Getting "Hochulied" - time for the NFL to have a chat with its refs

[Mulli]

The ruling was that Abiamiri touched the ball while he was out of bounds. If you look at the replay, the ball clearly lands inbounds, Abiamiri's left foot comes down on the line. It appears that Abiamiri touches the ball either intentionally or by accident. Once a player steps out of bounds with the ball, the play is dead and can no longer be reviewed. I'm not sure why that is a rule, but that is what it is. The ruling was correct only if Abiamiri actually touched the ball, which I'm not sure he did. At no point did it look like the ball travelled out of bounds.

Bingo, bango. I seem to recall that the ball's trajectory did not change when it went past the guy.

 

[RandomGuy]

Bingo, bango. I seem to recall that the ball's trajectory did not change when it went past the guy.

It didn't hit him before the bounce, heading out. It hit him after the bounce, heading in. Pretty clear it got him on the forearm on all the TV replays lat night.

 

[Paso Fino]

It was not at all clear that the ball touched the player. But if it did, it was BEFORE he stepped out of bounds. He clearly did not have the ball when he stepped on the line.

 

[Russ Smith]

The ruling was that Abiamiri touched the ball while he was out of bounds. If you look at the replay, the ball clearly lands inbounds, Abiamiri's left foot comes down on the line. Apparently Abiamiri touches the ball either intentionally or by accident. Once a player steps out of bounds with the ball, the play is dead and can no longer be reviewed. I'm not sure why that is a rule, but that is what it is. The ruling was correct only if Abiamiri actually touched the ball, which I'm not sure he did. At no point did it look like the ball travelled out of bounds.

I can't be 100% positive of course but the ball sure didn't ACT like it was touched. It bounced inbounds and if you note not only did the Eagles player not act like he thought it touched him, the ball made no discernible change in direction. If it was touched, it would have changed direction.

I thought the ref initially thought it bounced out and called it that way but after seeing the replay realized that was wrong so they then bailed out and said well it was ruled touched out of bounds dead ball no replay.

Bad call, I don't buy the Eagles fans argument that it should have been Eagles ball at the 40 I didn't see anything liek that. It was like a basketball play where a guy comes over the back and the offensive player knocks the ball out. They give the ball to the offense, and call no foul. Everyone knows it went out off the offense but because of the foul so call no foul and give the ball back to the offense. They did this with the Eagles they compromised, you keep the ball, but at the 28 not the 40.

 

[SunsTzu]

Anyone have the game recorded? I seem to recall during the halftime report the crew stated they were told by the league office the play was called wrong and it should have been Cardinals ball.

Not that it really matters, I'd just like to see the Eagles fans stop supporting a call that obviously favored them and griping so much about Curtis not being able to catch a ball while someone is touching his leg.

 

[Rats]

I actually feel that both calls were correct and the NFL zebras got somethings right for a change. I have watched my dvr half a dozen times on both plays and the ball does seem to change direction as if it struck the Eagles arm. The best angle is from the endzone to the sideline and that is what I see. The Hood play was clearly incidental contact as there was no intent. Hood slipped and fell and hit Curtis on the leg. He should have caught the ball rather than waiting for a bailout from the refs. They got both right imo

 

[Treefiddy]

It looked like the ball clipped the guy's arm after it bounced. When it hit him, his foot was out of bounds. On almost all the replays, they didn't go much further than when the ball hit him, so it's difficult to see how the impact of the player changes the balls behavior, but on the ones where they did go further, the ball definitely looks to change direction slightly due to it hitting something.

 

[green machine]

OK, I watched the replay, and it does clip the guy on the arm after the bounce. But with that, I have a new question:

If a guy goes out of bounds, he cannot be the first to touch the ball, right? If the refs go by this guy being out of bounds when he touched it, isn't that a penalty? Or am I wrong here?

 

[BlueTalon]

The reason the NFL went back to replay is because their biggest nightmare is to have a colossal officiating mistake in a highly visible game...

Apparently it isn't. But there is hope, since Mike Pereira is retiring.

 

[Russ Smith]

I actually feel that both calls were correct and the NFL zebras got somethings right for a change. I have watched my dvr half a dozen times on both plays and the ball does seem to change direction as if it struck the Eagles arm. The best angle is from the endzone to the sideline and that is what I see. The Hood play was clearly incidental contact as there was no intent. Hood slipped and fell and hit Curtis on the leg. He should have caught the ball rather than waiting for a bailout from the refs. They got both right imo

I didn't record it so I'll take your word for it. Obviously at the time I was more interested in getting the ball so emotion takes over.

Today I was told by a friend that the worst missed call was earlier in the Eagles last drive when Ralph Brown broke up a pass, should have been PI. Now live I said PI, but on replay it was obvious the WR was at most 5 yards downfield so it's within the rule to make contact inside 5 yards as Brown did prior to the throw. Once the ball was in the air, contact would be PI, but at that point I think Brown simply made a good play?

To me bottom line is what Cris Carter is saying if the Eagles drop that many passes, they have no right to complain about calls.

 

[Rats]

Russ, I agree with the bottom line. They have no right to complain. They didn't get the job done. On the Brown play I think a case could have been made for holding as his mitts were on him as he broke away but I would have to go back and look at it. At the time I thought PI also.

 

[Hughc]

Going back to the original post, I agree that the refs need to learn to not blow the whistle unless they are 100% sure of the call. If you should have blown the whistle earlier, you can change the call afterwards to make it correct. However, you can't change the call based on what happened after the whistle is blown; at that point players are (or should be) letting up and not continuing their play. You can't have refs saying 'this player would have recovered had the whistle not been blown.'