The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #151 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 08:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #152 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 09:26am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 12,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66 View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #153 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 09:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #154 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 09:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66 View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #155 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 10:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedr View Post
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.
__________________
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
ehicklan@optonline.net
Reply With Quote
  #156 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by zm1283 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #157 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 02:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisref2 View Post
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

Last edited by football-1; Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:24pm.
Reply With Quote
  #158 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 02:28pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,062
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #159 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 06:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedr View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
dumbass, fanboy, good night-gracie, idiot

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
** Superbowl XL Crew ** JugglingReferee Football 65 Sun Feb 26, 2006 06:11pm
Superbowl Officials menigirl Feedback 0 Tue Sep 28, 2004 01:19am
2 questionable calls Greyhounds30 Football 6 Fri Sep 24, 2004 06:59pm
Anyone Going To Houston for the SuperBowl whiskers_ump Softball 11 Thu Feb 05, 2004 02:42pm
Superbowl apartment for rent!! SuperbowlHouston Football 1 Mon Jan 19, 2004 03:46am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1