View Poll Results: What is you opinion of each of these three calls?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good Call! Golden Tate had become a runner. That was a TD!

    3 50.00%
  • Bad Call! Golden Tate was stripped. That was an INT!

    2 33.33%
  • I have no idea.

    1 16.67%
  • Good Call! Calvin was guilty of OPI!

    3 50.00%
  • Bad Call! He was engaged with his man!

    2 33.33%
  • I have no idea.

    1 16.67%
  • Good Call! The ball touched Corey Fuller's foot!

    1 16.67%
  • Bad Call! Corey Fuller was pushed into the ball!

    3 50.00%
  • I have no idea.

    2 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Good Calls or Bad Calls?

  1. Good Calls or Bad Calls?

    Please offer your opinions of the following calls:

    The Call: Touchdown



    The Call: Offensive Pass Interference



    The Call: Corey Fuller touched the ball, was not ruled to be "passive", ball was awarded to Chicago

    Workin' on mysteries without any clues

  2. The CJ one is a bit ticky tack, but probably the right call. The play happened about 6" past the one-yard mark.

    Workin' on mysteries without any clues

  3. #3
    Clearly, I disagree with the TD call. I don't care that he wasn't going to the ground initially. He ended up there and the strip began the motion of him to end up there. Someone pointed out that Tyler Eifert was robbed of a TD because he had a catch that satisfied Blandino's explanation. My biggest problem with the rules is that they are now written in a way where a play can become something different than what our eyes tell us. The original Megatron ruling looked like a catch. Dez Bryant's play looked like a catch. Tate's play looked like a fumbled ball that popped in the air. Look, I'll admit it. I don't know what a catch is and I probably should know every permutation of the rule better, but I think there is a fundamental problem when the rules state that something is different than what it looks like.

    The Megatron block there is a good call that isn't called enough. That's a pick disguised as the receiver "blocking" his man. Which, would be illegal that far down the field anyway (another thing rarely called on screens). A large percentage of screens in the league are illegal.

    Chicago should not have gotten the ball on that punt.
    As a writer, I'm like the last girl at the bar. In the morning, you may regret asking for my services, but I'll get the job done. As long as I don't puke on your floor.

    Twitter: @PolishedSports

  4. #4
    My other problem with the TD ruling is that the defender began his act to strip the ball as Tate was making the catch. The successful strip was the result of the end of that action. Why does that action not count, but Tate turning into a runner does? Many other rules (including others dealing with catches) state things about completing an action before another can begin, so why does the goal line boundary negate this? Heck, if we want to get so technical with everything, let's just add more rules...... (which is stupid, but there's not much turning back now).
    As a writer, I'm like the last girl at the bar. In the morning, you may regret asking for my services, but I'll get the job done. As long as I don't puke on your floor.

    Twitter: @PolishedSports

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Rich Gapinski View Post
    Clearly, I disagree with the TD call. I don't care that he wasn't going to the ground initially. He ended up there and the strip began the motion of him to end up there. Someone pointed out that Tyler Eifert was robbed of a TD because he had a catch that satisfied Blandino's explanation. My biggest problem with the rules is that they are now written in a way where a play can become something different than what our eyes tell us. The original Megatron ruling looked like a catch. Dez Bryant's play looked like a catch. Tate's play looked like a fumbled ball that popped in the air. Look, I'll admit it. I don't know what a catch is and I probably should know every permutation of the rule better, but I think there is a fundamental problem when the rules state that something is different than what it looks like.

    The Megatron block there is a good call that isn't called enough. That's a pick disguised as the receiver "blocking" his man. Which, would be illegal that far down the field anyway (another thing rarely called on screens). A large percentage of screens in the league are illegal.

    Chicago should not have gotten the ball on that punt.
    You cannot fumble a ball you did not first possess. If that was a fumble, it happened after the ball had broken the plane of the end zone. That means Tate possessed the ball in the end zone. Therefore, that is a TD.

    That is the only way I can make sense of this chicanery. Devonta Freeman's stolen TD, Dez' stolen TD (in a playoff game, no less!), Eifert, Megatron...

    Grrr...
    Workin' on mysteries without any clues

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,926
    Blog Entries
    10
    To me, I thought that Tate play should have been an interception for one reason. It never looked to me, on the replay that I saw, that Tate ever had possession. If he does, TD, end of play. If he doesn't, which is how I saw it, then it should be an interception.
    "False Start everyone but the center." Gene Steretore. Pats vs Jets. 12/24/16.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Sullivan View Post
    You cannot fumble a ball you did not first possess. If that was a fumble, it happened after the ball had broken the plane of the end zone. That means Tate possessed the ball in the end zone. Therefore, that is a TD.

    That is the only way I can make sense of this chicanery. Devonta Freeman's stolen TD, Dez' stolen TD (in a playoff game, no less!), Eifert, Megatron...

    Grrr...
    Poor use of words. In the parlance of the discussion, I should have used "bobbled" or "juggled" or even "never possessed." It looked like one of those calls that deal with fumbles, though, where the question is when the ball came out. IMO, due to the strip action, it was always coming out. I think we just agree that this rules crap is a mess.
    As a writer, I'm like the last girl at the bar. In the morning, you may regret asking for my services, but I'll get the job done. As long as I don't puke on your floor.

    Twitter: @PolishedSports

  8. #8
       
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Trumpetbdw's basement
    Posts
    2,077
    Had the ball touched the ground, would it have been ruled incomplete?

    Feels like interception should have been the ruling on the Tate score. The rule has always been explained that if a player is contacted prior to both feet hitting the ground, and the hit results in him going to the ground, he must complete the catch through the point of reaching the ground.
    "I will never give a motivational speech to my players. If I have to motivate you, I will fire you."

    -Chuck Noll

  9. #9
    And, to be even more clear, I think the Tate call was correct in the way the rule is currently written. I still voted "no," anyway. That's because my overall stance is still why is there no strip attempt caveat? And spite, I definitely voted "no" due to the remaining saltiness I still have over a few important calls in the game. If the rule is so detailed and to describe things like the famous "becoming a runner" part of the description, then it makes no sense to not have a strip as part of the consideration.

    And, yes, I am basically copying and pasting all of this into "Blitz Picks."
    As a writer, I'm like the last girl at the bar. In the morning, you may regret asking for my services, but I'll get the job done. As long as I don't puke on your floor.

    Twitter: @PolishedSports

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Williams View Post
    Had the ball touched the ground, would it have been ruled incomplete?

    Feels like interception should have been the ruling on the Tate score. The rule has always been explained that if a player is contacted prior to both feet hitting the ground, and the hit results in him going to the ground, he must complete the catch through the point of reaching the ground.
    By Blandino's explanation, it still would have been complete. Since he stated that the ruling made Tate a runner, it is no different than diving towards and inside the pylon, a TD play where the ball often comes loose. Of course, this assumes I actually understand what happened. That still may not be true.
    As a writer, I'm like the last girl at the bar. In the morning, you may regret asking for my services, but I'll get the job done. As long as I don't puke on your floor.

    Twitter: @PolishedSports

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •