Mike Pereira Gives Up

[darvon]

I complain a lot about the rules being so obtuse that no one can figure them out anymore.

I did enjoy when Mike P. gave up trying to figure out the rules in the NYG game.


There were 4 big oopsies that I saw yesterday.

The issue where NO fumbled, and the on field ruling was Dallas recovery, and MikeP said a review couldn't change WHO recovered the fumble, and the the review changed the fumble to NO recovery.

The TD for BAL, where the receiver caught the ball, turned around, got two feet in bounds, stretched for the goalline, crossed it, and then when he slammed to the ground, lost the ball out of bounds. Mike P called it "2nd act" obviously. Refs called it no catch.

The fumble by Eli where Eli got hit, ball came out, Ravens picked it up, advanced it, then fumbled it and NYG recovered. MikeP said something about defense cant advance a fumble??? What??? Refs said a pass, not fumble, but MikeP said if BAL challenged, and it was found to be a fumble, then it would be down with the first recovery. What??? But BAL didn't challenge.


And the hit by Seattle on the SF receiver, which was textbook, but massive, so got flagged.


Again, all 4 of these issues are NOT about whether the refs missed something, but rather that the arcane level of the rules allow undisputed, vidoetaped, facts to lead to different conclusions.


I can't believe after all this time, we are still trying to figure out what is a "Catch".

They modified this rule to make it easier to judge. Did it? I think a more straight forward rule might serve us better.

[vancemeek]

On the first one I got the feeling that the ref just signaled wrong and the refs got together and fixed it, not replay. I didn't watch the game, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[FrzzerBwler]

Agree on NO/Dallas fumble. I wrote yesterday for reasons unknown backjudge ruled Dallas recovered, but I do think he just brain cramped and signaled the wrong direction. What I still do not understand is Pereira saying it was not reviewable.Why not, it was a turnover?

On the first one I got the feeling that the ref just signaled wrong and the refs got together and fixed it, not replay. I didn't watch the game, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[buzmeg]

On the first one I got the feeling that the ref just signaled wrong and the refs got together and fixed it, not replay. I didn't watch the game, so correct me if I'm wrong.

I watched the game and I agree with your comment. The ball was clearly recovered by NO's Graham at the two and the ref just made the wrong call. It was corrected before the replay was invoked.

Siragusa was in the back of the endzone at the time and announced that the refs changed the original call.

[wxwax]

I don't think the official was signaling who won the turnover. I think he was pointing back up field to a place where he thought there might have been an earlier infraction. I only saw it live and my memory is fuzzy about what he thought might have happened upfield. But it looked pretty clear to me that he was pointing, rather than ruling possession.

[buzmeg]

Here is a video of the play:
http://bit.ly/W27hdy

[wxwax]

Here is a video of the play:
http://bit.ly/W27hdy

Thanks. That confirms what I thought. Neither official at the site of the fumble recovery gave a formal signal that it was first down Cowboys.

Both pointed upfield. Neither raised his hand above his shoulder.

I think they were pointing to the site of the original fumble, because both thought that the receiver might not have established possession.

Could be wrong, but neither of those hand signals looked like an official first down signal to my eyes. The official signal is the hand clearly above the shoulder, isn't it? And when they give the signal, they're typically very authoritative about it, and neither official was.

[SpartaChris]

I'd still like to know why Cam Newton wasn't ejected.

[wxwax]

Didn't look like he was trying to hit the ref, to me. The flag was for verbal abuse, I read. If there was contact, to me it looked unintentional. For sure he was trying to intimidate the ref, tho.

[packa7x]

The issue where NO fumbled, and the on field ruling was Dallas recovery, and MikeP said a review couldn't change WHO recovered the fumble, and the the review changed the fumble to NO recovery.

The TD for BAL, where the receiver caught the ball, turned around, got two feet in bounds, stretched for the goalline, crossed it, and then when he slammed to the ground, lost the ball out of bounds. Mike P called it "2nd act" obviously. Refs called it no catch.

The fumble by Eli where Eli got hit, ball came out, Ravens picked it up, advanced it, then fumbled it and NYG recovered. MikeP said something about defense cant advance a fumble??? What??? Refs said a pass, not fumble, but MikeP said if BAL challenged, and it was found to be a fumble, then it would be down with the first recovery. What??? But BAL didn't challenge.

And the hit by Seattle on the SF receiver, which was textbook, but massive, so got flagged.

For the most part, they're pretty simple.

-If there was a scrum (didn't see the play) in the NOLA/Dal game, you can't change who has possession after the call has been made. If its in the open field, it's 100% reviewable. Rationale being that the ball changes hands a dozen times in the scrum.

-Baltimore TD, from the way you described it, Mike P was 100% right. Possession, 2 feet down in the field of play, extension of the body (2nd move) ball crosses the plane, that's a TD.

-Fumble play, not 100% sure on this one, but my assumption is this: I know that on offense, only the fumbling player may advance the ball, everyone else may only fall on it. The league put that rule in to avoid a big scrum of bodies and intentional fumbles. My guess is that the defense then becomes the offense? Not sure, will look into it.

-if you're talking about the Seattle hit on the sidelines, it was a penalty....defenseless. Straight forward there.