Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are the new rules of the NFL?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What are the new rules of the NFL?

    During the rams game, they blocked the field goal and returned it for a touchdown. I never knew, even if you don't call a penalty, you can go back and view if there were 12 men on the field. Im not sure if im a noob, or what. But set me straight on this one if i am wrong.

    But i have never seen that S***. I couldn't believe they went back and made a penalty when they did not even call one. I didn't think you could change a call, help me if im wrong. I might be and im not sure if the rams had 12 men on the field. I say we got robbed. Cause if Seattle wasn't getting called for off sides all day long i counted 4 times offsides, only once called. why not give us that touchdown? your thoughts?

    other than that the new rules in the NFL are tough to keep up with. Can some let me know what the knew one's are?
    Last edited by hawaiianpunch; -09-14-2009, 09:13 PM.

  • #2
    Re: What are the new rules of the NFL?

    It was legit. Thats pretty much the only penalty you can review. Belicheat did it in the Super Bowl vs the Giants when they caught that dude trying to run off, and the Bears just did it last night vs the pack. Not sure why its reviewable, but really the thing is we had too many on the field, if we only had eleven its likely we wouldn't have even blocked the field goal. Sucks but thats how it goes, the Squawks didn't get any special treatment on that play- for a change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What are the new rules of the NFL?

      Originally posted by C-Mob 71 View Post
      Not sure why its reviewable
      Probably because it's one of the few penalties that is clear black-or-white in terms of seeing if it was committed or not. It doesn't require any interpretation or judgment on the official's part. There either are or there aren't 12 men on the field.

      The easiest way for the Rams to have avoided this situation is by not having 12 men on the field to begin with.

      Comment

      Related Topics

      Collapse

      • jdpbmo
        reviewing calls from the booth
        by jdpbmo
        Okay, enough is enough. I can usually sit by and hold my piece, but I am so tired of this idiotic process the NFL uses to review calls. It isn't that I'm against the reviewing of questionable calls. I am 100 % for it. I want the call to be right. A noncall or wrong call shouldn't cost a team the game. It all came to a head in the Detroit/GB game when they didn't bother reviewing the touchdown late in the game. How crazy was that? If I was in charge of that part of the game, there would be some people looking for work tomorrow. My main problem with the process is that you are asking officials that make a call, or maybe don't make a call, to reverse their own decision. You are asking them to second-guess themselves or perhaps members of their crew. Now we can sit there and say "well, so what if they have to reverse a call to get it right". Hey, news flash, these officials have egos. They don't want to come out and say "sorry everyone, we just blew that last call". So they look at the replay to satisfy us, then come back and say "indisputable evidence to reverse the call on the field". That's a load of crap. There have been plenty of calls that they show that need to be reversed, but until you get a seperate crew of 2 or 3 people in the booth who do nothing but review a call when it's challenged, you will continue to see this craziness happen. Why wouldn't you have people not associated with the officiating crew reveiwing these calls? If you did, you would find a number of calls overturned when it's obvious they are wrong. You would find calls that are legitimate standing as good calls. People would be satisfied for the most part. Except for the Z E B R A S. They will find they are making a call or two incorrectly in important situations. But you know what else you are doing? You are taking some responsibility from them. What does everyone think? jd
        -11-25-2001, 08:37 PM
      • Guest's Avatar
        The Curse Of The 9ers
        by Guest
        What will officials dream up Sunday night when the Rams take the field in San Francisco? Letís turn back to 1998. The first call occurred with the Colts leading 21-7. The ball was intercepted by Indianapolis defensive back Jeff Burris in his own end zone. He returned it to the 9ers' 32-yard line, which almost certainly would have led to a 24-7 lead and, given the way that Peyton Manning was carving up the 9ers' at the time, most likely an insurmountable 28-7 lead. Instead, the officials called Burris for "holding" and the 9ers were handed the ball back and ultimately a touchdown.

        On the 9ers' next possession, Young again threw a pick, again it was overruled ruled by a defensive holding penalty, and again the 9ers got the ball back and scored. The result of the botched calls? A point swing of a minimum of 14 and as much as 28 points. The blown calls by the referees were so bad; the NFL had to come out with a statement in essence apologizing for the poor officiating.

        The Colts farce allowed the 9ers to host the wildcard game Enter Green Bay, a team they hadnít beat in 5 tries. A Jerry Rice fumble was ruled down by the referees, and four plays later, a touchdown pass to Terrell Owens.

        Enter New York; another playoff game which the 9ers had little chance of winning even with all the referee huddles that always end in gifting the 9ers the ball or the call. Even though the Giants blew a sizeable lead and deserved to lose the game given the fact that they laid down like dogs for the 9ers one cannot deny the injustice of the referee shenanigans which gifted the 9ers yet another referee aided win. Once again the NFL had to cut and paste their 49er apologist bile as if this sort of thing is not common in the NFL. Oh wait they are right, its not common place in the NFL unless itís an important 49er game.

        Does anyone remember the game last year? The NHS describes it best in this snippet.

        So when 12 seconds into it, an important game for the 9ers was being dictated by an inexplicable referee reversal to give the 9ers a touchdown on the opening kickoff, followed minutes later with a penalty negating a would-be 9ers turnover on a kick return, followed by several more of the classic "referee huddles" throughout the afternoon, fans nodded and understood. Even if the Rams injury-depleted split squad came to compete today (which they didn't), the script already had cast them as losers.

        The opening minutes were the 49er Problem in a nutshell. As the 9ers broke open the opening kick return, the "flag" message clearly appeared during the run-back. No big whoop, all seasoned NFL fans are well accustomed to having penalties negate good returns. The ref signaled the illegal block against the 9ers, and the game was set to start with the 9ers mired deep in their own territory.

        But wait! Someone, somewhere instead decided that it wasn't a...
        -10-01-2004, 08:54 PM
      • Barry Waller
        The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water
        by Barry Waller
        Watching this show about the most unbelievable play in NFL history, that started t alk of replay and changed the rule book. Of course every RAider and Raider fan is screaming bloody murder to t his day, about what they say are t hree no calls on that play.

        They claim the NFL wanted them to lose and they got cheated, but as I look at this play, after so many years, so many times, some t hings sem clear.

        1. The Steelers did nothing intentionally deceptive or illegal, on that 4th and 10 play, they just got very very lucky, as lucky as anyone ever, especially since Franco Haris HAD to score on that play or time runs out. Now the Raiders? They actually DID intentionally cheat to win a game, with the fumbleroosky play, They Changed the rule on that deal too so it CAN'T happen again, as they did the rule on a touched ball, so one like the Immaculate reception would ALWAYS be good.

        2. Conspriracy theory One, that Frenchy Fuqua touched the ball.
        Fact: The film is unclear who touche the ball, and the way it went backwards t hat far, shows that the impetus was caused by Jack Tatum trying to make a knockout hit, rather t han just stop the reception, or even just tackle Fuqua after t he catch.
        If he does that, game over time runs out.

        Fact, even if Fuqua and Tatum both touched the ball, under old rule, still good, play continues. If called good by Referee with instant replay, video is clearly incomclusive. AND now under new rule, doesn't matter who touched the ball.

        3. Villapiano wasn't clipped. The video does clearly show a hit from the side, at most a very borderline foul, one that would be roundly criticized if it were to decide a game. You must have a clear cut clip to make tht call.

        Also with the ball going every which way, the greatest officials in the world would have a hard time having just the right view of that block, especially the umpire, who would have been the guy making that call from the middle of the field.

        It was no more a clip that Az Hakim on the Ike Bruce TD play in the SB win.

        And also, there is no assurance that the 6-2 220lb Villipiano, no doubt exhausted, so much that a weak block knocked him sideways, would have tackled the 6-2 230lb Harris, no doubt a much fresher player at that point.

        It would have taken a Mike Jones effort.

        4. "Harris trapped the ball" Again a very tough call for officials on such a play, and no evidence exists that it was a trap, or at least t hat the tip of t he ball touched t he ground. Once again that rule has been changed, the Bert Emmanual rule they call it. If ruled a catch, still a catch with replay, unless todays replays would show at least one clearer view.

        Again, the refs have a split second to be looking in the right direction, and once the ball flies backwards, I doubt if anyone but Harris even sees it....
        -03-23-2013, 09:35 AM
      • RamWraith
        NFL rule benefits Seahawks
        by RamWraith
        By Jim Thomas
        ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
        Monday, Oct. 16 2006

        A little-known wrinkle in the NFL rulebook worked against the Rams in the
        closing moments of Sunday's 30-28 loss to Seattle.

        Because Seattle was flagged for an illegal-formation penalty -- and not, say, a
        false start -- there was no 10-second runoff on the game clock. Seattle
        quarterback Matt Hasselbeck hurriedly spiked the ball with 4 seconds remaining
        when the penalty was called.

        "It was an illegal formation," referee Ed Hochuli told a pool reporter. "The
        players were all set, but the widest receiver, instead of being up on the line
        of scrimmage, he was in the backfield, putting only six men on the line of
        scrimmage."

        So that was the penalty. But why no 10-second runoff?

        "There are limited penalties that give a 10-second runoff, and this is just not
        one of those on the list," Hochuli said. "There's only three or four penalties
        that bring with them a 10-second runoff. The common ones are the false start,
        or when the teams are not all set. If that happens when there's less than a
        minute to go in the (game), there's a 10-second runoff. But this is just not
        one of those penalties."

        If the 10-second runoff had occurred, the game would have ended with the Rams
        winning 28-27. Without the runoff, Seattle had a chance to attempt a 54-yard
        field goal, which place-kicker Josh Brown drilled for the game-winning points.

        Interestingly, Rams defensive end Leonard Little said he heard Hochuli tell
        other members of his officiating crew that there were two penalties on the
        play: false start and illegal formation.

        "That's what he said," Little said. "I thought you run 10 seconds off the clock
        with a false start.

        "He said something like: 'The quarterback's going to (spike) the ball anyway.'
        That shouldn't make a difference. ... I think we got the short end of the stick
        with how that went. But I'm not an official. I don't know all the rules that go
        along with that. We came up short. If we'd have gone out and stopped them on
        that drive on defense, we would've won that game."
        -10-16-2006, 05:35 AM
      • djccon
        No Whining!
        by djccon
        I haven't had the heart to read a whole lot about what others are saying about yesterday's game, but I'm tired of "the official's call." from what little I've heard. For ny to even SUGGEST Garnes didn't grab Canidate just dumbfounds me. How far did his jersey need to be stretched for them to feel the call was justified? Add to that, the possession on which they got their 3rd field goal - on which one of the ny DBs was hammering on Holt's arms WITHOUT LOOKING BACK FOR THE BALL. Where the he** was THAT call? There are FOUR more points on the board for us.

        I suggest ny should be THRILLED what the refs DIDN'T do to them. What about the repeated headlocks placed on Wistrom and Little that were NEVER called? The tackle where the guy grabbed Holt's helmet to pull him down - ummmmm, sorry folks, but you cannot use ANY part of a ball carrier's helmet in an attempt to tackle the runner - remember Fletcher getting that called against him (using the back of Deuce Staley's helmet to pull him down) in Philly?

        Props to the Giants and the scheme they put in place to throttle the Rams down. Don't cheapen by whining about it being taken away from you. You had as much given to you as you had taken away.

        As for us Rams fans, we all know we escaped by skin of our teeth. However, when you play a very GOOD team, play without your A game, and still win...well, that takes a GREAT team.
        -10-15-2001, 06:45 PM
      Working...
      X