NFL Network: Offical Review

[Chaz]

So Rich Eisen and Mike Pereria just covered two of the calls from the Cards game.

Interesting discussion even if it doesn't change anything.

Basically if LaBoy had just laid down on the ground instead of trying to get off of the field there would have been no penalty.
They would have called an injury timeout.

They reviewed the tuck rule. The problem according to the NFL official was where does one draw the line on where the throwing motion ends. If they can determine that then maybe the tuck rule will could go away as it is currently written.


The first call was interesting though. I didn't realize a FG can't go over the plane at the top of the uprights. Apparently the ball has to pass between the uprights including not going above their vertical extents.



EDIT: here is the link to the segment.
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80baabd1

 

[CaptTurbo]

Dont extra points go above the posts every time? Or really short field goals? Like 19 yard FG's?

 

[NeverSayDieFan]

I can "accept" the explanation of those (2) calls...

But the PI on Fitz' early on and then the 1st Romo fumble were blatant! But hey, we WON! All's well that ends well! GO CARDS!! I think if anything it made our team "mentally stronger". It was like, OK. They're DELIBERATELY screwing us---FIGHT HARDER!! Our pass-rush was relentless!

 

[CardLogic]

The first call was interesting though. I didn't realize a FG can't go over the plane at the top of the uprights. Apparently the ball has to pass between the uprights including not going above their vertical extents.

It sounds like you are confusing two separate items. The discussion they had was regarding when a field goal is challengable. That is only when the ball passes with in the plane of the uprights, i.e. -no higher than the top of the uprights and between them.

However a field goal attempt which passes above the crossbar and between the uprights, which includes the plane between and above the tops of the uprights, is a successful and therefore "good" field goal.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Dont extra points go above the posts every time? Or really short field goals? Like 19 yard FG's?

Yes, but only after they have passed through the uprights...

 

[Stout]

That's crap. Basically telling players to dog it on purpose to get the injury timeout. That is utter crap.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

I didn't realize a FG can't go over the plane at the top of the uprights. Apparently the ball has to pass between the uprights including not going above their vertical extents.



http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80baabd1

Wait what? I saw the same segment.

If it can't go over the top of the uprights, why not just add another crossbar to the top?
Then they could put a net around the whole box, kinda like an elevated soccer goal.

no ball in the net, no points.

Actually, this just confirms how bad officiating has become, until the last few years, when did you ever see refs having trouble accurately calling a simple FG?

 

[Evil Ash]

That's crap. Basically telling players to dog it on purpose to get the injury timeout. That is utter crap.

It really wouldn't have helped us anyways because if Laboy got the injury timeout the clock would have stopped at around 12 seconds.

 

[TheHopToad]

If it can't go over the top of the uprights, why not just add another crossbar to the top?
Then they could put a net around the whole box, kinda like an elevated soccer goal.

no ball in the net, no points.

I think what they're saying is that on kicks where the ball goes over the top of the goal post, it is no good because you have to assume that if the posts extended vertically to the sky that the ball would hit the posts and would therefore likely be no good. I'm pretty sure that balls that are kicked clearly between the posts, no matter how high, are good.

 

[TJ]

Whisenhunt stated that he sent some of those plays to the league, FWIW

 

[Chaz]

It sounds like you are confusing two separate items. The discussion they had was regarding when a field goal is challengable. That is only when the ball passes with in the plane of the uprights, i.e. -no higher than the top of the uprights and between them.

However a field goal attempt which passes above the crossbar and between the uprights, which includes the plane between and above the tops of the uprights, is a successful and therefore "good" field goal.

I think I am confused. What is Nolan challenging here?

Isn't Nolan challenging that the ball passed over the uprights instead of between them? The official on the field standing under the upright could have clearly seen that the ball was inside the vertical extents when it passed the crossbar or he would not have called it good. What he couldn't see is if the ball was above the uprights when it passed.

I understand that they ruled it was under that plane so that is why it could be challenged.

I have watched that segment many times and I think I am still confused at what was being challenged if a ball passing between the extension of the vertical extents is good.

 

[football karma]

Interesting that Perriera is acknowledging that there are problems with the tuck rule --


also -- a different thought: as Dockett bears down on him, Romo turns his shoulders away from the line of scrimmage to avoid the hit while following through with the throwing motion at the same time. The ball ends up travelling backwards.

Question: if a QB begins throwing the ball backwards--i.e., a lateral -- and is then hit by a defender -- is it still a lateral?

Key point -- the qb motion began as a lateral -- not a case of a qb who is throwing forward and as the result of contact gets twisted around and the ball travels backwards.

Could Wis have "challenged the challenge" -- arguing that -- yes it was a throwing motion, but a motion started by the qb prior to contact that was going to be a lateral -- and the ball travelled backwards, making it a lateral.

Again -- Key point: Romo turns away from the line of scimmage prior to contact and his throwing motion is away from the line of scrimmage before the ball comes out.

Thoughts?

 

[TJ]

Interesting that Perriera is acknowledging that there are problems with the tuck rule --

Yep. In other news: the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the economy sucks!

 

[Lloydian]

I know this has the potential to sound stupid, but why not put lasers in the goal posts. Aim them straight up from the inside of the post, and turn them on whenever a team attempts a field goal. If the ball soars over the posts, and it's unclear whether or not they passed that infinite vertical line, we could tell if the ball caught some of that laser light.

And for my next trick, the solution to world hunger.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

I know this has the potential to sound stupid, but why not put lasers in the goal posts. Aim them straight up from the inside of the post, and turn them on whenever a team attempts a field goal. If the ball soars over the posts, and it's unclear whether or not they passed that infinite vertical line, we could tell if the ball caught some of that laser light.

And for my next trick, the solution to world hunger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

 

[Pariah]

I know this has the potential to sound stupid, but why not put lasers in the goal posts. Aim them straight up from the inside of the post, and turn them on whenever a team attempts a field goal. If the ball soars over the posts, and it's unclear whether or not they passed that infinite vertical line, we could tell if the ball caught some of that laser light.

And for my next trick, the solution to world hunger.

I've thought about that, too.

Here's another. Lace the balls with somekind of detectable mesh and the goalline with the directional sensor. There will never be a question again about someone crossing the GL again. You could even have a cool light-show/fireworks when it's activated.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I thought the tuck rule was that if a QB starts his throwing motion and then tries to hold it back for whatever reason and the ball comes out of his hand it's an incomplete pass.

In Romo's case he didn't release the ball DD knocked it out of his hands. And therefore should be ruled a fumble. If Romo doesn't lose the ball and holds onto it, it's a sack. If he would have released it as a pass it would have went forward not backwards.

The way I took the field goal thing as long as it splits the uprights it can be a mile high. But if it goes over any part of the upright it's no good.

 

[gusmahler]

I thought the tuck rule was that if a QB starts his throwing motion and then tries to hold it back for whatever reason and the ball comes out of his hand it's an incomplete pass.

True. The additional factor to consider is that it doesn't matter why the ball comes out of his hand. Whether it slips or it's hit out, if it happens during the tuck motion, it's an incomplete pass.

 

[CardLogic]

I have watched that segment many times and I think I am still confused at what was being challenged if a ball passing between the extension of the vertical extents is good.

I think that the more times you listen to Periera's explainations the more confusing they become!


Lloydian, that's actually a good idea about the lasers, and could be executed quite simply. Call the NFL!

 

[WisconsinCard]

True. The additional factor to consider is that it doesn't matter why the ball comes out of his hand. Whether it slips or it's hit out, if it happens during the tuck motion, it's an incomplete pass.

And IMO that is the problem. A QB can just act like he's going to throw and then pretend to hold on and throw it to the ground and avoid a sack. How would you call that intentional grounding? The QB will say hey that the tuck rule. It's a stupid rule and I think QB'S will find a way to use it in their favor.

 

[gusmahler]

And IMO that is the problem. A QB can just act like he's going to throw and then pretend to hold on and throw it to the ground and avoid a sack. How would you call that intentional grounding? The QB will say hey that the tuck rule. It's a stupid rule and I think QB'S will find a way to use it in their favor.

The tuck rules is in effect for such a short period of time that it's nearly impossible to fake a tuck.

 

[Duckjake]

It really wouldn't have helped us anyways because if Laboy got the injury timeout the clock would have stopped at around 12 seconds.

Not necessarily. Those injury timeouts usually occur right before everyone is lining up and the officials notice that there is an injured player.

Besides if Dallas had 12 seconds they would have thrown another pass*, it would have been picked by Wilson and run back for 6. Game over.


*No they wouldn't have run the ball because they wouldn't have felt comfortable enough with a 50 yard FG attempt.

 

[CardLogic]

The tuck rules is in effect for such a short period of time that it's nearly impossible to fake a tuck.

It worked for Romo!

He was calling for the challenge practically at the same time the officials were signaling touchdown... It's quite unlikely, yet still possible that he knew exactly what he was doing when he let go of that football.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

That's crap. Basically telling players to dog it on purpose to get the injury timeout. That is utter crap.

i thought that might be the case. i said at the time, "if he just laid down the refs would have taken an injury timeout."

 

[slanidrac16]

Interesting that Perriera is acknowledging that there are problems with the tuck rule --


also -- a different thought: as Dockett bears down on him, Romo turns his shoulders away from the line of scrimmage to avoid the hit while following through with the throwing motion at the same time. The ball ends up travelling backwards.

Question: if a QB begins throwing the ball backwards--i.e., a lateral -- and is then hit by a defender -- is it still a lateral?

Key point -- the qb motion began as a lateral -- not a case of a qb who is throwing forward and as the result of contact gets twisted around and the ball travels backwards.

Could Wis have "challenged the challenge" -- arguing that -- yes it was a throwing motion, but a motion started by the qb prior to contact that was going to be a lateral -- and the ball travelled backwards, making it a lateral.

Again -- Key point: Romo turns away from the line of scimmage prior to contact and his throwing motion is away from the line of scrimmage before the ball comes out.

Thoughts?

Excellent point and I agree. I understand the tuck rule, however, it was clear Romo was pulling the ball in while turning to avoid the hit when the ball came loose.
It should have been ruled a lateral.
It's a stupid rule and it should be eliminated. The QB can take a sack, throw it away or run with the damn ball. He shouldn't have the luxury of being able to pull the ball down with no risk involved.