The INT that Wasn't

[Kelly the Dog]

Honestly not trying to be argumentive here, simply discussing with you. Honestly though, I am just not really following your logic in this above post. He was not inbounds because he was ruled to not have finished the play in bounds. It doesnt matter if you make the catch in bounds, it only matters where you finish the play, so why do you keep referring to him in bounds even if the elbow was out and how can you amend the rule to make that a legal INT?

 

You cant have rules effective in parts of the field and not in others. If a RB can land on a fallen defender and be able to continue the advance the ball, then you can not in any way apply a rule that would make this a legal INT without establishing himself inbounds. You are essentially saying it should be an INT even if the elbow was out of bounds. There is no rule you can make outside of a force out rule that could have made this a legal INT if his elbow is out of bounds without affecting so many other aspects of this game.

 

As far as the force out goes, I simply dont understand how you say its not a force out. Boldin had 2 arms wrapped around him and literally pulled him backward with his momentum out of bounds. A force out is not defined by a hit, it literally means that a player is not able to establish himself in bounds because of contact with another player. The nature of the contact is irrelevant, even if accidental. Just because he fell on Boldin on the way out does not make it any less of a force out. He was not able to establish himself in bounds as a direct result of that contact.

Seems to me there are all kinds of contradictory rules. If a ball crosses the plane of the goalline on a run, it is a touchdown. If it doesn't cross the plane it is not. But if a receiver is running back toward the QB and catches a pass with his feet in the endzone but the ball out of bounds (and maybe even in front of the endzone) it is a still a TD because his feet were in bounds when he caught it.

[Mr. WEO]

That's not really what I meant. Nor is it, as I understand it, the rule that was applied. I don't really think (although I could be wrong) that Boldin pulled Florence out of bounds. The whole play was just luck and circumstance. It wasn't a matter of a force out the way pass plays used to be called with a defender shoving a guy out of bounds to prevent him from making the catch. This was a play where the defender, with the ball in his possession, was two-three yards in bounds. The only reason he wasn't called in bounds was luck that he happened to land on top of another player. In your example, the defender is making a play and tackling or shoving a player so he cannot make the play in bounds. That is not what happened here. Florence's entire body was in bounds.

No it wasn't. That's the point. In order for a receiver to make a catch, he has to put two feet or a foot and an elbow or knee, etc, in bounds.

 

The refs didn't see if he got his elbow in, and clearly he didn't have 2 feet down. It's pretty straightforward.

 

Would you make the same argument if he never touched the ground at all?--if he just rode the opposing receiver out of bounds after the int? Of course you wouldn't.

[starrymessenger]

What I want to know is why there was no flag on the play. The Cheats get an offensive pass interference call on that play every time.

IMO there was both offensive and defensive pass interference on that play. Corner first interfered with Boldin before the ball arrived and Boldin interfered with Corner when Corner caught the ball. What happens if both players are guilty of a foul? Replay the down? At least the Ravens lost a down, though it didn't make a difference.

[The Senator]

OK, can the knowledgeable folks here carefully explain the rule whereby the Reggie Corner INT wasn't, 'cuz his foot touched the other player's foot and not the turf? Please use small words and type slowly.

Simplest explanation possible - that call came directly from Rocco in Las Vegas.

[Kelly the Dog]

No it wasn't. That's the point. In order for a receiver to make a catch, he has to put two feet or a foot and an elbow or knee, etc, in bounds.

 

The refs didn't see if he got his elbow in, and clearly he didn't have 2 feet down. It's pretty straightforward.

 

Would you make the same argument if he never touched the ground at all?--if he just rode the opposing receiver out of bounds after the int? Of course you wouldn't.

I wouldn't because he didn't land on the ground in that case. In that case, it COULD be argued that the WR pushed him out and it's equivalent to the (new) force out rule. But in this case, he landed, and his entire body was in bounds. Again, I don't think the officials made the bad call according to the rules (although they did seem to miss the elbow). My point is only that it's a bad rule for this situation. The guy was in bounds. The whole guy, when he hit the ground and caught the ball. I understand yours and alpha's side, I just don't agree with the logic. And again, there are quite a few contradictory rules.

[Zip]

So after reading this thread and I agree that the right call was made according to the rules that are in place. So according to this rule if a reciever go up in the air to make a catch, say around the hash marks, and couple of defenders cath him in mid air and carries him all the way to the sidelines and they dump him out of bounds it is a no catch. I'm surprised you don't see this more often when the catch is near the side lines.

[Alphadawg7]

I wouldn't because he didn't land on the ground in that case. In that case, it COULD be argued that the WR pushed him out and it's equivalent to the (new) force out rule. But in this case, he landed, and his entire body was in bounds. Again, I don't think the officials made the bad call according to the rules (although they did seem to miss the elbow). My point is only that it's a bad rule for this situation. The guy was in bounds. The whole guy, when he hit the ground and caught the ball. I understand yours and alpha's side, I just don't agree with the logic. And again, there are quite a few contradictory rules.

 

But he was not in bounds when he landed because he didnt fully land until he was out of bounds. Landing on a player does not equal landing on the ground and you cant ever possibly change that rule. For exampley, how are you going to ref goal line carries and short yardage carries when you are fighting for yards over the top of players down on the ground with your knees and elbows making contact with those bodies on the ground? There is no way you can ever have a rule in football where you can be established down because you are touching a player who is down while you yourself are not touching the ground. Do you see how that is an impossible rule to have and to ever ref?

 

This play was no different then if a WR jumps to catch a ball 3 yards from the sideline but while in the air a DB hits enough to where one or both of his feet no longer come down in bounds. He was in bounds when he was coming down with it, but contact with another player changed that prior to establishing possession in bounds. With what you are saying that player has just as much right to be credited with a catch as Corner does to get the INT...but that goes back to the force out rule no longer being in effect this year.

 

As long as the player doesnt pick up and carry a player out of bounds, then the type of contact is irrelevant as to why he was forced out.

 

So after reading this thread and I agree that the right call was made according to the rules that are in place. So according to this rule if a reciever go up in the air to make a catch, say around the hash marks, and couple of defenders cath him in mid air and carries him all the way to the sidelines and they dump him out of bounds it is a no catch. I'm surprised you don't see this more often when the catch is near the side lines.

 

No, a player can not pick up a player and carry him anywhere on a football field. Play is dead right there. You can not carry anyone out of bounds either, only legal contact can be used to force a player out.

[Dan]

So after reading this thread and I agree that the right call was made according to the rules that are in place. So according to this rule if a reciever go up in the air to make a catch, say around the hash marks, and couple of defenders cath him in mid air and carries him all the way to the sidelines and they dump him out of bounds it is a no catch. I'm surprised you don't see this more often when the catch is near the side lines.

My guess.. they'd give him forward progress and mark it where he caught the ball. Unless, of course, his name is Nelson and the Bills are supposed to lose... then all bets are off.

[Alphadawg7]

My guess.. they'd give him forward progress and mark it where he caught the ball. Unless, of course, his name is Nelson and the Bills are supposed to lose... then all bets are off.

 

If you watch the play from the side and not from the front you will see Nelsons forward progress is never stopped, in fact, he gets a big push forward by teammates just before he fumbles...refs got that call right to.

[Cookiemonster]

OK, I am typing real slow now, these obscure rules are designed for one thing, and one thing only, and it

has absolutley nothing to do with safety, the word is MANIPULATION. No one can follow the game anymore, how could you,

the ref.'s are not even sure what to call anymore, do we even need ref.'s?

[Kelly the Dog]

If you watch the play from the side and not from the front you will see Nelsons forward progress is never stopped, in fact, he gets a big push forward by teammates just before he fumbles...refs got that call right to.

The first time he is tackled, by two guys, his forward motion is stopped, and he is knocked backwards about a yard, and has his feet on the ground. Then he is picked up and carried. Part of the blame, to be sure, is on the Bills linemen who are shoving the pile forward. BUT, and this is the key issue to me, the rule was designed just for these particular kinds of plays, where the ball-carrier is wrapped up by one or two guys, and the whistle is blown to protect him from being hit again by 2-3-4 more opposing players when he is helpless. That is why the play should have been ruled dead. Nelson himself wasn't really even fighting for the extra yards.

[CodeMonkey]

The first time he is tackled, by two guys, his forward motion is stopped, and he is knocked backwards about a yard, and has his feet on the ground. Then he is picked up and carried. Part of the blame, to be sure, is on the Bills linemen who are shoving the pile forward. BUT, and this is the key issue to me, the rule was designed just for these particular kinds of plays, where the ball-carrier is wrapped up by one or two guys, and the whistle is blown to protect him from being hit again by 2-3-4 more opposing players when he is helpless. That is why the play should have been ruled dead. Nelson himself wasn't really even fighting for the extra yards.

He couldn't really, he was along for the ride at that point

Give some of the blame to Nelson as well. Of course the ravens were trying to strip the ball, no excuse for him not wrapping the ball up tight with both hands.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

So, if the end zone is covered in bodies, and a player is 5 yards inside the end zone, but walks on top of the bodies out of the end zone, and then finally touches the ground with his foot (and no body in between it and the ground), that player would be considered to be out-of-bounds?

 

THAT. IS. RETARDED.

[CodeMonkey]

So, if the end zone is covered in bodies, and a player is 5 yards inside the end zone, but walks on top of the bodies out of the end zone, and then finally touches the ground with his foot (and no body in between it and the ground), that player would be considered to be out-of-bounds?

 

THAT. IS. RETARDED.

A even sillier what if, that is a bit more likely to happen ...

 

A little WR like Roscoe jumps in the air to catch a ball and does, but a big LB catches him in the air and carries him out of bounds and drops him.

[Alphadawg7]

A even sillier what if, that is a bit more likely to happen ...

 

A little WR like Roscoe jumps in the air to catch a ball and does, but a big LB catches him in the air and carries him out of bounds and drops him.

 

No, a player can not be carried on any part of the field, so this can not happen.

 

So, if the end zone is covered in bodies, and a player is 5 yards inside the end zone, but walks on top of the bodies out of the end zone, and then finally touches the ground with his foot (and no body in between it and the ground), that player would be considered to be out-of-bounds?

 

THAT. IS. RETARDED.

 

As pointless and stupid as this post is, I will answer the question. Yes he would be out of bounds. But you can make up any juvenile scenario you want for just about any rule you want in order to make the rule sound stupid. The bottom line is if you remain in REALITY and not fantasy as you just portrayed, you can not have the rule be any different. Goal line stands and short yardage battles would literally be impossible to ref and therefore could never be a functioning rule in the NFL.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

What I want to know is when are they officially going to take the offensive pass interference rule off the books because for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist.

 

Not true, they called it on Randy Moss last night for a very minor (what I thought) push off... They completely missed Percy Harvin's foot on the end line too until the replay booth looked at it even though an Official was literally right there looking at it. He was also latently interfered with before the catch which was not addressed.

 

 

 

Steelers Phins was a pretty interesting one too. (since we really can’t tell what happened, the Steelers can have the ball at the 1” line)

 

I am seeing a big problem with consistency this year. Is the game too fast for the Ref's to keep up anymore? I don't believe it is fixed but there is such inconsistency that the conspiracy theorists have all the examples they need to make their case.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

The first time he is tackled, by two guys, his forward motion is stopped, and he is knocked backwards about a yard, and has his feet on the ground. Then he is picked up and carried. Part of the blame, to be sure, is on the Bills linemen who are shoving the pile forward. BUT, and this is the key issue to me, the rule was designed just for these particular kinds of plays, where the ball-carrier is wrapped up by one or two guys, and the whistle is blown to protect him from being hit again by 2-3-4 more opposing players when he is helpless. That is why the play should have been ruled dead. Nelson himself wasn't really even fighting for the extra yards.

The time between his backwards motion and the forward motion (caused by three of his own teammates) is a spit second. The refs likely saw him getting another few yards forward and were giving him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously they weren't anticipating a fumble.

 

You can't review a nonblown whistle.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

No, a player can not be carried on any part of the field, so this can not happen.

 

 

 

As pointless and stupid as this post is, I will answer the question. Yes he would be out of bounds. But you can make up any juvenile scenario you want for just about any rule you want in order to make the rule sound stupid. The bottom line is if you remain in REALITY and not fantasy as you just portrayed, you can not have the rule be any different. Goal line stands and short yardage battles would literally be impossible to ref and therefore could never be a functioning rule in the NFL.

 

 

There probably is a way of improving the way to officiate that scenario, but the fortunate thing is it will probably not happen again. There has been heartburn over a few end zone possesion rulings this season.

 

The time between his backwards motion and the forward motion (caused by three of his own teammates) is a spit second. The refs likely saw him getting another few yards forward and were giving him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously they weren't anticipating a fumble.

 

You can't review a nonblown whistle.

 

 

Good things never seem to happen when Bills fight for extra yards. Parish's fumble was a second or third effort strip too.

 

A even sillier what if, that is a bit more likely to happen ...

 

A little WR like Roscoe jumps in the air to catch a ball and does, but a big LB catches him in the air and carries him out of bounds and drops him.

 

 

The difference with and with out the force out.

[Alphadawg7]

There probably is a way of improving the way to officiate that scenario, but the fortunate thing is it will probably not happen again. There has been heartburn over a few end zone possesion rulings this season.

 

Thats just it, there is a way, and we just changed from it last year. That was the force out rule...if this was 2009 then that would have been an INT under the force out rules as he clearly would have been in bounds without the contact with the player. The NFL changed that rule this year, and there are going to plays where that rule works in our favor and works against us. You cant have a rule that will definitively work in our favor...some times we benefit sometimes the opponent benefits depending if its us being forced our or them being forced out to create the incompletion.

 

Personally, I much prefer the force out rule as it is now. The old way was subject to interpretation in determining if the reciever was reasonably going to land in bounds. Now, there is no question...come down in bounds or you are out, which is the way it should be. If the defense makes a play to keep you from coming in bounds, thats a good play by them, why shouldnt it be out of bounds?

 

This case is literally nothing more than a force out rule situation. Funny thing is if the roles were reversed and the exact play happened with us on offense but the ref over turned it to be an INT this board would be in an uproar over it. No one would be claiming his elbow to be in as its clearly inconclusive.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

No, a player can not be carried on any part of the field, so this can not happen.

 

 

 

As pointless and stupid as this post is, I will answer the question. Yes he would be out of bounds. But you can make up any juvenile scenario you want for just about any rule you want in order to make the rule sound stupid. The bottom line is if you remain in REALITY and not fantasy as you just portrayed, you can not have the rule be any different. Goal line stands and short yardage battles would literally be impossible to ref and therefore could never be a functioning rule in the NFL.

 

 

Listen you maroon, I was taking things to an extreme to demonstrate a point. Obviously making points escapes you, but hey, I don't blame you. I blame your parents.