Did anyone else notice Reggie Corners elbow come down?

[pimp on da' net]

You're right, his right elbow did come in contact with the turf, but I couldn't tell if he was in bounds or not. The angle looked like it was in bounds, but I got to agree with the refs, there was no absolute proof he made contact.

We're over looking the obv here, he's on top of a player that's in the field of play putting him inbounds . All being said if that player is under him and in bounds, he would occupy that space. This brings me back to that NE game where N. Clements knocks D. Patten out on the sideline, while he's concussed & (has his leg out of bound) no possession of the ball. Bills recover the ball but the ref rule the ball out of play because of such ....UNREAL

[pimp on da' net]

As I said in one of the other threads about the non-INT

 

Another point that has been lost in all of this is the "Dead Patriot Laying Out of Bounds Thus Negating Recovery of Fumbles by Bills Rule" ... if Boldin is touching the white line in any way, while touching Corner (before Corner has established possession), then Corner is ruled out of bounds. I haven't gone back to look at the play, but by my recollection that is definitely a possibility.

 

It doesn't matter if Corner's elbow came down in bounds ... he was on top of Boldin whose back was touching the white stripe ... Corner is thus ruled out of bounds

I am thinking just the opposite on this, while Boldins in the field of play and Corner is touching his part of the body thats in play, makes it good. Anyway the refs blew this & we'll see a rule change after the winter meetings or before the play-off begin. Its just bad, I want us to bottom out, I want to get at least one win so as to not join the 0-16 club

[Alphadawg7]

We're over looking the obv here, he's on top of a player that's in the field of play putting him inbounds . All being said if that player is under him and in bounds, he would occupy that space. This brings me back to that NE game where N. Clements knocks D. Patten out on the sideline, while he's concussed & (has his leg out of bound) no possession of the ball. Bills recover the ball but the ref rule the ball out of play because of such ....UNREAL

 

Why are you comparing plays from a period of time where the force out rules were the exact opposite to what they are today?

 

This is not complicated at all:

 

1. 2010 force out rule means a player is out of bounds when forced out by any kind of legal contact from another player. Does not matter what kind of contact that is as long as its legal.

2. A player is NOT down until he establishes that in a legal fashion.

3. Touching a downed player while not down yourself does not establish yourself down. A players contact with the ground establishes a person down.

4. Play was ruled out of bounds initially and refs need conclusive proof to over turn it.

5. There was no conclusive proof as only the front of his elbow is visible to be in, but its exactly at the out of bounds line and you can not see if any part of his body is out of bounds or not.

6. Under replay rules, this play should not be over turned.

7. Refs did miss the PI call, but they missed it on CORNER as he used both arms to push off Boldin in the endzone to gain an advantageous position to even make the INT. How do you think Boldin hooked his arm in the first place? Because Corner had it in his chest as he was positioning to make the INT.

 

Summary: Bills did not get screwed on this play...should have honestly been a PI call on Corner, when it wasnt called and he made the great INT with one arm, it was incoclusive to whether or not he was in bounds and they could not over turn it.

 

Time to move on...it was a fun game, the offense and Fitz gave it one heck of an effort, its something to build on, but the Bills lost because the Bills beat themseles with 4 very costly turnovers against a more talented team. Its pretty hard to beat a team with so much more talent than you when you have 4 turnovers, all of which they scored points on.

 

I am thinking just the opposite on this, while Boldins in the field of play and Corner is touching his part of the body thats in play, makes it good. Anyway the refs blew this & we'll see a rule change after the winter meetings or before the play-off begin. Its just bad, I want us to bottom out, I want to get at least one win so as to not join the 0-16 club

 

This doesnt even make sense...a rule change because of a fluke play that affected a winless team?

 

First off, there was already a rule change that made this play possible. How does everyone keep over looking this point? The only rule that could have saved this play was the force out rule that existed up to last year.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Alphadawg7

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

Why are you comparing plays from a period of time where the force out rules were the exact opposite to what they are today?

 

This is not complicated at all:

 

1. 2010 force out rule means a player is out of bounds when forced out by any kind of legal contact from another player. Does not matter what kind of contact that is as long as its legal.

2. A player is NOT down until he establishes that in a legal fashion.

3. Touching a downed player while not down yourself does not establish yourself down. A players contact with the ground establishes a person down.

4. Play was ruled out of bounds initially and refs need conclusive proof to over turn it.

5. There was no conclusive proof as only the front of his elbow is visible to be in, but its exactly at the out of bounds line and you can not see if any part of his body is out of bounds or not.

6. Under replay rules, this play should not be over turned.

7. Refs did miss the PI call, but they missed it on CORNER as he used both arms to push off Boldin in the endzone to gain an advantageous position to even make the INT. How do you think Boldin hooked his arm in the first place? Because Corner had it in his chest as he was positioning to make the INT.

 

Summary: Bills did not get screwed on this play...should have honestly been a PI call on Corner, when it wasnt called and he made the great INT with one arm, it was incoclusive to whether or not he was in bounds and they could not over turn it.

 

Time to move on...it was a fun game, the offense and Fitz gave it one heck of an effort, its something to build on, but the Bills lost because the Bills beat themseles with 4 very costly turnovers against a more talented team. Its pretty hard to beat a team with so much more talent than you when you have 4 turnovers, all of which they scored points on.

 

 

 

This doesnt even make sense...a rule change because of a fluke play that affected a winless team?

 

First off, there was already a rule change that made this play possible. How does everyone keep over looking this point? The only rule that could have saved this play was the force out rule that existed up to last year.

I am the original poster and I moved on a long time ago. The Bills are bad and my only hope is that we can improve and get some additions for a better 2012 team. The reason I posted is not because I am crying over spilt milk. I just wanted someone that has more knowledge than I do to explain the out of bounds rule to me and I wanted to see if anyone had a better view of the elbow coming down because I don't own a DVR and can't freeze frame.

[Alphadawg7]

I am the original poster and I moved on a long time ago. The Bills are bad and my only hope is that we can improve and get some additions for a better 2012 team. The reason I posted is not because I am crying over spilt milk. I just wanted someone that has more knowledge than I do to explain the out of bounds rule to me and I wanted to see if anyone had a better view of the elbow coming down because I don't own a DVR and can't freeze frame.

 

No worries, it wasnt directed at you really, just in general as this topic has been done in several threads, chat rooms, etc constantly since the play occured and there are many in an uproar over this play. Funny thing is, if you truly ref this play correctly it is a PI call against Corner in the end zone making the INT a mute point anyway...yet so many people are still mad that no PI was called on Boldin when Corner first commits PI to be able to make the INT.

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

Rule has to get changes as it is stupid currently. If a players foot or any part of his body contacts an opposing player that is in bouds it should be considered in bounds as well. If not players can theoretically let Parrish catch a pass in the end zone in the air at the goal line and carry him out of bounds and deposit him behind the endzone even though he could be carried 10 yards or more and be considered a non-catch. Makes no sense this rule.

[pimp on da' net]

Why are you comparing plays from a period of time where the force out rules were the exact opposite to what they are today?

 

This is not complicated at all:

 

1. 2010 force out rule means a player is out of bounds when forced out by any kind of legal contact from another player. Does not matter what kind of contact that is as long as its legal.

2. A player is NOT down until he establishes that in a legal fashion.

3. Touching a downed player while not down yourself does not establish yourself down. A players contact with the ground establishes a person down.

4. Play was ruled out of bounds initially and refs need conclusive proof to over turn it.

5. There was no conclusive proof as only the front of his elbow is visible to be in, but its exactly at the out of bounds line and you can not see if any part of his body is out of bounds or not.

6. Under replay rules, this play should not be over turned.

7. Refs did miss the PI call, but they missed it on CORNER as he used both arms to push off Boldin in the endzone to gain an advantageous position to even make the INT. How do you think Boldin hooked his arm in the first place? Because Corner had it in his chest as he was positioning to make the INT.

 

Summary: Bills did not get screwed on this play...should have honestly been a PI call on Corner, when it wasnt called and he made the great INT with one arm, it was incoclusive to whether or not he was in bounds and they could not over turn it.

 

Time to move on...it was a fun game, the offense and Fitz gave it one heck of an effort, its something to build on, but the Bills lost because the Bills beat themseles with 4 very costly turnovers against a more talented team. Its pretty hard to beat a team with so much more talent than you when you have 4 turnovers, all of which they scored points on.

 

 

 

This doesnt even make sense...a rule change because of a fluke play that affected a winless team?

 

First off, there was already a rule change that made this play possible. How does everyone keep over looking this point? The only rule that could have saved this play was the force out rule that existed up to last year.

1)So in your analogy, as I'm trying to follow was the force out rule was the basis for the call and not possession? Because thats not what the refs ruled, they said he didn't have both feet in, over-looking he's lying on top of a player still in the field of play ( not that Boldin was out of bounds, making Corner out also) while trying to establish his footing, arm or a$$$. What ever happened to a knee= 2 feet, A$$ = 2 feet, etc?

 

2)Corner INT with Boldin....ARE YOU SERIOUS? SPEECHLESS

 

3)The basis for the rule change doesn't matter what or where a team place in the standing at any given time, its to correct a wrong or loop-hole in the rule. This is the NFL and these interpretation of the rule in the reg season determine the policies for the playoffs and superbowl..come on dude, I know your sharper than that?

[pimp on da' net]

Rule has to get changes as it is stupid currently. If a players foot or any part of his body contacts an opposing player that is in bouds it should be considered in bounds as well. If not players can theoretically let Parrish catch a pass in the end zone in the air at the goal line and carry him out of bounds and deposit him behind the endzone even though he could be carried 10 yards or more and be considered a non-catch. Makes no sense this rule.

THANK YOU...sometimes common sense is a rarity.

[Fezmid]

Seriously time to move on...

I think you should think about taking your own advice.... Nobody else is writing a dissertation about the play.

[PromoTheRobot]

Seriously time to move on.

 

Agreed. Now how about drafting that Maybin kid when we could have had Orakpo?

 

PTR

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

Geezus, how many times does this have to be stated...IT IS ILLEGAL TO PICK UP AND CARRY A PLAYER ANY WHERE ON THE FIELD, INCLUDING OUT OF BOUNDS...not yelling, just captializing to help make this clear as day.

 

The rule is SIMPLE: Establish yourself IN BOUNDS or you are out and any LEGAL contact can force you out. Picking up a player and carrying him out is NOT legal. And ONLY the ground can establish a player down or not and there is no other possible way to handle that.

 

If you actually understood NFL rules it would make sense, but you and many others choose to ingore all other rules to create illegal scenarios to some how prove the Bills got screwed, which they certainly did not.

 

All of this is a mute point anyway as by the definition of PI, Corner created PI in the first place by using both his arms against Boldins upper body to get position to make the INT and there should have been a flag thrown on Corner anyway. Initially, I thought, like many others, it was Boldin who first caused the PI until you rewatch the play where Corner creates what is ILLEGAL contact with Boldin while he is positioning himself to make the INT.

 

The best part about this is that if this play was reverse and that was us on offense you all would be arguing until you are blue in the face that it was NOT an INT...

 

Seriously time to move on...Bills lost because we turned the ball over FOUR times to a much more talented team, not because of a play the refs correctly handled in the fashion it developed.

 

 

 

Except there was no common sense used in his post as the scenario he painted violates other NFL rules and could never happen...

 

 

 

Whats with the guerilla marketing on here to get people to your site?

Except it looks to me like Parrish was pulled backwards out of the endzone after he was inbound with his body by 5 yards with his fooot on the idiot's. Obviously there might be a fatal flaw in the rules?

[Meathead]

seems like a whole lot of back luck chained together in that end of half series to give them a td

 

meh this team wasnt going 8-2 after this game to have a shot at a wc anyway, so if they were screwed out of a victory while playing great that isnt such a bad thing

[Spiderweb]

As I said in one of the other threads about the non-INT

 

Another point that has been lost in all of this is the "Dead Patriot Laying Out of Bounds Thus Negating Recovery of Fumbles by Bills Rule" ... if Boldin is touching the white line in any way, while touching Corner (before Corner has established possession), then Corner is ruled out of bounds. I haven't gone back to look at the play, but by my recollection that is definitely a possibility.

 

It doesn't matter if Corner's elbow came down in bounds ... he was on top of Boldin whose back was touching the white stripe ... Corner is thus ruled out of bounds

 

I too believe Corner's elbow did come down in the end zone, but you bring up a good point, and that is that Boldin was out of bounds with Corner on top of him (contact) before the elbow came down.

 

What I still don't believe about that play is how in the world did the ref's let the pass interference escape them. Boldin clearly had a firm grip on Corner's right arm. It was right there in front of them.

 

That's what was the horrible call.

[Alphadawg7]

I too believe Corner's elbow did come down in the end zone, but you bring up a good point, and that is that Boldin was out of bounds with Corner on top of him (contact) before the elbow came down.

 

What I still don't believe about that play is how in the world did the ref's let the pass interference escape them. Boldin clearly had a firm grip on Corner's right arm. It was right there in front of them.

 

That's what was the horrible call.

 

Just curious as to why you are not upset at them not calling PI on Corner who first comitted PI by using 2 hands to Boldins chest to gain the position he needed to make the INT in the first place...

[Fezmid]

Just curious as to why you are not upset at them not calling PI on Corner who first comitted PI by using 2 hands to Boldins chest to gain the position he needed to make the INT in the first place...

 

Because you're the only person who saw that (and the only person not taking the "just give it up" advice you're giving ).

[The_Philster]

Who's to say the refs even looked at his elbow? Criqui and Buerlein didn't even notice it.

 

PTR

the same announcers who thought Leodis was subbing for an injured Tim McGee or that Sunday was Ralph's birthday?

[The Senator]

They didn't know elbow counts.

They need to read Madden's book...

 

One Knee Equals Two Feet

 

(Not sure how many elbows = 2 feet, but the game's over & 'in the books' - time to ponder the next Bills' adventure!)

[akm0404]

You can't carry someone if you are in the air. It violates some law of physics, I think. Otherwise, two people could carry each other at the same time and float into space!

 

His elbow was close to being down in bounds, but close doesn't count.

 

Time to move on.

[T master]

As I said in one of the other threads about the non-INT

 

Another point that has been lost in all of this is the "Dead Patriot Laying Out of Bounds Thus Negating Recovery of Fumbles by Bills Rule" ... if Boldin is touching the white line in any way, while touching Corner (before Corner has established possession), then Corner is ruled out of bounds. I haven't gone back to look at the play, but by my recollection that is definitely a possibility.

 

It doesn't matter if Corner's elbow came down in bounds ... he was on top of Boldin whose back was touching the white stripe ... Corner is thus ruled out of bounds

 

 

 

Ya but that's kind of redundant because they said on ESPN last night (talking to the top NFL official) that if his foot wouldn't have landed on top of Boldins foot it would've been called an interception .

 

The only thing i got from listening to that official was that it didn't matter wear Boldin landed in relation to wear Corner did, only that Corner landed with one body part being his right foot in and no other body part hitting in bounds before landing out of bounds !!

 

So you statement that wear Boldin was (on the white line) or out of bounds in relevance to wear Corners was (according to the NFL official) has absolutely NO BEARING ON THE CALL MADE ON THE FIELD !!!

 

Oh by the way your welcome for clearing that up !!

Edited October 28, 2010 by T master

[Fezmid]

Ya but that's kind of redundant because they said on ESPN last night (talking to the top NFL official) that if his foot wouldn't have landed on top of Boldins foot it would've been called an interception .

 

The only thing i got from listening to that official was that it didn't matter wear Boldin landed in relation to wear Corner did, only that Corner landed with one body part being his right foot in and no other body part hitting in bounds before landing out of bounds !!

 

So you statement that wear Boldin was (on the white line) or out of bounds in relevance to wear Corners was (according to the NFL official) has absolutely NO BEARING ON THE CALL MADE ON THE FIELD !!!

 

Oh by the way your welcome for clearing that up !!

 

Did they talk about the elbow at all? The announcers didn't, and I still think it was in. Just curious if they brought it up and said, "inconclusive."