waiting for an explanation.....

[Billy Flynt]

If anyone hears anything from the NFL office about the BJ touchdown call and subsequent review, please let us know.

I've always been of the mind that one or two bad calls does not cause you to lose a game. You have ample opportunities to make plays in a game made up of 75-100 plays to win; however, that play and the refree-ing was so totally screwed, it needs some explanation from the NFL.

I'd really like to see if the NFL says it's okay to call penalties based upon instant replay.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I've always been a proponent of instant replay, but I now have realized that it doesn't really work.

Brian Billick went off a few weeks ago, and basically said as much. From what I've read, instant replay is actually losing support.

 

[JeffGollin]

That officatiing team should be fired!

When the replay showed that BJ was inside the goal line, in order to save face, they came up with the bogus call that, since BJ was pushed out of the end zone (it was more liked "mugged"), he couldn't come in to catch the ball.

All well and good, but the dude who was pushing him out of the end zone should have been flagged for either interference or an illegal chuck. (At the very least, he was interfering with the receiver's ability to run his route - more than 5 yards down the field).

 

[CardinalChris]

We all want to string instant replay up when it doesn't work, but think of how many plays it DOES correct. Does it work every time? No, but the majority, and I'll take that over the way it used to be.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by JeffGollin

All well and good, but the dude who was pushing him out of the end zone should have been flagged for either interference or an illegal chuck. (At the very least, he was interfering with the receiver's ability to run his route - more than 5 yards down the field).

And that's not even mentioning the fact that Boldin was being blatantly held as well.

 

[pinnacle]

jeff..I saw two interferences - one for pushing BJ out of bounds (it was more than 5 yards past he line of scrimmage - ball was on the 5 yard line - shove was deep in end zone). The second interference was the grab of the jersey - clear as day on the replay - after position had been re-established (jersey is stretched darn near to the sideline). The one ref saw him go out of bounds and threw his hat...I guess he missed how he was being shoved out of bounds and then again the jersey grab..

Seriously.....someone at cardinals HQ needs to get on the horn with the Commisioner and say enough is enough...the wilson hit against san fran- bogus calls on pete kendall for like 3 weeks in a row, this list could go on and on.

 

[Red Dawn]

Here's a link I snagged off the Pitt board to an article about the call:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/steelerslive/s_164470.html

 

[Redmark]

Originally posted by pinnacle
jeff..I saw two interferences - one for pushing BJ out of bounds (it was more than 5 yards past he line of scrimmage - ball was on the 5 yard line - shove was deep in end zone). The second interference was the grab of the jersey - clear as day on the replay - after position had been re-established (jersey is stretched darn near to the sideline). The one ref saw him go out of bounds and threw his hat...I guess he missed how he was being shoved out of bounds and then again the jersey grab..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the ball has not been thrown, it can't be interference.

They ruled it was normal battling for position and not holding on the defender yet the receiver was penalized for going out of bounds and catching the pass. I plan to look at it again on tape and listen to the explanation. I think there sould have been holding called on the player covering Boldin.

This call and the botched measurements on 3rd and 4th down costs us the chance to get back in the game.

 

[pinnacle]

redmark..I thought you could not shove a receiver after 5 yards from the line of scrimmage..It may not be called pass interference - but I think it would be illegal use of the hands or something..When the jersey was held when he re-established position (clear from the replay) - that would have been defensive holding.. So..I guess it was technically not 2 pass interference calls..

but..I cannot say with 100% certainty the above is a correct interpretation of the rules

 

[Redmark]

Originally posted by pinnacle
redmark..I thought you could not shove a receiver after 5 yards from the line of scrimmage..It may not be called pass interference - but I think it would be illegal use of the hands or something..When the jersey was held when he re-established position (clear from the replay) - that would have been defensive holding.. So..I guess it was technically not 2 pass interference calls..

but..I cannot say with 100% certainty the above is a correct interpretation of the rules

Triplette called the penalty based on the replay. No flag was thrown during the play. This was the real fault in the whole mess. The challenge was about whether or not Johnson caught the ball in the endzone. He obviously did and was pushed out of the front of the endzone by the defender.

Whether it was holding, interference or illegal use of hands on them is immaterial. Calls are missed all the time. The real complaint is that the official did not review the particular aspect of the play being challenged and called a penalty to boot. This is why we should complain to the league and the referee should be disciplined.

 

[pinnacle]

redmark..that is my point I guess...he reviewed the play and threw the flag on johnson..I was not aware you can do that - but if you can - how did he miss the other penalties? If you cannot - it should have been a touchdown.

 

[DieHardCardFan]

By that line of thinking, would it not be a good idea to "nudge" all receivers out of bounds that way they cant be the first to touch the ball once the reenter??? The thinking is skewd big time. Then to say yes it was a touchdown, but we over looked a penalty, well what the heck is that. And I agree, my understanding of the rules is that after 5 yards you cannot push, shove or otherwise use physical contact to move a receiver, and Johnson was clearly in front so there wouldnt even be an arguement that the other guy was going for the ball. Would that call have changed the outcome?? I dont know! But either way it is BS and someone she get thier @ss chewed for it. And the 4 and 1 inch call that was the most blatant BS ever. I dont care if you cant see where the ball was, you have to at least look at where Blake was, and at least assume he had the ball at mid-body, which would have clearly been a 1st down.

 

[mulpwr]

Thats the first time i have heard that. You learn something new every day.

OFFICIAL POOL REPORT

Referee Jeff Triplette:

Because he was illegally hit beyond the five yards why wasn’t he allowed to make the catch legally?

The ruling that we had on the field was that the quarterback started rolling out of the pocket on the scramble so there is not illegal contact in that situation. It is legal contact at that point because the quarterback is rolling. That is why there is no illegal contact. They were kind of just checking each other.

If you are pushed out of bounds you are not allowed to catch the ball first?

If you are pushed out legally in that situation then you have to come back in and cannot be the first to touch the forward pass. If he were to be knocked out illegally then he could have reestablished himself and touched the ball legally.

So it all had to do with the quarterback rolling out of the pocket?

Yes.

 

[Chaz]

Re: Re: waiting for an explanation.....

Originally posted by mulpwr
OFFICIAL POOL REPORT

Referee Jeff Triplette:

Because he was illegally hit beyond the five yards why wasn’t he allowed to make the catch legally?

The ruling that we had on the field was that the quarterback started rolling out of the pocket on the scramble so there is not illegal contact in that situation. It is legal contact at that point because the quarterback is rolling. That is why there is no illegal contact. They were kind of just checking each other.

If you are pushed out of bounds you are not allowed to catch the ball first?

If you are pushed out legally in that situation then you have to come back in and cannot be the first to touch the forward pass. If he were to be knocked out illegally then he could have reestablished himself and touched the ball legally.

So it all had to do with the quarterback rolling out of the pocket?

Yes.

So none of the officials knew the QB rolled out untill the replay?

Thanks for the post but I am still wondering how they can call a penalty from a replay.

Maybe they should review every play to look for holding.

 

[Redmark]

Upon further review.

Originally posted by DieHardCardFan
By that line of thinking, would it not be a good idea to "nudge" all receivers out of bounds that way they cant be the first to touch the ball once the reenter??? The thinking is skewd big time. Then to say yes it was a touchdown, but we over looked a penalty, well what the heck is that. And I agree, my understanding of the rules is that after 5 yards you cannot push, shove or otherwise use physical contact to move a receiver, and Johnson was clearly in front so there wouldnt even be an arguement that the other guy was going for the ball. Would that call have changed the outcome?? I dont know! But either way it is BS and someone she get thier @ss chewed for it. And the 4 and 1 inch call that was the most blatant BS ever. I dont care if you cant see where the ball was, you have to at least look at where Blake was, and at least assume he had the ball at mid-body, which would have clearly been a 1st down.

Well I just watched these two disputed calls/challenges on tape.

The BJ call just makes no sence. The official, before reviewing the play, said in essence that the receiver was nudged out by the defender and legally reestablished position but caught the ball outside the endzone therefore the 4th down conversion failed and it was FD Pittsburg.

Mac challenges that he was in the endzone with posession and it should be a TD.

After reviewing, the official again states that the receiver legally re-established position (meaning he is eligible to catch the ball, right?) and caught the ball for a TD; however he cannot be the first player to touch the ball after re-entering the field of play (huh!). Maybe he just didn't explain it the way he meant it, but the CBS announcers were very confused and stated it should have been ruled a TD.

The issue was whether or not he was forced out of bounds at the back or went out of bounds of his own volition in order to get some advantage over the defender. Twice the referree said he re-established position legally yet disallowed the catch and called it a penalty.

He then goes back and explains it all to Dave and whistles play to continue 4th and goal from the 10.

That's just bizarre and about as bad as calling a head a tail in the OT flip.

The FD measurement was very close and I can't tell conclusively that we got it. I did notice Anquan was given a very generous spot on the play before when he streched for the FD. If it had been closer to yard than an inch short we might have run a different play.

 

[Joe Mama]

Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Redmark
The FD measurement was very close and I can't tell conclusively that we got it. I did notice Anquan was given a very generous spot on the play before when he streched for the FD. If it had been closer to yard than an inch short we might have run a different play.

That's the way I saw it is well. I think Jeff Blake pretty clearly got the first down on fourth down, but there was no conclusive evidence on replay. However on third down they placed the ball as far as Bolden reached with it. When his knee hit the ground it was at least a yard short of that spot though.

The BJ replay was just totally botched. We've all said over and over that the only thing they were supposed to be reviewing was whether he had possession in the end zone for a touchdown. Bolden was being held by a defender with both arms around him in the back of the end zone.

Frankly I thought there should have been a holding or pass interference call at the end of the first half when the defender had his hands all over BJ in the end zone on third and goal. Of course this stupid Cardinals wasted so much time in that last minute they might not have had any time to do anything anyways.

Joe Mama

 

[mulpwr]

Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Joe Mama
That's the way I saw it is well. I think Jeff Blake pretty clearly got the first down on fourth down, but there was no conclusive evidence on replay. However on third down they placed the ball as far as Bolden reached with it. When his knee hit the ground it was at least a yard short of that spot though.

The BJ replay was just totally botched. We've all said over and over that the only thing they were supposed to be reviewing was whether he had possession in the end zone for a touchdown. Bolden was being held by a defender with both arms around him in the back of the end zone.

Frankly I thought there should have been a holding or pass interference call at the end of the first half when the defender had his hands all over BJ in the end zone on third and goal. Of course this stupid Cardinals wasted so much time in that last minute they might not have had any time to do anything anyways.

Joe Mama

Helloooooo... did you see my previous post.

Referee Jeff Triplette:



Because he was illegally hit beyond the five yards why wasn’t he allowed to make the catch legally?

The ruling that we had on the field was that the quarterback started rolling out of the pocket on the scramble so there is not illegal contact in that situation. It is legal contact at that point because the quarterback is rolling. That is why there is no illegal contact. They were kind of just checking each other.

If you are pushed out of bounds you are not allowed to catch the ball first?

If you are pushed out legally in that situation then you have to come back in and cannot be the first to touch the forward pass. If he were to be knocked out illegally then he could have reestablished himself and touched the ball legally.

So it all had to do with the quarterback rolling out of the pocket?

Yes.

 

[Renz]

I just saw a segment on the disputed B. Johnson TD on NFL Network. The review referee said that it was a TD because Johnson had possession in the end zone, but that Johnson couldn't touch the ball first because he was out of bounds before the catch and was the first to touch it.

I know we all ready know that, but the big thing he said was that the refs could call Johnson out of bounds because "illegal touching" is a reviewable play.

According to the referee on TV, the refs got the call correct.

I still say it's BS though.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by Renz
I just saw a segment on the disputed B. Johnson TD on NFL Network. The review referee said that it was a TD because Johnson had possession in the end zone, but that Johnson couldn't touch the ball first because he was out of bounds before the catch and was the first to touch it.

I know we all ready know that, but the big thing he said was that the refs could call Johnson out of bounds because "illegal touching" is a reviewable play.

if that's really the case - and I never heard of that rule - then I hope everyone shuts up about the refs this week - it was really starting to get to me in a game in which we trailed by 25 points midway through the third.

 

[Stout]

Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by mulpwr
Helloooooo... did you see my previous post.

Referee Jeff Triplette:



Because he was illegally hit beyond the five yards why wasn’t he allowed to make the catch legally?

The ruling that we had on the field was that the quarterback started rolling out of the pocket on the scramble so there is not illegal contact in that situation. It is legal contact at that point because the quarterback is rolling. That is why there is no illegal contact. They were kind of just checking each other.

If you are pushed out of bounds you are not allowed to catch the ball first?

If you are pushed out legally in that situation then you have to come back in and cannot be the first to touch the forward pass. If he were to be knocked out illegally then he could have reestablished himself and touched the ball legally.

So it all had to do with the quarterback rolling out of the pocket?

Yes.

Hello!!!! Have you read any of the other posts? It doesn't MATTER what the damn illegal contact rule is, or what the stupid coming back in bounds to catch the ball rule is.

What matters is the play was challenged for where the catch occured, NOT anything else. When a play is reviewed, NOTHING else can be taken into consideration BUT what is being reviewed. There was NO LEGAL WAY the referee could call that penalty belatedly.

But he did. He cheated. YES, he blew the call initially, but you CANNOT use replay to correct such a thing unless that is specifically what is being reviewed.

You are wrong, and you just keep repeating something completely immaterial to the argument.

 

[Renz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Stout
Hello!!!! Have you read any of the other posts? It doesn't MATTER what the damn illegal contact rule is, or what the stupid coming back in bounds to catch the ball rule is.

What matters is the play was challenged for where the catch occured, NOT anything else. When a play is reviewed, NOTHING else can be taken into consideration BUT what is being reviewed. There was NO LEGAL WAY the referee could call that penalty belatedly.

But he did. He cheated. YES, he blew the call initially, but you CANNOT use replay to correct such a thing unless that is specifically what is being reviewed.

You are wrong, and you just keep repeating something completely immaterial to the argument.

Well, the referee on NFL Network said that you can, so either you know the rules better than he does or he is a liar.

Either way, get over it.

 

[Stout]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Renz
Well, the referee on NFL Network said that you can, so either you know the rules better than he does or he is a liar.

Either way, get over it.

Get over yourself. I was responding to someone who was completely missing the point, and was indeed ignoring the point.

And did a ref really come on and say you are allowed to assess a penalty on review when the review was for the spot of the ball? If so, then either we've been completely misled in the rules, which I seriously doubt or yes, he was lying. I.E., covering his own backside, because he knew he completely screwed the play up.

 

[mulpwr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Stout
Hello!!!! Have you read any of the other posts? It doesn't MATTER what the damn illegal contact rule is, or what the stupid coming back in bounds to catch the ball rule is.

What matters is the play was challenged for where the catch occured, NOT anything else. When a play is reviewed, NOTHING else can be taken into consideration BUT what is being reviewed. There was NO LEGAL WAY the referee could call that penalty belatedly.

But he did. He cheated. YES, he blew the call initially, but you CANNOT use replay to correct such a thing unless that is specifically what is being reviewed.

You are wrong, and you just keep repeating something completely immaterial to the argument.

Did you see the hat thrown down by the back judge when the receiver went out of bounds. That first and foremost has to be considered BEFORE the review. It is of material and why it was called an illegal touch.

Did he even have position when his leg was over the goaline? Its irrevelant because the right call was made,regardless if you liked it or not.

The review had nothing to do with the receiver going out of bounds. They knew that beforehand.

The back judge was right there when BJ went out of bounds and the explanation was given by Tripplette. If he HADN'T went out of bounds or the hat not been thrown,then more then likely the catch would have been called a TD. If they would have overruled the TD AFTER calling it a TD because they saw BJ go out of bounds,then i can see a complaint for sure.

The replay wasn't needed to decide if the receiver went out of bounds. The bad part is the officials didn't seem to understand the rules at first or don't properly explain it to us,the fans.

Rolling out by a QB near the end zone gives the CB/Receiver the ability to block,so no pass interferance can be called on either party....i didn't know that beforehand.

 

[Renz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Stout
And did a ref really come on and say you are allowed to assess a penalty on review when the review was for the spot of the ball? If so, then either we've been completely misled in the rules, which I seriously doubt or yes, he was lying. I.E., covering his own backside, because he knew he completely screwed the play up.

I don't know if he said specifically that a referee can rule on something other than what was challenged. All he said was that the "illegal touching" part of the play was reviewable, so the refs call of "TD, but a penalty" was the correct call.

I guess that means that any reviewable play is fair game when a play is reviewed, but I don't know for sure.

 

[mulpwr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Upon further review.

Originally posted by Renz
I don't know if he said specifically that a referee can rule on something other than what was challenged. All he said was that the "illegal touching" part of the play was reviewable, so the refs call of "TD, but a penalty" was the correct call.

I guess that means that any reviewable play is fair game when a play is reviewed, but I don't know for sure.

It would be great if this situation was further discused on a show like ESPN Live,Around The Horn Or PTI.

Head it under confused referees