NFL 1st down measurement

[yaztnj2000]

Watched Steelers / Browns game. Measurement for 1st down was done and nose of the ball was short of the pole but past the last chain link. Officials signaled 1st down. Announcers made the typical big stink about it.

Is it the chain links or the pole that is the standard from measurements for 1st down?

If it's the chain, call Solomon Wilcots so he'll shut up about it.

Thanks

[jemiller]

Boy I've always measured from pole to pole. Can't believe that the NFL would be different that that regard. Jim

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by yaztnj2000

Watched Steelers / Browns game. Measurement for 1st down was done and nose of the ball was short of the pole but past the last chain link. Officials signaled 1st down. Announcers made the typical big stink about it.

Is it the chain links or the pole that is the standard from measurements for 1st down?

If it's the chain, call Solomon Wilcots so he'll shut up about it.

Thanks

I saw that too, and figured out that it was a bad camera angle. The camera was not looking across the field at the ball, but looking down the field. The nose of the ball just passed the pole.

[yaztnj2000]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I saw that too, and figured out that it was a bad camera angle. The camera was not looking across the field at the ball, but looking down the field. The nose of the ball just passed the pole.

Thanks that's what I figured. Announcers with too much time and not enough camera angles. Thanks.

I was questioning my sanity.

[mv7267]

NFL officiating a punchline

The Browns weren't laughing after a fourth-and-1 play on the same Steelers possession resulted in a measurement the Cleveland defense had just begun to celebrate when officials ruled -- wait a minute -- first down. Fooled 'ya.

Anderson was compelled to explain that one in the postgame, and dutifully came up with this:

"The ball has to penetrate the plane of the stake. When we set the ball up ready to measure and we bring the chains out, the chains are set beside the football; they're not put down on top of the football. So I get on the side and I'm looking straight in at that angle. So when the stakes go down I'm sighting in between the nose of the football and the stake. So if the nose of the football touches the stake, then it's a first down. It's kind of like a football touching the plane of the goal line. But we don't actually put the stake up against the nose of the ball because of the way the ball is shaped. The chains and the stake are laid beside, so it kind of depends on the angle you might be looking at it from."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mv7267

NFL officiating a punchline

I wrote to this guy, and CC'd his editor.

Hello,

I've read your online article titled, "NFL officiating a punchline" dated Oct 19th, 2009.

A quick Google search found me the NFL rulebook in PDF format. Granted, it is the 2006 version, but I happen to know the yearly rule changes from that recent version of the rulebook, and this situation isn't one of them. Here is the link: http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/...20RULEBOOK.pdf

You ended the article in way to suggest that the officials were to blame for an incorrect ruling, or at the very least, to cause confusion. The situation revolved around what you called "interception momentum". Doing a search for the term "momentum" in the above PDF document, you'll find this on page 13, less than 10% of the way intot he document, and only the 5th instance of this word. I quote (my emphasis),

Note: It is not a safety if a defensive player in the field of play intecepts a pass; catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team’s possession. Instead the ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the ball was intercepted, caught or recovered. (11-4-1)

The total time used to find this information was less than 4 minutes. I can only attribute your neglect for this portion of misunderstanding due to laziness, or not having my savvy when it comes to internet searches.

Regarding the measurement earlier in your article. The view can be affected by the angle that you have. The Referee Walt Coleman is correct. Example: Find an analogue clock and look at it straight on when it says, says 6:30pm. While it still says 6:30 (take the batteries out if need be), walk 10 feet to the left or to the right and look at the time again. The time will appear to be slightly before or after the previously observed time, respectively.

You and Roethlisberger have something in common: not understanding this phenomenon.

A third case in your article dealt with a change of possession while a player, who initially had the ball, was on the ground, and person on other players. Again, you mentioned that some body parts were on the ground, giving the appearance that the officials erred. However, you did not quote which body parts were on the ground. In fact, only two body parts hitting the ground cause the play to be over. That leaves 1,998 of our 2,000 parts (reference: Lever commercial, if you're unaware of pop culture) to allow the play to continue.

In short, your article is incorrect, missing required information, and incomplete.

Next time do your homework.

Regards,

JugglingReferee

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I wrote to this guy, and CC'd his editor.

You forgot about Hines Ward whining about dropping a TD pass. The author confuses the rule about the ground not causing a fumble with the rule defining a catch.

Still, I'm afraid your missive will fizzle: journalism is more about controversy now than reporting.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I wrote to this guy, and CC'd his editor.

Juggling, did you get a response back?