The Dean Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Chewbacca is a Wookie... 568727[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jukester Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 The "football" move is not cited in your post, yet it is a rule...no? 568726[/snapback] Yeah, NFL.com only has an official "rules digest" and it does not make any reference to it. That's why I asked for a link. I couldn't find the official rulebook online anywhere. No doubt that the interpretation by the official that reviewed the play was based on some obscure verbage found in the rulebook. And for that I don't blame the official, I blame the NFL. No one in their right mind using common sense would say that was an incomplete pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 Yeah, NFL.com only has an official "rules digest" and it does not make any reference to it. That's why I asked for a link. I couldn't find the official rulebook online anywhere. No doubt that the interpretation by the official that reviewed the play was based on some obscure verbage found in the rulebook. And for that I don't blame the official, I blame the NFL. No one in their right mind using common sense would say that was an incomplete pass 568751[/snapback] You dont blame the official??and you have no idea what the verbage was???--that makes sense??--wait til you know what the verbage is--and my guess is that the official is functionally illiterate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jukester Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 You dont blame the official??and you have no idea what the verbage was???--that makes sense??--wait til you know what the verbage is--and my guess is that the official is functionally illiterate. 568757[/snapback] Sure it does. Don't you remember the "Tuck Rule." Same exact scenario. The official made the right call there (according to the rules), when at the time everyone was calling him names much worse than "functionally illiterate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 Sure it does. Don't you remember the "Tuck Rule." Same exact scenario. The official made the right call there (according to the rules), when at the time everyone was calling him names much worse than "functionally illiterate" 568766[/snapback] different scenario.The tuck rule was on the books.This isnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Yeah, NFL.com only has an official "rules digest" and it does not make any reference to it. That's why I asked for a link. I couldn't find the official rulebook online anywhere. No doubt that the interpretation by the official that reviewed the play was based on some obscure verbage found in the rulebook. And for that I don't blame the official, I blame the NFL. No one in their right mind using common sense would say that was an incomplete pass 568751[/snapback] IMO, the NFL are many stupid rules/interpretations. Fumbling into the end zone and out of bounds and the other team get the ball? What the hell is THAT all about? The tuck rule. A "football" move, etc. This is probably a bad rule, with a questionable interpretation by the officials. That some of us don't understand the ruling (which hasn't been fully explaned by the league yet...but will be) doesn't make it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jukester Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 different scenario.The tuck rule was on the books.This isnt. 568781[/snapback] How do you know it's not on the books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 IMO, the NFL are many stupid rules/interpretations. Fumbling into the end zone and out of bounds and the other team get the ball? What the hell is THAT all about? The tuck rule. A "football" move, etc. This is probably a bad rule, with a questionable interpretation by the officials. That some of us don't understand the ruling (which hasn't been fully explaned by the league yet...but will be) doesn't make it wrong. 568786[/snapback] I agree that the fumbling out of bounds rule is moronic...and that the tuck rule is moronic as well.....but this---unless it is clearly stated--would be a hard one to believe.It is my opinion at this point that the official misinterpreted--under pressure- some rule that he saw on the books. Lets not assume that a rule exists which makes that not an interception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jukester Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 IMO, the NFL are many stupid rules/interpretations. Fumbling into the end zone and out of bounds and the other team get the ball? What the hell is THAT all about? The tuck rule. A "football" move, etc. This is probably a bad rule, with a questionable interpretation by the officials. That some of us don't understand the ruling (which hasn't been fully explaned by the league yet...but will be) doesn't make it wrong. 568786[/snapback] Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 How do you know it's not on the books? 568791[/snapback] I don't--good point.But I would be astounded if it was. You--on the other hand cant assume that it is on the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jukester Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I don't--good point.But I would be astounded if it was. You--on the other hand cant assume that it is on the books. 568798[/snapback] Hey I wasn't assuming it was on the books. My point was that the only possible explanation for that call is that some obscure rule exists somewhere in the rulebook. I don't buy "the official is an idiot" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 different scenario.The tuck rule was on the books.This isnt. 568781[/snapback] Sure it is, I'm sure that there is a memo floating around somewhere explaining an interpretation of this very same situation. It will be released publicly tomorrow for all to see. Geez what a bunch of non believers we have at this board. Give the refs some credit, it's not like they made bunch of other bad calls throught the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Yeah, NFL.com only has an official "rules digest" and it does not make any reference to it. That's why I asked for a link. I couldn't find the official rulebook online anywhere. No doubt that the interpretation by the official that reviewed the play was based on some obscure verbage found in the rulebook. And for that I don't blame the official, I blame the NFL. No one in their right mind using common sense would say that was an incomplete pass 568751[/snapback] This is some of the worst officiating I have ever seen in a game much less a playoff game! The non pass interference call that should have been called against Indy in the 2nd. The non penalty against Pitt or Indy in the 4th on 4th down when Pitt did a non called false start and then Indy encrouched. The obvious INT by Pitt taken away in the 4th. These are just the obvious possible game deciding ones. There were numerous other non calls or bad calls for both teams. Bottom line is that even if the officials made the right call on the INT according to the books, the NFL should be ashamed of their rules and this officiating crew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 Hey I wasn't assuming it was on the books. My point was that the only possible explanation for that call is that some obscure rule exists somewhere in the rulebook. I don't buy "the official is an idiot" argument. 568802[/snapback] Well---thats slightly different than what you first implied---but LETS HOPE that that is the ONLY possible explanation for that cal(it being some obscure rule on the books)--because if it ISN'T on the books---then the ref IS an idiot.You are assuming that some weird rule is on the books---and only thru that weird rule is the ref NOT an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts