Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roughing the passer and the non safety call

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Roughing the passer and the non safety call

    I was wondering how you guys felt about two of the calls by the officials.

    The first one was involved Bulger getting hit after he threw the ball to McMichael who coughed it up. I thought that the Redskins recovered the ball, but I could be wrong. A flag gets thrown and we get a first down and keep the ball. I did not think that Bukger got hit worse than other times in the game and was surprised at the call. What did others think of this call?

    The other call that had me confused was when the D had Campbell caught in the end zone with his knees down and somehow did not award us the safety. Does anyone know why that was not called a safety? That would have tied the game at that point.

    These were two calls that I disagreed with. Thoughts?
    sigpic
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

    As a loyal and unbiased Rams fan for the rest of my life, I believe there is only one correct answer to this question.

    Originally posted by UtterBlitz View Post
    The first one was involved Bulger getting hit after he threw the ball to McMichael who coughed it up. I thought that the Redskins recovered the ball, but I could be wrong. A flag gets thrown and we get a first down and keep the ball. I did not think that Bukger got hit worse than other times in the game and was surprised at the call. What did others think of this call?
    Great call. Bulger was clearly hit hard. Personally, I think it should have been taken further, either in the form of the entire Skins' front 7 being ejected or a compensatory TD for the Rams.

    Originally posted by Utter
    The other call that had me confused was when the D had Campbell caught in the end zone with his knees down and somehow did not award us the safety. Does anyone know why that was not called a safety? That would have tied the game at that point.
    Horrible call. The D clearly had Campbell trapped in the endzone and should have been awarded a safety. Personally, I think it should have been taken further, either in the form of the entire Skins' front 7 being ejected or a compensatory TD for the Rams.

    ;)

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

      Lol at all those ejections.

      No seriously though, for the roughing the passer call, did we recover the fumble or not? I did not see who came up with it. If the redskins recovered, shouldn't they get to keep the ball since the foul happened after the ball was thrown?
      sigpic

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

        It wasn't a safety. the ball was out of the end zone when Campbell's knee hit the ground. It isn't where the knee hits the ground that matters, it's where the ball is when the knee hits the ground. No safety, good call.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

          I think the ball was in the end zone when his knees went down and then he extended out of the end zone.
          sigpic

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

            my DVR says the end of the ball was over the chalk with his knee down...

            imo.. should have been a safety..

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

              Originally posted by UtterBlitz View Post
              These were two calls that I disagreed with. Thoughts?
              R-t-P call: If I were a Skins fan, I'd probably complain about this one, however I think the zebras made the right call. The hit and the ball leaving Bulger's hand were not in the same move, so I can see the call. It certainly worked out well since, as you noted, we did not recover that fumble.

              non-safety call: From my angle, it looked like the ball was out of the zone before Campbell's hit the ground. But that's just what I saw.
              The more things change, the more they stay the same.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                really don't care about the calls. I'm glad to see that the Rams are finally starting to move the ball. The D really played inspired. I'm not so concerned that we lost as I see major improvement from last week to this week. If they can keep making improvements from week to week, with no major set backs, we have a very good team in the making on our hands.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                  So the rule for safeties is sort of the opposite of tds. For TDs, if you get the tip of the ball over the line, you are considered in the end zone, and you get a td. For safeties, if you get the tip of the ball out of the end zone, even if you don't make it out, you are considered out?
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                    Originally posted by UtterBlitz View Post
                    So the rule for safeties is sort of the opposite of tds. For TDs, if you get the tip of the ball over the line, you are considered in the end zone, and you get a td. For safeties, if you get the tip of the ball out of the end zone, even if you don't make it out, you are considered out?
                    Actually that would be exactly true, as the placement of the ball should be at the furthest point of advancement(even if it's behind the original line of scrimmage), and so if the tip of the ball is outside of the endzone, it should not be a safety.
                    I believe!:ram:

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                      The only one that bothered me was the non-call for roughing the passer when Bulger clearly slid feet-first & both Carter and fat Albert took cheap shots. That's why the rule was created,no?

                      You might even call it a side effect of the Cogs situation. I think The Zebs are focusing on him & missing other stuff. I thought Fells, for eg, got a raw deal on his false start; the entire right side of the Skins D-line twitched. I thought that was illegal; he was drawn into it,in other words.

                      As to the safety, why not celebrate the first time, in either pre-season or these first two regular games, that The Rams D didn't allow a team to drive themselves out from under their goalposts?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                        I agree with the roughing the passer call as Bulger took a huge hit. And I can't believe that we didn't get that safety call. Cambell was clearly in the endzone and it should have been reviewed at least.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                          Originally posted by Ahmedrams81 View Post
                          I agree with the roughing the passer call as Bulger took a huge hit. And I can't believe that we didn't get that safety call. Cambell was clearly in the endzone and it should have been reviewed at least.
                          clearly in the endzone........
                          Campbell? Yes.
                          the ball? Not so much.
                          The more things change, the more they stay the same.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                            Originally posted by HUbison View Post
                            clearly in the endzone........
                            Campbell? Yes.
                            the ball? Not so much.
                            Lol Hubison it looks like you are all over me today. Maybe I am a bit biased but I think the ball was in the endzone and if anything I think it is a play worthy of some speculation.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Roughing the passer and the non safety call

                              Originally posted by Ahmedrams81 View Post
                              Lol Hubison it looks like you are all over me today. Maybe I am a bit biased but I think the ball was in the endzone and if anything I think it is a play worthy of some speculation.
                              eh, we just happen to disagree on a couple of topics on the same day. It happens.

                              And yea, the exact location of the ball when Campbell's knee went down is (and should be) a valid point of speculation. To me, that is to say TO ME, the ball was out of the endzone when Campbell went down. I could be wrong on it, and would love to see some visual analysis of it.
                              The more things change, the more they stay the same.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse
                              • RamWraith
                                You make the call--Video of the lateral
                                by RamWraith
                                Thanks to Axl we have some video to look at. Now you make the call

                                http://axlvids.ramsrule.com/lateral.wmv...
                                -09-26-2005, 05:45 AM
                              • sbramfan
                                End of the Game Play Call
                                by sbramfan
                                OK, I know there are bigger fish to fry today and unfortunately Mike Martz is "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" on this one, but......

                                When the Rams got the ball with <1:00 to play and then there was an offsides call, which put the ball from the 38 to like the 33 (I think), was anyone here thinking that maybe they should try to pound up a few more yards into solid field goal territory, and then take a few pops into the end zone?

                                FYI, I actually was one of those people who was OK with taking the FG in the Carolina playoff game, because when you somehow find yourself in a position to tie a game that you haven't been in for the other entire 59 minutes of the game, I would think you would want to at least tie it up.

                                Realizing that football wouldn't be fun to me if the Rams and Mike Martz weren't a go for it type of team, but somehow I was stoked that they were almost in FG territory after that punt and remember thinking that bad things could happen if you try to force this into a TD, when a FG would tie it up. It's not like the defense was getting completely ripped if they had to risk the coin toss.

                                Anyway, as for that INT, good teams seem to get luck, and lately the Rams don't seem to get the bounces like they used to, so I'm thinking that says something right there?
                                -09-11-2005, 11:26 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, 08:35 AM
                              • NJ Ramsfan1
                                Replay and other random thoughts
                                by NJ Ramsfan1
                                I am convinced more than ever that replay is ruining football. It is absolutely torturous to watch what seems like every sideline catch and scoring play reviewed. It disrupts the flow of the game. It allows you to view a game, get excited over a score or a play, then rips the rug out from underneath you while making you wait for the outcome. It's no better in baseball. Though I understand it's not going away, I absolutely hate it.

                                Tennis and basketball have it right. The calls are used very sparingly and result in an immediate decision. Little to no waiting. No viewing from 5 different angles. No indecision on something we can clearly see from our own living rooms.

                                And don't tell me that "getting it right is the most important thing". Sometimes REPLAY doesn't even result in a right decision!! You mean to tell me Garcon's sideline catch (a call which was overturned and ruled a catch) was legit? His momentum was clearly taking him a foot out of bounds in the act of the catch. You can't convince me otherwise.The human element is a part of sports. Players make mistakes. Coaches make mistakes. Officials make mistakes. Live with it. Be more competent. Add an official if need be. You mean to tell me in all the games played in the years before replay that there were THAT MANY plays that weren't called correctly?? I don't buy it.

                                Also stuck in my craw was the roughing the passer call vs. Aaron Donald. This is exhibit "A" of what's ruining the game. Guy hits the QB in the act of throwing, executes a perfect form tackle, doesn't lead with the head and still gets flagged 15 yards simply because Hoyer took a hard hit. Can't tell you how infuriated I was watching that. Concern for safety (hypocritical given the NFL's long time denial of concussion effects and allowing Thursday night football) has completely neutered good defensive play.

                                It's getting tougher and tougher to enjoy sports. And replay shows that change isn't always for the better....
                                -09-22-2017, 05:06 AM
                              • Milan
                                The Refs
                                by Milan
                                Are you kidding me?

                                That was awful officiating. 2 Non-called PIs then right after the first, they call an iffy one on Chavous. The 3rd-down where they gave them pretty much 2 extra yards. The Horse Collar call?

                                They didn't cost us the game but they did their best to give it away.
                                -12-16-2007, 02:35 PM
                              Working...
                              X