorised violence towards another player which ought to be penalised when ever it takes place.)

The technicalities on whose penalties extend the half are well beyond my amateur status, of course!

Mike Pereira explained in the Official Review that the NFL rule would have allowed Pittsburgh to have an untimed down because the penalty was a personal foul. It didn't matter if it occurred pre- or post-COP. I had never heard that before but it makes sense. As others have stated, this would be enforced differently at the NFHS level and the defensive team would not have been happy.