Colts, Bucs

[CardsFan88]

Just thinking of the rule if I could speculate why it was made that way so rice's penalty was indeed one was because of this.

You can lay yourself out further out and higher when you aren't concerned with where you are going to land. You could have a high jumper on the team to jump over the line and not catapult himself but just jump over them and have them break his fall. Cause then you would have 3 or 4 guys jumping over everyone and w/o catapulting trying to block the kick with the rest breaking their fall or whatever.

So the rule basically is for catapulting, and what I said too, maybe.

Another reason is its an unsportsman like conduct penalty.

Its not sportsman like to do that where then you have to rely on someone else to break your fall.

Maybe its semantics but its worth a mention.

Plus they did call the technicality on the indy guy when he was stationary and tupa FELL on him. Same premise they call one, they have to call the other. Both were in critical situations. All tampa needed after that was another 10-16 yds to kick a field goal.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by CardsFan88
Just thinking of the rule if I could speculate why it was made that way so rice's penalty was indeed one was because of this.

You can lay yourself out further out and higher when you aren't concerned with where you are going to land. You could have a high jumper on the team to jump over the line and not catapult himself but just jump over them and have them break his fall. Cause then you would have 3 or 4 guys jumping over everyone and w/o catapulting trying to block the kick with the rest breaking their fall or whatever.

So the rule basically is for catapulting, and what I said too, maybe.

Another reason is its an unsportsman like conduct penalty.

Its not sportsman like to do that where then you have to rely on someone else to break your fall.

Maybe its semantics but its worth a mention.

Plus they did call the technicality on the indy guy when he was stationary and tupa FELL on him. Same premise they call one, they have to call the other. Both were in critical situations. All tampa needed after that was another 10-16 yds to kick a field goal.

Problem is....he was clearly NOT relying on falling ON someone (which seems to be a very weak argument for a penalty in the first place). He leaped and there was going to be no one under him...then a man was PUSHED under him, so he had no choice but to land on the guy. How is that a penalty? Just about as stupid as the tuck rule, if indeed this is illegal.

 

[TXCardinalsFan]

I just want to see how MeShawn will back up all that trash he talked while miked up. He made several statements about Marvin Harrison and a couple more aimed at Harrison. Well, Harrison didn't do too badly by the end of the game. Guess now Johnson knows why so many poeple say Starvin Marvin is one of the best WR in the league. Funny you never how you never hear that about MeShawn.

 

[Chaz]

NFL backs the call

Associated Press
Oct. 7, 2003 10:30 AM


NEW YORK - The NFL upheld the penalty on leaping Simeon Rice, a call that gave the Indianapolis Colts a second chance at a field goal that beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in overtime.

Rice was penalized Monday night for unsportsmanlike conduct after jumping in an attempt to block Mike Vangerjagt's unsuccessful 40-yard field goal. Vanderjagt received another chance and made a 29-yarder that caromed off the right upright.

The Colts won 38-35 in overtime after rallying from a three-touchdown deficit in the last four minutes of regulation.

The league confirmed Tuesday what referee Johnnie Grier said after the game: The rules ban running forward, leaping and falling on a player, as Rice did.

Rule 12, section three, article two calls for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on a player "clearly running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try-kick after touchdown and landing on players unless the leaping player was originally lined up within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."

 

[Wild Card]

Debating the correctness of the call on Rice is interesting, but so what? Without that call, all that happens is that Tampa Bay gets the ball back at/ about their own 30-yard line. Remember, at that point, the Bucs had scored only once in their last eight offensive possessions, and had already punted once in OT.

My guess is, Indy would've stopped 'em again. Manning would've have driven the Colts down the field once more--after having four drives of 75+ yards in their last six possessions--and Vanderjagt would've made the kick, this time.

Terrific game. I've been a Dolphins fan for decades, and for much of that time the Colts were a hated division foe. Last night, for maybe the first time, I cheered for an amazing effort by a team, and a quarterback, that I'd always rooted against. For anyone still wondering, that's what a franchise QB looks like.

WC

 

[Dback Jon]

Originally posted by TXCardinalsFan
I just want to see how MeShawn will back up all that trash he talked while miked up. He made several statements about Marvin Harrison and a couple more aimed at Harrison. Well, Harrison didn't do too badly by the end of the game. Guess now Johnson knows why so many poeple say Starvin Marvin is one of the best WR in the league. Funny you never how you never hear that about MeShawn.

Last 35 games for Keyshaun (from start of 2001 season): 6 TDs
This season for Marvin Harrison: 6 TDs


Scoreboard, Marvin!

 

[Houdini]

Re: NFL backs the call

Originally posted by SirChaz
Associated Press
Oct. 7, 2003 10:30 AM


NEW YORK - The NFL upheld the penalty on leaping Simeon Rice, a call that gave the Indianapolis Colts a second chance at a field goal that beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in overtime.

Rice was penalized Monday night for unsportsmanlike conduct after jumping in an attempt to block Mike Vangerjagt's unsuccessful 40-yard field goal. Vanderjagt received another chance and made a 29-yarder that caromed off the right upright.

The Colts won 38-35 in overtime after rallying from a three-touchdown deficit in the last four minutes of regulation.

The league confirmed Tuesday what referee Johnnie Grier said after the game: The rules ban running forward, leaping and falling on a player, as Rice did.

Rule 12, section three, article two calls for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on a player "clearly running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try-kick after touchdown and landing on players unless the leaping player was originally lined up within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."

ESPN should start reading the rule book before giving us their facts. There was an announcer during a game I watched the other week too that didn’t seem to know what he was talking about either. It might have been the Ram/Cardinal game, I can’t remember which game it was. There was a play where the announcer kept saying over and over that the coach should throw the red flag to challenge if it was a fumble or catch, I forget which. And I kept thinking, what difference does it make. A penalty was thrown on the play, and it would come back anyway no matter if the coach challenged the play or not because there was a flag against his team. Some of these announcers need to get up to speed better.