[Vague Title] Officiating

[pennstate10]

44 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

So if a receiver is standing out of bounds and catches the ball while the ball is still inside the line, its a completion?

 

When any part of a player is out of bounds, his whole body is out of bounds.  When the ball touches any part of the body of a player who is out of bounds, the ball is out of bounds.

Your example doesn’t distinguish between possessing and touching. That’s the problem with the rule. 
 

[balln]

1 hour ago, NBDawg15 said:

On the Pickens play, the ref closest to the play threw a bean bag, indicating fumble and therefore a catch.  Then they huddle and say incomplete.  Why was that the call on the field when the closest guy had it right in real time?

 

 

Spector seemingly recovered the ball inbounds in real time on the broadcast.  But the refs huddle and say out of bounds. Wouldn't the easier call have been the play was a fumble recovery which would be reviewed to see if it wasn't?

 

Feels like these "huddles" of refs may have NY in their ears as well and looking to create a more competitive game after 3/4 of the previous games had been lopsided.  Or the refs are just that terrible, hard to say.

Yes I see the head ref look down as if he’s trying to focus on what’s going thru his earpiece- New York BS

[BillsfaninCT]

they tried to keep pitt in the game and then karma served the league and pitt back pretty quickly in the endzone... like another said, NFL saw the blowout coming and not surprisingly, twice they incorrectly called it in favor of pitt but lucked out on that one because there wasn't a good camera angle of the ball not hitting his helmet so the NFL had "an out" to "let the call on the field stand" lolz.

 

i literally said to my wife, oh look, now the bills are getting penalties all of a sudden and they gift pitt the fumble lol, so predictable.  If you thought pitt wouldn't score on that drive 14-0 after the 1st penalty against the bills.... you haven't watched football this year LOL.  They gifted pitt the entire drive then couldn't do anything about the clean INT in the endzone... all pitt had to do was fake a PI or def hold and it's a TD.  i bet they could've just waved their hands for a flag and got one.

Edited January 16 by BillsfaninCT

[Alphadawg7]

39 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am not arguing but I am clarifying- I thought if a player was off the ground but hanging out of bounds he is out? I clearly remember a game against NE where they called it out when the players helmet was hanging over the sideline but nothing touched down. Obviously that could have just been poor officiating then also. Guy yesterday appeared to be off ground when he touched ball 

 

All good, but I don't think that is the case otherwise no player diving for the pylon would actually score a TD when part of their body is out of bounds while they are diving in the air and extending an arm to get the football to the pylon. 

 

NFL Rule states:  "Out Of Bounds A player is out of bounds when he touches any boundary line or touches anything — except a player, an official, or a pylon — that is on or outside a boundary line".'

 

So based on that, the Steelers player was not yet out of bounds, he was still in the air and had not yet come down out of bounds.  So whether the ball nicked his helmet or not is irrelevant because at the discussing point where the might have (but IMHO did not) touch his helmet, the player was not yet out of bounds and therefore could not make the ball out of bounds.  

 

But honestly, I think one of the other angles clearly shows it did not hit his helmet anyway.  

Edited January 16 by Alphadawg7

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, ImpactCorey said:

Notice the part where i said possession.  A receiver has to have possession and be in bounds for a catch.   I think the same should apply to a ball on the ground in play.  If you want that to count as out of bounds, you should have possession.  Its actually the same in both cases.  Your attempt at getting me actually proved my point.

 

A more appropriate comparison would be calling it a catch if a pass bounces off a players helmet.

Thanks.  I understand.  

 

So a receiver can be standing out of bounds and tip the ball to a teammate inbounds, and that's a catch?  That COULD be the rule, but it violates the basic idea that the game is played inside the lines, not outside.  

 

I note that it's the same rule in basketball:  if you're out of bounds and you touch the ball, the ball's out of bounds and the play stops.  

 

I agree with you that the rule COULD be that the ball is only out of bounds when it (1) touches the ground out of bounds or (2) is possessed by someone who is touching the ground out of bounds, but that isn't the rule.  

[ImpactCorey]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

So a receiver can be standing out of bounds and tip the ball to a teammate inbounds, and that's a catch?  That COULD be the rule, but it violates the basic idea that the game is played inside the lines, not outside.  

 

This is a great point and makes a good argument for the current rule.

[Shaw66]

33 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

Your example doesn’t distinguish between possessing and touching. That’s the problem with the rule. 
 

There is no distinction.  When you're touching out of bounds, if you touch the ball, the ball is out of bounds.  Possessing is just a different form of touching.  

 

Now, I find it interesting after reading a few posts here that the Pitt player whose helmet did or did not touch the ball actually was in the air over the line but not touching out of bounds when the ball did or did not touch his helmet.   If that's true, then even if the ball did touch his helmet, the ball's still in bounds.  

 

And on the broader, more sinister point, I wouldn't be surprised if New York has been told (probably not in writing) that if it's close, rule in favor of the losing team that is down by more than 8.   I've thought for years that the officials have been told that if it's close, spot the ball for a first down and move the chains immediately, because the NFL wants more offense.  

[Starr Almighty]

6 hours ago, Paul Costa said:

Seemed as though the officials were openly trying to help the Steelers stay in the game. The Pickens fumble  was a pretty easy play to overturn. But then the next fumble along the sideline was clearly a recovery by Spector in bounds. The official ( Carl Cheffers)said the ball was fumbled out of bounds. The replay clearly showed it was never touched by the Pittsburgh player who fumbled while being out of bounds. Horrible officiating, but what really bothered me was the lack of explanation coming out of the challenge. It really hurt the Bills as they couldn’t challenge again. Totally irresponsible of the officials to do this to one team. I feel the officials need to explain why they called the play the way they did. I know the officials have a post game press conference did anyone see or hear their explanation of that call? With all the legalized gambling the officiating needs to be 100% transparent. 

The real question is turnovers are always automatically reviewed. Why was McDermott forced to challenge not once  but twice

[ImpactCorey]

Just now, Starr Almighty said:

The real question is turnovers are always automatically reviewed. Why was McDermott forced to challenge not once  but twice

It has to actually be a turnover.  The call on the field was that it was NOT a turnover.

[Meatloaf63]

7 hours ago, Heavy Kevi said:

Yeah it was pretty egregious the way they manipulated the video with slow-mo to speed up a little just as they pretended it hit 'muths helmet.

 

Clearly the NFL was tired of all the lopsided wildcard matchups.

just watched it 3 times, his head does a jerking motion as the ball passes by, it makes it look like there is contact but the ball is not within a couple inches of the helmet. complete bs.

6 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

If the ball touches his helmet while he was out of bounds, then the fumble is out of bounds.  That's the rule.  That would make what Cheffers said true.  

Except it didn’t touch it came within a few inches and that’s it. the view from behind it’s obvious.

[Billzgobowlin]

7 hours ago, YattaOkasan said:

Be careful, steelers fans think the refs screwed them.  They are pointing to "fake" Josh slide, late hit, and DPI on 4th down as their examples.  I think they didnt get a TO off Josh like they all thought would happen, so they should just accept they lost.  

At no point were the Steelers in a position to tackle Josh, I don't even see how they would think that was a fake slide lol

[SDS]

[This is an automated response]

 

As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive topic titles. A better title will help the community find information faster and make your topic more likely to be read. The topic starter can edit the topic title line to make it more appropriate.

 

Thank you.

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

 

Except it didn’t touch it came within a few inches and that’s it. the view from behind it’s obvious.

That's what I thought when I saw the replays during the game.  That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about what the rule is. 

[Meatloaf63]

Here’s the real kicker, the ref on the field said Buffalo didn’t recover the ball in bounds indicating our guy didn’t have control of the ball before he slid out of bounds. The replay clearly showed he did, the question of hitting the helmet wasn’t brought up, so if they couldn’t tell whether it hit the helmet or not, that should not have been ruled on if it was inconclusive . 

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

That's what I thought when I saw the replays during the game.  That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about what the rule is. 

I’m not saying that. but what do you think of my last post? The call wasn’t that Pittsburgh touched it out of bounds it was Buffalo didn’t recover in bounds. So an inconclusive on hitting the helmet should not be the determining factor.

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Here’s the real kicker, the ref on the field said Buffalo didn’t recover the ball in bounds indicating our guy didn’t have control of the ball before he slid out of bounds. The replay clearly showed he did, the question of hitting the helmet wasn’t brought up, so if they couldn’t tell whether it hit the helmet or not, that should not have been ruled on if it was inconclusive . 

I’m not saying that. but what do you think of my last post? The call wasn’t that Pittsburgh touched it out of bounds it was Buffalo didn’t recover in bounds. So an inconclusive on hitting the helmet should not be the determining factor.

Yeah, that's interesting, too.  The guy on CBS's broadcast, the former ref who comments on these things, said that if the ruling being reviewed is whether there was a clear recovery in bounds.   That implies that the ruling on the ruling on the field was a fumble.  Then he said that in that circumstance they cannot look at other aspects of the play and overturn the ruling on the field, so the ball being out of bounds before the recovery wasn't supposed to be reviewed.    But that's different from what I've heard at other times, which is that the review CAN include other aspects of the play.  They can't call penalties, but they can review other aspects.   

 

I haven't gotten too wrapped in it, either at the time or later, because I think that it's not worth worrying about reviews of bang-bang plays like that.  But I thought one replay showed the ball didn't hit the helmet, so it seemed clear to me it was a fumble, and everyone here says it also was clear that the recovery was completed in bounds, so the Bills should have gotten the ball. I'm glad the game didn't turn on that play.  

[Paul Costa]

51 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Here’s the real kicker, the ref on the field said Buffalo didn’t recover the ball in bounds indicating our guy didn’t have control of the ball before he slid out of bounds. The replay clearly showed he did, the question of hitting the helmet wasn’t brought up, so if they couldn’t tell whether it hit the helmet or not, that should not have been ruled on if it was inconclusive . 

I’m not saying that. but what do you think of my last post? The call wasn’t that Pittsburgh touched it out of bounds it was Buffalo didn’t recover in bounds. So an inconclusive on hitting the helmet should not be the determining factor.

Exactly my point. Call was wrong. Would love to hear Carl Cheffers explanation 

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

All good, but I don't think that is the case otherwise no player diving for the pylon would actually score a TD when part of their body is out of bounds while they are diving in the air and extending an arm to get the football to the pylon. 

 

NFL Rule states:  "Out Of Bounds A player is out of bounds when he touches any boundary line or touches anything — except a player, an official, or a pylon — that is on or outside a boundary line".'

 

So based on that, the Steelers player was not yet out of bounds, he was still in the air and had not yet come down out of bounds.  So whether the ball nicked his helmet or not is irrelevant because at the discussing point where the might have (but IMHO did not) touch his helmet, the player was not yet out of bounds and therefore could not make the ball out of bounds.  

 

But honestly, I think one of the other angles clearly shows it did not hit his helmet anyway.  

That is actually pretty clear so you are definitely correct.

[Paul Costa]

And now this week we have Hockli’s crew coming in. Remember the Philly game this year. All the PI’s against the Bills not called. The horse collar right in front of the head official and he called grounding. Then the other phantom grounding penalty. The Brown fumble in OT could have went either way but with all the other blown calls I’m anticipating a total ***** show. Pretty sure this is the same crew that didn’t call PI on the packers at the end of the game vs chiefs. This could get really ugly with Mahomes running around like a Man Baby begging for a penalty on every play. It’s best to prepare for these things so you don’t throw something somewhere when the ***** show starts. 

[Coldfronts]

https://youtu.be/Nu9yFCuVzhE?si=cSq9kn3R-i2cERdz

[PromoTheRobot]

2 minutes ago, Coldfronts said:

https://youtu.be/Nu9yFCuVzhE?si=cSq9kn3R-i2cERdz

 

It's funny because that's really how they feel.