Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 You were free to start your own. There was no need to. Refs miss many calls. That's not news, nor is it worth another thread. And this "missed call" was of zero significance.
Johnny Hammersticks Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I said game winning TD, it was the 3rd TD. I re-watched the play, and I see what you're saying. Blown call, but you included the "no conspiracy" disclosure. I don't understand why you're taking so much heat. Just making an observation. F the *Pats There was no need to. Refs miss many calls. That's not news, nor is it worth another thread. And this "missed call" was of zero significance. It was a freaking TD play. No significance?
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 No, it's one of the most fundamental rules at every level of football. Only the outside guy on the LOS is eligible. Both side, every play. http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/forwardpass It's in the first paragraph of forward pass rules/ A forward pass may be touched or caught by any eligible receiver. All members of the defensive team are eligible. Eligible receivers on the offensive team are players on either end of line (other than center, guard, or tackle) or players at least one yard behind the line at the snap. A T-formation quarterback is not eligible to receive a forward pass during a play from scrimmage.
RyanC883 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Yep. I think they just blew it. look at it. There is no question. The ball is at the 6. Edelman and Lafell are both right on the 6. That's one of the most fundamental things. If Collinsworth is right, which I never heard before, than it should have been a 15 yarder. I always thought it was only an automatic 15 yarder if the punter didnt have a chance to land, which he did. Overall I thought the refs did a good job. The refs were generally awful all around all game. The no PI call on the Pats when the Pats tripped the Seattle WR, the roughing the Punter. They have been terrible all year.
Freddie's Dead Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Good call. Clear illegal formation by the Cheats. LaFell is on the LOS (5 yard line) at the bottom of the screen. Edelman and Amendola are lined up on the 6, in the backfield. That leaves the LT uncovered, so he is eligible. That leaves 6 eligible instead of 5. Clear illegal formation, nice catch by the OP.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 There was no need to. Refs miss many calls. That's not news, nor is it worth another thread. And this "missed call" was of zero significance. There was 8 minutes to go in the game and they were down by 10
Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I re-watched the play, and I see what you're saying. Blown call, but you included the "no conspiracy" disclosure. I don't understand why you're taking so much heat. Just making an observation. F the *Pats It was a freaking TD play. No significance? Come on, a guy being half a yard too close to the line had nothing to do with the outcome of the play. It changed nothing, fooled no one.
Johnny Hammersticks Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Come on, a guy being half a yard too close to the line had nothing to do with the outcome of the play. It changed nothing, fooled no one. It was ILLEGAL you dolt! No one saying there is some kind of conspiracy. Just an accurate observation. What is your problem?
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 Good call. Clear illegal formation by the Cheats. LaFell is on the LOS (5 yard line) at the bottom of the screen. Edelman and Amendola are lined up on the 6, in the backfield. That leaves the LT uncovered, so he is eligible. That leaves 6 eligible instead of 5. Clear illegal formation, nice catch by the OP. No, Edelman was on the 6. The ball was on the 6. Lafell was on the 6. Thats why it was illegal. Amendola was a step back. Come on, a guy being half a yard too close to the line had nothing to do with the outcome of the play. It changed nothing, fooled no one. He was on the line.
SDS Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 There was no need to. Refs miss many calls. That's not news, nor is it worth another thread. And this "missed call" was of zero significance. Send us your number and when we need an expert opinion on whether a 10+ year poster has a right to create a thread discussing a football play we will be sure to give you a call.
wnyguy Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 And what about Brady simulating a snap on the one yard line? No call there either.
Bubba Gump Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 When I heard Collingsworth say hitting the punter in the plant/landing leg was an automatic 15 yarded, I was like huh, never heard that said before. Always thought it was a judgement call as to how bad the hit was.
Freddie's Dead Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 It was ILLEGAL you dolt! No one saying there is some kind of conspiracy. Just an accurate observation. What is your problem? Too many amyls. No, Edelman was on the 6. The ball was on the 6. Lafell was on the 6. Thats why it was illegal. Amendola was a step back. He was on the line. Wrong, the ball was snapped from the 5 yard line.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 Edelman was on the line and no one covered him. The LB just let him go.
Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 It was ILLEGAL you dolt! No one saying there is some kind of conspiracy. Just an accurate observation. What is your problem? No problem, just pointing out that this type of illegality is probably missed routinely if the OP went back and reviewed all offensive snaps in all games. It didn't cause the TD to happen, no one on Seattle was covering the LT as though eligible. If Seattle had won on a play like this, we wouldn't be discussing it in a thread like this.
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Good call. Clear illegal formation by the Cheats. LaFell is on the LOS (5 yard line) at the bottom of the screen. Edelman and Amendola are lined up on the 6, in the backfield. That leaves the LT uncovered, so he is eligible. That leaves 6 eligible instead of 5. Clear illegal formation, nice catch by the OP. No. LaFell covered the LT. The formation was legal.
Mr. WEO Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Send us your number and when we need an expert opinion on whether a 10+ year poster has a right to create a thread discussing a football play we will be sure to give you a call. He certainly has the right to. I just didn't think it was a significant play to isolate as a thread, that's all.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 Too many amyls. Wrong, the ball was snapped from the 5 yard line. Then they were all in the backfield. It doesn't matter where the ball was anyway. TWO GUYS were on the same side of the field at the LOS. One guy behind it. That makes the inside guy illegal regardless of where the ball was snapped unless there was no RB, but there was
truth on hold Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I don't think officiating determined outcome.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 No problem, just pointing out that this type of illegality is probably missed routinely if the OP went back and reviewed all offensive snaps in all games. It didn't cause the TD to happen, no one on Seattle was covering the LT as though eligible. If Seattle had won on a play like this, we wouldn't be discussing it in a thread like this. Wrong again. The guy who was playing the TE position was Edelman and no one covered him. The LB just watched him run the route. Edelman was the ineligible receiver.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts