"Correct" ruling?

talking about who was arrested today

Moderators: Shoalzie, Biggie

Post Reply
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

"Correct" ruling?

Post by poptart »

I'm sure Bri will assure us all that it was very legit.

They went by the book, I guess?

Doesn't it seem odd to just give the ball back to the offense in such a situation?

I mean, the offense lost possession of the ball and it didn't go out of bounds (in which case it makes sense that they would retain possession), but instead went in to the end zone where it WAS recovered by one team or the other.

SOMEBODY recovered the ball.

Why is the ball automatically given to the offense, is my question.

Why is there not a flip of the coin to determine possession - if it is not clear on replay?

Wow, that sucked hairy ass for Miami.
User avatar
Go Coogs'
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 2467
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:59 pm

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by Go Coogs' »

poptart wrote:Why is there not a flip of the coin to determine possession - if it is not clear on replay?
Tie goes to the rapist.
88 wrote:Go Coogs' (Regular Season Total Points Champ)
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by BSmack »

Would you prefer a possession arrow?

Honestly, I've never seen a call like that. I sure as hell couldn't tell who recovered the ball in that pile. But I would EXPECT an NFL ref standing NEXT to the pile to manage that feat. There was a ref looking right into the pile as the call was made by the side judge. But hey, what can I say? I just root for the Steelers, I don't fix their games.

I also don't have anything to do with the Dolphins, who had over 2 minutes left to drive down the field after that field goal against a defense down 3 starters. They should be embarrassed that they were unable to cash in on not only that golden opportunity, but the MANY other chances (turnovers, penalties, blown coverages) the Steelers gave them throughout the game.

All and all, the whole game was an abortion. I'm just glad my team was able to dodge the coat hanger.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by poptart »

Bri wrote:But I would EXPECT an NFL ref standing NEXT to the pile to manage that feat. There was a ref looking right into the pile as the call was made by the side judge. But hey, what can I say?
My understanding is that it had to be clear on *REPLAY* who had recovered the ball - and not by word of one of the zebras standing there.

Since replay was inconclusive on that matter, offense retained possession.
User avatar
Bucmonkey
2011 CFB Bowl Pic Champ
Posts: 2828
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: ...

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by Bucmonkey »

The fish got jobbed at home. :bode: Rapist and Co.
Go Bucs, Gators
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by BSmack »

poptart wrote:
Bri wrote:But I would EXPECT an NFL ref standing NEXT to the pile to manage that feat. There was a ref looking right into the pile as the call was made by the side judge. But hey, what can I say?
My understanding is that it had to be clear on *REPLAY* who had recovered the ball - and not by word of one of the zebras standing there.

Since replay was inconclusive on that matter, offense retained possession.
The only reason the replay had to be conclusive was because possession had never been determined on the field of play. They assumed since the call on the field was a TD they did not need to sort out possession of the fumble on the field. It was a savage boning of epic proportions for the Fish. I would feel sorry for them if they hadn't played like a bunch of choking dogs all game long. It was a horrible call, but the right team won.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by poptart »

poptart wrote:My understanding is that it had to be clear on *REPLAY* who had recovered the ball - and not by word of one of the zebras standing there.

Since replay was inconclusive on that matter, offense retained possession.
Mike Pereira was asked about the ruling in a FOX chat session.


Jermaine: I seem to be hearing that the Pittsburgh vs. Miami fumble call was correct. Can you clarify? And if it was correct, was it correctly explained to the fans as well?

Mike Pereira: The replay was handled correctly. The ruling on the field was wrong.

It was NOT a touchdown, as ruled on the field, as the ball was loose as it broke the plane. In order to reverse the call and give the ball to Miami, you have to have video evidence of two things.

1) It was a fumble, which it was

2) There was video evidence of a clear recovery by Miami BEFORE the recovering player goes into a pile/scrum. Since there was no clear recovery before the pileup, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble and the offense keeps the.

What the officials did after the ruling of a touchdown is irrelevant. The only way to reverse this call is to have video evidence of both the fumble and the recovery.

Yes, it WAS correctly explained by the referee
User avatar
Mace
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 3598
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:18 am

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by Mace »

I haven't heard this particular explanation but I am assuming that a whistle was blown when the official ruled it a touchdown and, if so, nothing can happen after the whistle. In essence, it was an inadvertent whistle which, on a running play, allows the offense to take the yards gained prior to the fumble or to replay the down.
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by poptart »

Mace, Pereira didn't say anything about a whistle blowing the play dead, but instead said that the recovery of the fumble was something significant - and something that needed to be evident when viewing the replay in order to reverse the ruling on the field.
User avatar
Mace
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 3598
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:18 am

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by Mace »

poptart wrote:Mace, Pereira didn't say anything about a whistle blowing the play dead, but instead said that the recovery of the fumble was something significant - and something that needed to be evident when viewing the replay in order to reverse the ruling on the field.
I know he didn't mention anything about a whistle blowing but, when a touchdown is signaled, the official is supposed to blow the whistle to kill the action. Inadvertent whistles are an embarrassment for officials, especially at the highest level, so that might be why it wasn't mentioned. When the TD was called, the play ended and there cannot be a fumble recovery....regardless of what the replay might have shown. Why? How many players stopped going after the ball when the TD was signaled? No way to know, but there is no way they were going to have a change of possession after signaling a TD.
User avatar
Mace
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 3598
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:18 am

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by Mace »

Post game officials meeting went something like this:

Referee to offending Side Judge who called the TD: "Okay, dumbass, I know we discussed how to fuck over a team in our pre-game meeting but...listen up, doucher, we're supposed to be doing that NEXT week, you know, next week when we're working the Raider game."

Side Judge: "I know, and I apologize, but I thought it wouldn't hurt for me to have a bit of a dress rehearsal."
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by poptart »

Mace wrote:When the TD was called, the play ended and there cannot be a fumble recovery....regardless of what the replay might have shown.
Then why is Pereira saying that in order to reverse the ruling on the field, a Miami recovery of the fumble must be evident on video replay?

Doesn't add up.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: "Correct" ruling?

Post by BSmack »

poptart wrote:
Mace wrote:When the TD was called, the play ended and there cannot be a fumble recovery....regardless of what the replay might have shown.
Then why is Pereira saying that in order to reverse the ruling on the field, a Miami recovery of the fumble must be evident on video replay? Doesn't add up.
If you rule a touchdown on the field, you can't also rule a fumble recovery on the field. Therefore any fumble recovery must be ruled upon from the replay booth. And, as we all know, any ruling originating from the replay booth must be based on indisputable video evidence. So on review they ruled that the touchdown call was wrong, based on the indisputable video evidence but they could not rule on possession because there was no indisputable video evidence showing who recovered.

It really is that simple.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
Post Reply