2nd chance on penalty decison.

[FrustratedFan04]

Can anyone explain how it was that St.L was able to reverse itself and "take" the penalty at the end of the game after declining it? I recall the bears winning a game on that very play around 1965 or so. the kicker was Mac Percival. I was yelling at the TV for them to take the kick, which could have been made from a hold but not a tee.

 

[Big T]

Maybe if you tried reading the thread list first, instead of just adding another, you might find your answer.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78672

 

[CardLogic]

Maybe if you tried reading the thread list first, instead of just adding another, you might find your answer.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78672

Thing is there is no answer to his question in that thread!!

Rams declined the penalty; so in declining the penalty the play on the field stands; meaning the Cardinals should have been allowed to attempt the free kick.

Only after that was already announced did the referee later announce that the Rams were going to accept the penalty, which they had already declined. The Rams were allowed to change there decision after the fact! That just doesn't seem right.



Having said that, just to be clear - the ref's did not cost the Cardinals the game... they had their chances.

 

[AZCB34]

Denny alluded to this in his presser and it seemed like Denny had no problem with what happened (he seemed more irritated with the penalty) and said there was confusion on a rarely used rule. My guess is the Rams declined it without really understanding what the ruling exactly was and once they understood it they made their decision.

I think it is interesting that they would be allowed to change their mind like that but it was completely irrelevant in the big picture.

 

[Big T]

Thing is there is no answer to his question in that thread!!

???
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1103891&postcount=14

 

[Big T]

I do think I need to make one clarification in what I said:

When I stated that a game a can't end on a defensive penalty if they are behind, was simply stating what Maas said.

Acutally it doesn't matter whether they are ahead or not. If they are ahead, then the other team still gets a play to try and win or tie the game. (assuming they are 8 or less points behind)

 

[Lloydian]

Just a red herring anyway.

I like Rackers. He was not about to make that field goal.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Just a red herring anyway.

I like Rackers. He was not about to make that field goal.

You never know. It is a free kick, meaning no defensive players would be on the field at all. He can line drive that kick rather than giving it lift to make sure it gets over the outstretched arms of a defense.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Who cares!

This game never should have come down to this in the first place. Let it go.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Who cares!

This game never should have come down to this in the first place. Let it go.

What do you mean let it go?

You could use that line for every Green/Warner/Edge/OLine post that is ever posted.

You are right that the game should not have come down to this in the first place. But why do you think that we should just let it go and not talk about it? Our posting here doesnt change the outcome of the game, and everyone realizes this.

Are there certain things (refs) that we aren't allowed to talk about on here?

 

[MadCardDisease]

What do you mean let it go?

You could use that line for every Green/Warner/Edge/OLine post that is ever posted.

You are right that the game should not have come down to this in the first place. But why do you think that we should just let it go and not talk about it? Our posting here doesnt change the outcome of the game, and everyone realizes this.

Are there certain things (refs) that we aren't allowed to talk about on here?

You can whine about it all you want. I just think it's silly and a waste of time.

 

[D-Dogg]

Maybe if you tried reading the thread list first, instead of just adding another, you might find your answer.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78672

Your explanation does not answer the core question. That all makes sense of course at the end. However, when the rams DECLINED the penalty, the fair catch ruling was in play. A game also can't end on a fair caught punt...you get a free kick, even with no time on the clock.

The Rams then accepted the penalty, so therefore the game can't end on defensive penalty, so they ran the play off.

The question isn't was the rule applied correctly at the end...but what was the rationale for the Rams to be able to reverse their initial decision after the on-field refs signalled the result of their decision being to decline the penalty. I don't understand how the refs can bail out a coach for making a poor decision due to a misunderstanding of the rules. The result isn't the issue...the second chance to change their minds after already declining the penalty is the issue.

 

[Capital Card]

???
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1103891&postcount=14

Your thread relates to the rules relating to a game ending on a penalty.

As I read his question, it has nothing to do with this aspect of the play. He is asking why is a team allowed to reverse it's decision to decline a penalty?

Walters signaled for a fair catch before time expired. If there were no penalty on the play, Rackers would have been allowed to try the kick.

Somehow, it just feels wrong that the Rams were allowed to change their decision just because they didn't know the consequenses of it.

Go Cards!!!

 

[Big T]

Who cares!

This game never should have come down to this in the first place. Let it go.

This is why I've never posted a lot before, and probably won't much any more.

&*^F#*^ thought police !

People should be able to discuss whatever they want with out the mods deciding their "value".

 

[jenna2891]

This is why I've never posted a lot before, and probably won't much any more.

&*^F#*^ thought police !

People should be able to discuss whatever they want with out the mods deciding their "value".

ok, calm down, tex. i don't think he was *ordering* anyone to let it go.

 

[Cards Czar]

You can whine about it all you want. I just think it's silly and a waste of time.

Or if you dont like them whinning dont read their posts.
It might be a waste of your time but not others.




Navy Mike

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

You can whine about it all you want. I just think it's silly and a waste of time.

Whining about people whining could be considered an even bigger waste of time.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

i was more surprised that they fair caught it to begin with - seems like they could of had some gadget return or something - maybe a penalty during the return that would move them into FG range - even if denny knew the rule (which I doubt), it doesn't seem like the great play to have your team setup for a 70 yrd free kick as the game winning scheme

I do agree that they shouldn't of been able to change their mind though

 

[Russ Smith]

I do think I need to make one clarification in what I said:

When I stated that a game a can't end on a defensive penalty if they are behind, was simply stating what Maas said.

Acutally it doesn't matter whether they are ahead or not. If they are ahead, then the other team still gets a play to try and win or tie the game. (assuming they are 8 or less points behind)

maybe I'm missing it but your explanation is wrong. It's not that the game couldn't end on a defensive penalty because if the refs didn't allow the rams to change their minds, the game would NOT have ended, we would have done the free kick untimed. Only after the Rams changed to accepting the penalty does the game can't end on a defensive penalty come into play.

That was the question, are the Rams really allowed to change their minds? for example, years ago some idiot Card coach(we've had too many for me to remember which but I'm thinking it might have been Tobin) on the cointoss the other team won the toss and deferred, and we elected to kick off. Which meant we kicked off the first half, and we kicked off the 2nd half because they of course had deferred and elected to received the 2nd half kickoff. When the Cards realized what they had done they tried to change it but the ref said no sorry, you're stupid, you can't change your mind just because you didn't understand the rule. Why wouldn't the same logic apply here?

Not that I think Rackers was going to make it. And my other question, Rackers said drop kick twice, was he really going to have to drop kick it or could they have teed the ball up at the LOS and kicked it? I've never seen this play done do they really have to drop kick it?

 

[daytripper]

Not that I think Rackers was going to make it. And my other question, Rackers said drop kick twice, was he really going to have to drop kick it or could they have teed the ball up at the LOS and kicked it? I've never seen this play done do they really have to drop kick it?[/QUOTE]

Its my understnding that he could have drop kicked or kicked from a hold as in FG EP. Drop kicking may be an advantage as there is no friction from the ground and the ball is elevated slightly, sort of like a tee without a tee.

 

[mesacardsfan]

Whether he would have made it or not is irrelevant fact is they should not have been able to change their minds because they did not know the rules. Just another bad call by the refs on the cards. Another one that comes to mind is the incomplete pass they gave to the rams and when it was reviewed the head ref stated that he had possesion with ONE foot inbounds and callled it complete! What a crock of ****!

 

[jenna2891]

years ago some idiot Card coach... it might have been Tobin

:shakesfist:

 

[thirty-two]

Rackers looked pissed that he couldn't even give it a try.

God that game sucked.

 

[jenna2891]

Rackers looked pissed that he couldn't even give it a try.

me too. i swear, i was already pre-ordering the dvd of "racktastic: the kick heard 'round the world" from espn.com when they changed the penalty.

 

[thirty-two]

me too. i swear, i was already pre-ordering the dvd of "racktastic: the kick heard 'round the world" from espn.com when they changed the penalty.

yer on fire tonight