Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Seahawks Monday Night Miracle II
- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
NERam.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 5, 2015 at 11:39 pm #31826
NERamParticipantSomething about this team on Monday night.
Intentional batting of the ball out of the endzone, should have been a penalty against Seattle? Ball would have been Detroit ball on the 1/2 yard line… ???
A lot of confusion on the rule and the call.
October 6, 2015 at 8:49 am #31829
DakParticipantThe NFL’s officiating is a joke. You don’t know the rule there? Jesus, man. This is supposed to be the most popular sport in the U.S. The NFL acts like it’s the best sports product money can buy. And, their officials don’t know the rules. Wright obviously knocked the ball out of the endzone, and the official was looking right at it. No call. Unbelievable. And, this time, there weren’t any replacement refs.
October 6, 2015 at 8:59 am #31831
znModeratorPatriots clinched a 2013 win after correct illegal batting call
Zac Jackson on October 6, 2015
Two years ago, an illegal batting call affected a game between the Dolphins and Patriots.
In that case, the rule was properly applied. You know, just in case the Lions’ flight back to Detroit could be any more miserable.
The Patriots defeated the Dolphins, 27-17, on Oct. 27, 2013. With the Patriots leading 20-17 in the fourth quarter and facing a second and seven at the Miami 23, quarterback Tom Brady fumbled after getting hit by Dolphins defensive back Jimmy Wilson.
Patriots tackle Nate Solder recovered, way back at the Miami 48. The ball moved that far down the field because Dolphins defensive end Olivier Vernon hit the ball while it was loose, and the officials ruled that Vernon had committed an illegal batting of the ball, applying a 10-yard penalty from the line of scrimmage.
Such a play, as we were reminded late Monday night in the aftermath of the Seahawks-Lions ending, is not reviewable.
The Patriots ended up with a first down at the Dolphins’ 13 after the penalty and scored four plays later to make it 27-17.
The Patriots essentially gained 35 yards on that sequence because there was intent in Vernon’s actions on the play. Rule 12-4-1(a) explains that an illegal bat occurs if “a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent’s goal line. While Rule 12-4-1(a) doesn’t expressly require intent, Rule 3-2-5(g) defines illegal batting as “the intentional striking of the ball with hand, fist, elbow, or forearm.”
The back judge watching K.J Wright Monday night didn’t see fit to throw a flag. So, the Seahawks won the game and the NFL has admitted Wright’s bat should have been flagged but wasn’t.
October 6, 2015 at 9:09 am #31833
AgamemnonParticipantTechnically, isn’t the boundary of the end zone past the goal line? 😉
AgamemnonOctober 6, 2015 at 10:01 am #31839
wvParticipantEnh. Woulda been a BS call, imho.
Chancellor made another all-pro play — keep the BS
calls out of the game.w
vOctober 6, 2015 at 1:41 pm #31842
joemadParticipantI was pulling for Detroit, but…….
1) Calvin Johnson fumbled, he shouldn’t have fumbled.
2) Even if the ball wasn’t batted by Seattle, but rolled out of bounds, it would’ve been ruled a touchback.a while back, On one of these Ram boards, there was a topic once that asked posters if there was 1 rule you could change, what would it be?????. I stated that it was this. I hate this rule, regardless if it was batted or not.
If an offensive player loses a fumble on the 1 yard line and the ball rolls into the endzone then out of bounds in the endzone, the offense loses possession and the opponent gets the ball on the 20, even though the opponent never has possession of the ball…. … that’s a very suck rule… because that rule does not apply if the ball rolled out of bounds on the 1 yard line. The offense would retain the ball where the ball rolled out of bounds if it happened on the field of play with the exception of the endzone…..
That is a suck rule.
October 6, 2015 at 2:22 pm #31843DakParticipantDoesn’t matter if you like it, it’s a rule. The rule should be applied. The players should know the rules. The officials should know the rules. And, the rules should be applied, or why have rules?
And, in this case, I can see why it’s a rule. Wright hit the ball out of bounds to make sure the other team couldn’t recover it, and he didn’t have to worry about grabbing it. It’s easier to just bat the ball. What is this, volleyball? It’s football … he should have grabbed it, with his foot, I guess.
October 6, 2015 at 4:30 pm #31850NERamParticipanthttp://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/controversy-surrounds-seahawks-win-over-lions/ar-AAf90pX
1). The back judge was on the play and in his judgment he didn’t feel it was an overt act so he didn’t throw the flag,” Blandino said.
2). Wright said he did not know the rule and was purposely guiding the ball over the end line.
“That was definitely the thought process just to get the ball out of bounds and not try to catch it and fumble it and hit my foot and the Lions recover it,” Wright said.
Couple interesting points here. The official said he did not feel it was an overt attempt, so he decided against it. The reason I find it interesting is because I watched the game (kinda hoping for a Lion win and a 1-3 Seahawks record), and then the post game show. Ray Lewis and Steve Young were both confused regarding the rule, and then the non call. The indication regarding the back judges came from NY almost, it seemed, 30-40 minutes later. Almost as if that’s the amount of time it took to generate the Corporate Statement, if you will. League Office – Yeah, they blew it, but it REALLY was an interpretation issue, not a case where folks didn’t know the rules. That’s what they want you to believe, anyhow.
And so, looking at Wrights statement, 1). He himself did not know the rule. And, 2). He in fact did, quite intentionally, push the ball out of bounds.
So, maybe, if we’re thinking of eliminating bogus rules, we eliminate those where interpretation can be applied. Not sure how you do that, though.
Another point regarding the bouncing ball, and whether or not a penalty should have been assessed – although it did look as though the ball would have continued out, you can’t accurately say that definitely would have happened. That little pointy end on each side of the ball dictates ball travel. How many times have we seen punts hit and then shoot backwards or sideways into a players foot or leg. How many times have we laughed at replays of attempted fumble recoveries by multiple players, as the ball squirts around. What if Wright tried to pick it up to gain possession, and couldn’t control it, and Detroit fell on it for a TD?
Last point regarding this. After many minutes of wrangling this issue, with both Lewis and Young stating that they had seen this happen multiple times during their careers, they seemed to accept the fact that yes, many QBs and Kickers do swat the ball out of bounds, intentionally. And the reason they do that is to incur a Safety, giving up 2 points, as opposed to letting the other team fall on the ball for a TD. Main point here? There is a penalty added with that action. What happened last night was wrong because there was no penalty assessed. In clear violation of the rule.
October 6, 2015 at 5:17 pm #31851DakParticipantWell, it was really obvious that Wright intentionally swatted the ball out of bounds. I don’t know how the ref could think otherwise.
October 6, 2015 at 6:29 pm #31854NERamParticipantWell, it was really obvious that Wright intentionally swatted the ball out of bounds. I don’t know how the ref could think otherwise.
I dunno. Based on the length of time it took the League to respond, it just seemed like they knew the ref blew it, and that statement was developed as their Teflon coat to prevent further damage.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
