CaptainHook Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 There was no 'voided' forward progress, becasue there was never any forward progress, because there wasn't a catch yet. If he caught the ball and then bobbled it, then there could have been forward progress. But the bobble was part of the catching process. In this case there was never forward progress becasue he didn't get possession of the ball until he was being tackled. Had he stayed on his feet, rather than fall to the ground, and been pushed back 3 yards by a defender before being tackled, the spot would have been the same, due to to forward progress. I disagree. I think he DID gain posession before the place where the ball was spotted, but it no longer counted because of the bobble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 You see, that's what I thought too. But the bobble is the key. It's no longer a forward progress issue. It is now a reception at the spot where he is touched down with contol. The 29 and a half. The spot was correct by the rules. The ref knew it instantly, and signaled it immediately. That's what made me question what the rule was. He was just so sure. He signaled the bobble twice, and he spotted it immediately where Faulk landed. It made me think he was very clear on the rule. so you're saying that once he bobbles it, then it is marked at the spot where he is down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_mjg Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Why do people keep perpetually spitting out nonsense? The "juggle" is completely irrelevant once Faulk begins the act of the final catch. It could bounce off 10 different people or he could juggle it 10 times but only the place where he begins and ends the final "act" of catching could possibly influence the spot of the ball. Based on watching football for years, as a poster above stated, a jumping receiver who is driven back before touching the ground ALWAYS has gotten the furthest spot the ball was at during the entire act of making the catch. As some have stated, it appears that this interaction between possession and forward progress rules is not addressed explicitly, but the way this situation is spotted has been consistent. And it makes sense. The ability to "carry" a player backward a yard or two while in the air would be extremely dangerous. It really close on the 2 camera views i've seen, but I really do think Faulk started the act of the (final) catch when he was right at the 30. His foot that came down was the closest part of his body to the line of scrimmage. If the NFL reverses years of play calling and states that a receiver's forward progress begins only after both feet have touched the ground, count on dangerous, dirty play from Bellicheat's freshmen corners next week to prove a point. Chargers fan here, for what it's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 you are missing an important part. He bobbled it. That changed everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I don't get why people are still disputing a "rule". It's written in plain black and white. Another thing - Melvin Bullitt made a hell of a play which no one is really talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I disagree. I think he DID gain posession before the place where the ball was spotted, but it no longer counted because of the bobble. Huh? The bobble means he did not yet have possession. He only had possession after the ball was secured... AFTER the bobble. He did not have possession until he held the ball securely. There is no forward progress until he has possession, which he did not have. By then, he was behind the 1st down marker. That was the ruling, and a correct one. The spot was a little off, but still not a first down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I mean what happens if they hold him up 5 yards from the sideline and toss him OB?Presuming that he hasn't gotten 2 feet down yet... If the carry him the 5 yards, it counts as a reception. If they hit him hard enough that he flies out of bounds (but isn't otherwise carried out), then it doesn't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_mjg Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Based on the logic of every biased Indy fan here, even if he NEVER bobbled it, he STILL would have been short of the first down because both feet weren't down until he was being driven backwards. That is most definitely wrong. Maybe what CaptainHook is saying is right, that would be the only way to reconcile the spot. But I think the much more likely scenario is that the line judge simply couldn't see exactly when Faulk SECURED THE BALL (not "established possession") and guessed. I can't find anything in the rulebook that covers this issue but it's clear the way the situation has been called in the last 15 years in pro and college football. Edited November 17, 2009 by matt_mjg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Another thing - Melvin Bullitt made a hell of a play which no one is really talking about. agreed, Bullitt did make a great defensive stop on the play. but riddle me this.... I've watched this play more times than any psychiatrist would recommend, Faulk begins the play in the backfield, to Brady's right Bullitt is 10 yards down field in the middle of the field. Faulk then shifts out and up beside the RT or TE. Bullitt, comes racing in, before the ball is snapped, to the line of scrimmage to cover Faulk. Question is, had Faulk NOT shifted, and came out of the backfield for the pass, would Bullitt have stayed back? I know he most likely shifted because of the rush/blitz, so he could get to the spot to catch the pass before the rush got to Brady. If he didn't shift, what would the defense have done? Who would have picked up Faulk? I didnt see anybody available to cover Faulk out of the backfield. I know this has been dissected more that a toad in a chemistry lab, but I'd like to hear your guys opinion on it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Back and to the right... back and to the right.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 ^ ok, whatever that is supposed to mean.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) Mike Pereira, head of NFL officials, said the controversial fourth-and-2 play in the Colts' Sunday night win over New England was handled quickly and correctly by head linesman Tom Stabile. Stabile ruled Patriots running back Kevin Faulk's forward momentum was short of the 30-yard line, which the Patriots needed for a first down, after he bobbled the ball. "Once that occurs," Pereira said, "then the progress spot is going to be where (Faulk) first controls the ball after the bobble. Where is it exactly? It is hard to tell where he first gets that control. "Tom comes in and signals it's just a few inches short." Had the play been reviewed -- the Patriots were out of timeouts and could not challenge -- Pereira does not believe the call would have been reversed. There was, he said, "no indisputable evidence" to overturn it. from indystar.com So it seems to me that getting his feet down had zero bearing on the spot. You CAN still get forward progress after a bobble, it's just not until you GAIN control that forward progress can be granted. In that case, I think the spot should have been closer to the 30, and could very well have been a first down. I do agree that there was no conclusive evidence from replay, and it would have not been overturned. Edited November 20, 2009 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) Mike Pereira, head of NFL officials, said the controversial fourth-and-2 play in the Colts' Sunday night win over New England was handled quickly and correctly by head linesman Tom Stabile. Stabile ruled Patriots running back Kevin Faulk's forward momentum was short of the 30-yard line, which the Patriots needed for a first down, after he bobbled the ball. "Once that occurs," Pereira said, "then the progress spot is going to be where (Faulk) first controls the ball after the bobble. Where is it exactly? It is hard to tell where he first gets that control. "Tom comes in and signals it's just a few inches short." Had the play been reviewed -- the Patriots were out of timeouts and could not challenge -- Pereira does not believe the call would have been reversed. There was, he said, "no indisputable evidence" to overturn it. from indystar.com So it seems to me that getting his feet down had zero bearing on the spot. You CAN still get forward progress after a bobble, it's just not until you GAIN control that forward progress can be granted. In that case, I think the spot should have been closer to the 30, and could very well have been a first down. I do agree that there was no conclusive evidence from replay, and it would have not been overturned. That's what I had suggested earlier in the thread. I'm a Colts fan, so no complaints here at the ultimate outcome, but I watched the game on NFL Network again last night or wednesday night (I forget already - a sure sign of the apocalypse) and I do think Faulk had control on the first down side of the 30. I slowed it down repeatedly and stopped the screen frame by frame and ya - I think the Colts caught a break. I also agree that the call would not have been overturned if reviewed. Was it not a "booth review" situation because the play started before the official 2 minute warning, 'cause the play itself ended under 2 minutes - 1:57 I think. Is the start-time of the play what dictates whether it's a booth review vs. a coach's review? Tough loss for the Pats, great win for the Colts. Like I said, I ain't complaining. Edited November 20, 2009 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Was it not a "booth review" situation because the play started before the official 2 minute warning, 'cause the play itself ended under 2 minutes - 1:57 I think. Is the start-time of the play what dictates whether it's a booth review vs. a coach's review? Yes, it was not booth-reviewable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I also agree that the call would not have been overturned if reviewed. Was it not a "booth review" situation because the play started before the official 2 minute warning, 'cause the play itself ended under 2 minutes - 1:57 I think. Is the start-time of the play what dictates whether it's a booth review vs. a coach's review?The last play prior to the 2 minute warning, at whatever specific game time that warning actually happens, can be challenged until the ball is snapped for the first play after the 2 minute warning timeout. This very thing happened several weeks ago when Indy played Houston. Moats fumbled the ball right at the goal line just before the 2 minute warning. Houston didn't push to get the next play prior to the 2 minute mark so they went to break. After the break Houston lined up but Caldwell threw the flag just prior to the snap. The play was reviewed, reversed, and declared a touch back as the ball was recovered in the end zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Are they STILL going on about this on SNF? This is like the Cowboys Stadium scoreboard on steroids... 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.