Cunning Runt Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 See, I thought that the NFL specifically made a point over the last few years of saying that is an excuse for offensive players to jump. That made no sense to me at all. You must have misinterpreted what was said. What Hochuli made a point of saying is that the defensive player on one side of the line jumped whereas the offensive player on the totally opposite side of the line also false-started and that since the offensive player was on the totally opposite of side of the D player's movement, the false start stood. Had the D player been lined up across from offensive player, it would have been encroachment on the D. I wasn't aware of that caveat, but that must be the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) Regarding the fumble, replay on TV showed it wasn't. The ball was clearly hit & began to come out before his knee hit. There should be no question it was a fumble and I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise. There's something you need to come to grips with: It's not Hoculi's fault that the Saints suck. Refs miss calls. Losers use them as excuses for losing. Winners find a way to overcome, knowing they'll get their share of mistaken calls also. I completely agree. That's still no excuse for why there were so many blown calls. There was also a 2nd face mask on one of the Bush returns and personally speaking I think the PI call on Kaes to close the game was BS. The ball was under thrown which should have made the contact incidental. That may just be my homerism seeping thru, but I know I'm not the only one that thought that. On Sportscenter they groaned at the call when replaying the clip. There's also no excuse for the Saints blowing several great opportunities to take that game. Kaesviharn got away with a pretty f'n blatant, unnecessary helmet-to-back of-helmet hit on AP, who was all but already tackled/down on that fumble play. Agreed, calls like that are difficult to make on the field unless it's on the QB standing in the pocket. I hope he gets another fine & cleans up his act. There's no place for dirty players in NO. Edited October 7, 2008 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I completely agree. That's still no excuse for why there were so many blown calls. There was also a 2nd face mask on one of the Bush returns and personally speaking I think the PI call on Kaes to close the game was BS. The ball was under thrown which should have made the contact incidental. That may just be my homerism seeping thru, but I know I'm not the only one that thought that. On Sportscenter they groaned at the call when replaying the clip. Thank God. I was hoping Saints' fans weren't turning into the Nancies that the Seahawks' fans are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Thank God. I was hoping Saints' fans weren't turning into the Nancies that the Seahawks' fans are. I wanted to post something about the officiating, but hate it when that gets mistaken for making excuses. Plain & simple the Saints had that game won easily. They dominated AD & did a fair job keeping the Vikes offense in check. But they completely blew multiple scoring opportunities with stupid mistakes. They would have lost that game even if the officiating was great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 1. Non-call on R. Bush facemask which I think contributed to the fumble.2. His explanation of the why AP fumble was not a fumble I think it went "the ball was coming out, but he still had his hand on it" 3. The false start penalty in the 3rd qtr. I was in the dome, but I think he said "the defence player was lined up in the neutral zone, but the offensive player on the other side something something something (could not hear). We were all booing... 4. Another non-call on the helmet to helmet hit on B. Miller in the 4th qtr. This after the NFL is suppost to be cracking down on those type of blows. 1. Missed calls suck, but no crew in the NFL ever catches every infraction in a game. Holding, interference, personal fouls, etc... they can be game changing penalties but they will never be 100% caught and called correctly. The Vikes got away with one there. 2. I love the Vikings, but that was a fumble IMHO. The ball was in his hand but he clearly no longer had control/possession of the ball. And it also came out before his knee touched down. That was a weird/bad call. 3. The false start call was the correct call. Sorry it went against you, but it was correct. A Defensive player can jump over the line and then jump back and get re-set before the ball is snapped. An Offensive player does not enjoy that freedom. He moved and got caught. 4. See #1. I can't believe they didn't throw a flag on that one. It was blatant. A blind lady from a mile away would have seen it. But it was missed. Sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I wanted to post something about the officiating, but hate it when that gets mistaken for making excuses. Plain & simple the Saints had that game won easily. They dominated AD & did a fair job keeping the Vikes offense in check. But they completely blew multiple scoring opportunities with stupid mistakes. They would have lost that game even if the officiating was great. The Saints had a better Offense last night, a better Defense last night, and better Special Teams last night. But the Vikes made a couple of great/lucky plays, plus they didn't have Gramatica on their team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 you may want to start misdirecting your weekly ed hochuli whines toward something more productive and accurate, like whining about martin grammatica costing you the game yet again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You must have misinterpreted what was said. What Hochuli made a point of saying is that the defensive player on one side of the line jumped whereas the offensive player on the totally opposite side of the line also false-started and that since the offensive player was on the totally opposite of side of the D player's movement, the false start stood. Had the D player been lined up across from offensive player, it would have been encroachment on the D. I wasn't aware of that caveat, but that must be the rule. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 There is no logical or reasonable human being that actually say that was not a fumble after watching the replay. Ed's explanation was ridiculous at best and had the ESPN guys speechless! Well, it's nice to see that hyperbole hasn't reared it's ugly head in this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 plus they didn't have Gramatica on their team. Dear Lawerence Tynes, Get well soon, Sincerely, Saints fans wanting to speak with John Carney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 There is no logical or reasonable human being that actually say that was not a fumble after watching the replay. Ed's explanation was ridiculous at best and had the ESPN guys speechless! nobody was speechless. even before the ruling they were specifically saying, "it looks like a fumble, but they could very well rule that even though it was coming out it was still in his hand when his knee hit". or did you completely miss the whole 5 minute schtick segue about how big and strong AD's hands are while the play was under review? I thought it was a fumble, but wasn't at all surprised the ruling on the field was upheld. it was very, very close and in those instances the original call is usually upheld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 nobody was speechless. even before the ruling they were specifically saying, "it looks like a fumble, but they could very well rule that even though it was coming out it was still in his hand when his knee hit". or did you completely miss the whole 5 minute schtick segue about how big and strong AD's hands are while the play was under review? I thought it was a fumble, but wasn't at all surprised the ruling on the field was upheld. it was very, very close and in those instances the original call is usually upheld. Homers never get this when the call is going against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 3. The false start call was the correct call. Sorry it went against you, but it was correct. A Defensive player can jump over the line and then jump back and get re-set before the ball is snapped. An Offensive player does not enjoy that freedom. He moved and got caught. I thought though if the D player caused the false start by crossing the line then the penalty was called on the D. But I didn't see the particular play so I wasn't sure if that was the case. you may want to start misdirecting your weekly ed hochuli whines toward something more productive and accurate, like whining about martin grammatica costing you the game yet again. To me this wasn't about Hoculi at all. It doesn't matter to me who or who's crew is guilty, poor officiating is poor officiating. And I'm beginning to agree about Grammatica. He's made some great kicks for us, but it seems when the pressure is on he sucks. A lot of people have been calling for Mehlhaff, but as bad as he was in preseason I'm not so sure he would be any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesMarauders Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Really? More Hochuli hate? Get over it, people - he made one terrible call in the DEN/SD game and openly admitted it. Now everyone is putting every snap of every game he works under a microscope - it's idiocy. The guy is a good ref but, shockingly, even good refs screw up every now and again or *gasp* even miss calls (please note that refs are not omniscient and simply can't be expected to see everything). There are at least 3 or 4 poopyey calls in every game that's played - can we please move on here? Well said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatBoy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Are we at least allowed to blame Martin Gramatica? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I would just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to stock canned foods & water. Since Balzac, Az, & I agree - Hell has clearly frozen over and the Apocalypse is around the corner. This has been a public service announcement. And now back to your regularly scheduled pissing match... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 3. The false start call was the correct call. Sorry it went against you, but it was correct. A Defensive player can jump over the line and then jump back and get re-set before the ball is snapped. An Offensive player does not enjoy that freedom. He moved and got caught. That's not exactly true any more. A few years ago, they started calling it on the D if they cross the line of scrimmage and an O-lineman moves because of it. That was because Ds realized that they could often get linemen to flinch and force illegal procedure calls. I thought though if the D player caused the false start by crossing the line then the penalty was called on the D. But I didn't see the particular play so I wasn't sure if that was the case. However, now it looks like offenses are catching on to the new rule so officials are being more careful not to give away calls if a defensive player gets back. I saw a game the other day where a D-lineman jumped, got back, and then an O-lineman, trying to get the call then moved. However, since the defensive player had gotten back, it was obvious that the offensive player wasn't flinching so much as trying to catch him offsides. Thus, they called it procedure on the offense. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that, in last night's game, they made the call this way because the offensive player who moved was on the opposite side of the line and was thus likely trying to earn a cheap penalty against the D rather than honestly being drawn off by defensive encroachment. IMO, that may be a stretch on the part of the officials as I can easily see a guy being drawn off by movement on the line even if the guy is not right in front of him. None the less, that appears to be the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I beleive the way the false start rule is stated is along the lines of the following: If the D-lineman encroaches, and the O-lineman moves while the D-lineman is in the neutral zone, it is ruled offsides. However, if the D-lineman is able to re-set, and the O-lineman subsequently flinches, it is a false start on the offense. I am shocked that Hochuli made reference to the scenario the the O-Lineman was on the opposite side of the line. This should have no bearing on the above rule. After all, O-lineman obviously have peripheral vision, and if they see movement coming accross the line of scrimamge, and subsequently flinch while the defender is accross the ball, this should still, IMO, be ruled defensive offside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I beleive the way the false start rule is stated is along the lines of the following: If the D-lineman encroaches, and the O-lineman moves while the D-lineman is in the neutral zone, it is ruled offsides. However, if the D-lineman is able to re-set, and the O-lineman subsequently flinches, it is a false start on the offense. I am shocked that Hochuli made reference to the scenario the the O-Lineman was on the opposite side of the line. This should have no bearing on the above rule. After all, O-lineman obviously have peripheral vision, and if they see movement coming accross the line of scrimamge, and subsequently flinch while the defender is accross the ball, this should still, IMO, be ruled defensive offside. The rule is not enforced that way very often. The D has the ability to move where they want, whereas the O-line must remain set once they assume their stance until the ball is snapped. The reason for this is pretty obvious and requires discipline of pro athletes who play on the O-line - no matter whether a D lineman is moving or lunging into the neutral zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 So what is the rule on a fumble? If the ball is coming out it is not a fumble until no part of the hand is touching the football any longer? His explanation made no sense. If one finger is still touching the football when the knee touches it is NOT ruled a fumble? He would have been better off not trying to explain and went with the not enough evidence to overturn the call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Share Posted October 7, 2008 So what is the rule on a fumble? If the ball is coming out it is not a fumble until no part of the hand is touching the football any longer? His explanation made no sense. If one finger is still touching the football when the knee touches it is NOT ruled a fumble? He would have been better off not trying to explain and went with the not enough evidence to overturn the call. I agree, that is why I'm confused. He is a complete idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 So what is the rule on a fumble? If the ball is coming out it is not a fumble until no part of the hand is touching the football any longer? His explanation made no sense. If one finger is still touching the football when the knee touches it is NOT ruled a fumble? He would have been better off not trying to explain and went with the not enough evidence to overturn the call. I believe it is possesion. This call could have gone either way, but his expanantion stated the ball did come loose from his hand until after the knee touched. Was it the right call, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) So what is the rule on a fumble? If the ball is coming out it is not a fumble until no part of the hand is touching the football any longer? His explanation made no sense. If one finger is still touching the football when the knee touches it is NOT ruled a fumble? He would have been better off not trying to explain and went with the not enough evidence to overturn the call. Yeah, that one made no sense to me either. It wasn't even like the ground ended up pushing the ball out fully. As soon as it was hit the ball moved & continued to come out as he fell and it was clearly moving by direct cause of being hit by the Saints player's hand before AD's knee touched the ground. Someone please explain to me how that is not clearly, by rule & definition, a fumble. Edited October 7, 2008 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) I believe it is possesion. This call could have gone either way, but his expanantion stated the ball did come loose from his hand until after the knee touched. Was it the right call, I don't know. By comparison if a receiver catches a ball near the sidelines & the ball is not completely in his possession (by completely meaning not moving around loose in his grasp) before he steps out of bounds then it is ruled an incomplete pass, even if the receiver clearly has full possession after stepping out. I don't see how the definition of possession on a fumble ruling should be any different. Edited October 7, 2008 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 4. Another non-call on the helmet to helmet hit on B. Miller in the 4th qtr. This after the NFL is suppost to be cracking down on those type of blows. It will be interesting to see how the league rules on this one. While I agree it ended up being a helmet to helmet hit....how much of that goes on Billy Miller? He clearly lowered his head before impact to deliver his own blow to the defender. Not sure it's totally fair to just blame the defender in a case like this, seems more like "incidental helmet to helmet" if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.