Sunday Thoughts

[Oswlek]

How crazy is the NFL? The week after Arizona loses to one of the worst teams any of us have ever witnessed - in the process allowing 31 points - they hold a much better Cleveland offense to 21 points and pull out a victory. Who could have seen that coming?

* I can't quite figure out what the ref was thinking when he reversed the Utecht fumble. For those that didn't see it, Utecht caught a pass from Manning, took two steps and then fumbled the ball when converged on by two defenders. Indy challenged the play, thinking that his knee was down. It was very close, but CBS had a nice shot of the play and Ben's knees were both about an inch and a half from the turf.

Somehow, though, the ref returned from the hood with a view that shocked everyone - most of all Indy themselves - that the pass was incomplete. It absolutely 100% was not an incomplete pass. I know that they eliminated the "football move" from the rule this year, but Utecht actually did make a football move. The ball came loose when Utecht was trying to move the ball into a secure hold in his left arm and the defender poked at it.

Mr Ref. Is it too much to ask that you know the rules of the game? Since the ball was clearly controled for the first two steps, you cannot say that he didn't have control. And the "must maintain possession through the fall" only applies if Utecht hadn't already taken two steps. Just an unbelievably bad call made worse by the fact that the guy had time to think about it.

* In the same game, Phil Simms spoke for about 2 minutes about how a properly called PI on Jax was wrong. He kept pointing out how the "twist" (the defender was touching Wayne before the ball got there with his left arm and spun him around after the ball glanced off his fingers) happened after the ball arrived. Phil, that may be true, what about holding the receivers arms down with your *other* arm? Isn't that interference?

* I am glad that Indy and Pitt both won. As I have been saying for a few weeks now, since it was near impossible that either would miss the playoffs, I want them to be 2-3, ensuring them to have to duke it out first before coming to NE. Not only does that mean that NE will face a much easier divisional round, but it means that NE only has to face one elite team (at most) to make the SB.

* Nice to see SF's pick back at #2 so soon. How bad are you when Carolina looks like a decent team against you?

* I realize that it is not in vogue to criticize Washington, but Gibbs seems to be out of his league. I'm not even talking about the timout thing, either. How many times does he need to see that his overly conservative playcalling only lets the other team back into the game? Regularly they play an excellent half or three quarters only to be undone because they refuse to seal the deal. I don't get it. I suppose the thought process could be to avoid the killer mistake, but isn't it clear by now that this startegy itself lets the other team come back? Hey Joe, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

* What was that, Mr. Feeley. It seems all your success with incuts the week before gave you some tunnel-vision. :Fart:

* I would crticize NO for their playcall on the unfortunate fumble, but I seem to recall NE doing something similar to take advantage of an overly aggressive defense to close out the 2004 AFCCG against Pitt. What I do think is fair game, though, is the pitch. Feel free to run a reverse, but why add that extra degree of difficulty?

I think that is it. Oh, Adrian Peterson is great.

 

[tehmackdaddy]

* I can't quite figure out what the ref was thinking when he reversed the Utecht fumble.

I believe the ruling was that he had two feet down and was falling down to the ground on his own, not that Utecht had taken two steps. Securing the ball through the fall would thus be applicable and yes, I was surprised with the call.

* In the same game, Phil Simms spoke for about 2 minutes about how a properly called PI on Jax was wrong. He kept pointing out how the "twist" (the defender was touching Wayne before the ball got there with his left arm and spun him around after the ball glanced off his fingers) happened after the ball arrived. Phil, that may be true, what about holding the receivers arms down with your *other* arm? Isn't that interference?

That was more Phil Simms not wanting to change his mind and Nantz not calling him on it, imo. Gonzalez clearly jumped for the ball, and his jumping was stopped with Mathis' arm holding him back... a clear PI call. The twisting had nothing to do with it other than to confirm that he did have firm enough contact to impede AG.

 

[oldbagfan]

Mr Ref. Is it too much to ask that you know the rules of the game?

Speaking of moments over the weekend, how about Mr. Football Joe Gibbs not knowing that you are not permitted to call time outs back to back. How can a coach of a zillion years experience not know that? How can he turn to the ref standing near him to inquire?

If the head coach himself doesn't even know the rules of the game . . .

No wonder he was clueless as to the planned tribute to Taylor. Gibbs better get back to NASCAR before he is ridden out of DC on a rail. Is there a better current example of "You can't go home again"?

 

[Hawg73]

Re: Re: Sunday Thoughts

I believe the ruling was that he had two feet down and was falling down to the ground on his own, not that Utecht had taken two steps. Securing the ball through the fall would thus be applicable and yes, I was surprised with the call.

Of all the annoying rules, the whole thing about what defines a catch is among the most frustrating.

Regardless of the "football move" language being axed, time and time again you see a guy catch a ball and then.....ummmm....make a football move and after what seems like a ridiculous time it is ruled incomplete.

To me once a guy gets his hands on the ball and then makes an attempt to do something with it, like advance it or tuck it away it should be ruled a catch. Simple rule of thumb.

If he drops it or it gets knocked out afterwards, then that's his problem. Utecht had it and dropped it. Going to the ground or not, it sure looked that way to me.

BTW, the worst call of the day was not that one, but the non-call on the soldjah that would have given the Browns a dramatic win. He was CLEARLY belted out of bounds by AZ, but the ref just didn't have the guts to make the right call and cost a team fighting for the playoffs an important win. I look forward to Mike Perreira trying to explain that one.

Refs should be able to call for a replay themselves on game-changing plays when they are not sure if they got it right. You can't take that win away from Cleveland. It's not right.

 

[6EFINRINGS]

As much as I am loathe to agree with Chris Collinsworth on most any subject, he made a great point about force-outs not being reviewable. He says the rule is it's a judgement call.. His point seems to be that if you aren't going to allow reviews on force-outs, there should be no rule about it at all.. I.E. you damned well beeter stay in bounds on the catch no matter what...

 

[Oswlek]

On Patsfans, someone posted a reminder that it was Mike Vrabel's distracting false TO's in 2004 that caused the unsportsmanlike penalty on Gibbs. I had this response:

What is even more interesting (IMHO) is that the league and the comp committee met immediately after week 2 to discuss and enact this rule [in 2004].

Earlier this year when there was all the comotion about the TO just before a kick, people kept saying, "they need to address this after the season".

I find it funny that when the Patriots do something that is legal but pushing the envelope a little, the league intervense immediately, but when it is other teams, the issue waits until after the season.