NFL Officiating Scandal

[MarcusRock]

And which part of those statements contradicts the fact that a guy who played for the Eagles for something like 8 years was in the booth helping Riveron make his replay decisions?

If that happened in a regular season Cowboys game - to say nothing of a Super Bowl - this forum would go bat**** crazy ballistic.

Was the call correct as called by the current rules I posted or wasn't it? I quoted the rule and Steratore explained the current rule on the field right after it happened. Anyone can allege anything based on who's doing what and where. Was the call correct per the current rules?

 

[GreenMean69]

And which part of those statements contradicts the fact that a guy who played for the Eagles for something like 8 years was in the booth helping Riveron make his replay decisions?

If that happened in a regular season Cowboys game - to say nothing of a Super Bowl - this forum would go bat**** crazy ballistic.

They went with the call on the field .... There was not enough evidence to overturn . The Ref even before all that explained the call and why it was good while waiting on reply from NY. Check out the Micd up for the Superbowl. Clement had control there was slight movemnt while he was in control and switching hands... you know a move a RB would make. He had to feet in and from the one angle look like he draged 3rd step a bit

 

[Ghost12]

Was the call correct as called by the current rules I posted or wasn't it? I quoted the rule and Steratore explained the current rule on the field right after it happened. Anyone can allege anything based on who's doing what and where. Was the call correct per the current rules?

No it was not correct under the rules which should have been in place during the game. He clearly did not establish possession before going out of bounds. That ball was clearly still moving.

It wasn't moving much but (under the old rule) movement is movement. There was no "slight movement" exemption like there will be going forward.

 

[MarcusRock]

No it was not correct under the rules which should have been in place during the game. He clearly did not establish possession before going out of bounds. That ball was clearly still moving.

It wasn't moving much but (under the old rule) movement is movement. There was no "slight movement" exemption like there will be going forward.

This is what I mean about being blinded by conspiracy talk. The "slight movement exemption" is ALREADY in the 2017 season version of the rules which is what I posted on the last page. Here's a LINK. Go to Page 39.

RULE 8, SECTION 1
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS.
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

So given that the above IS the rule that applied during the game, was the call correct per that 2017 season version of the rule or not?

 

[Ghost12]

This is what I mean about being blinded by conspiracy talk. The "slight movement exemption" is ALREADY in the 2017 season version of the rules which is what I posted on the last page. Here's a LINK. Go to Page 39.

RULE 8, SECTION 1
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS.
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

So given that the above IS the rule that applied during the game, was the call correct per that 2017 season version of the rule or not?

Slight movement is allowed after you have established possession. It is not allowed while a receiver is in the process of establishing possession. He never controlled the ball in the first place prior to his foot coming down out of bounds.

It's really not that complicated.

 

[MarcusRock]

Slight movement is allowed after you have established possession. It is not allowed while a receiver is in the process of establishing possession. He never controlled the ball in the first place prior to his foot coming down out of bounds.

It's really not that complicated.

I see some dancing going on ol' Ghost. So you admit that the proper rule was applied then. Don't need you to actually say it. So now that this ridiculous conspiracy theory has been set straight, you can see that Clement had control, took 2 steps and THEN the ball moved slightly. It's exactly the same as Steratore said when he stated "it (the ball) sticks here..." The ball didn't move once it hit him and he took 2 steps before movement. That's control per the rule. Check out the last replay at 1:02 of this video. The ball doesn't move from the time Clement grabs it and takes 2 steps. Any movement happens between the 2nd and 3rd steps.

 

[GreenMean69]

I see some dancing going on ol' Ghost. So you admit that the proper rule was applied then. Don't need you to actually say it. So now that this ridiculous conspiracy theory has been set straight, you can see that Clement had control, took 2 steps and THEN the ball moved slightly. It's exactly the same as Steratore said when he stated "it (the ball) sticks here..." The ball didn't move once it hit him and he took 2 steps before movement. That's control per the rule. Check out the last replay at 1:02 of this video. The ball doesn't move from the time Clement grabs it and takes 2 steps. Any movement happens between the 2nd and 3rd steps.

some people just hate the fact the eagles won ... even more so because of all the things they over came . Its also pretty hard to not have a ball move with a defender trying to knock it out and pulling on arm .

 

[MarcusRock]

some people just hate the fact the eagles won ... even more so because of all the things they over came . Its also pretty hard to not have a ball move with a defender trying to knock it out and pulling on arm .

Oh I know. The conspiracy narrative is that officials do all they can so the Patriots can win but now all of a sudden the conspiracy winds shift to help Philly out against the Patriots in this one case. I just find the antics of not wanting to accept an unfavorable result hilarious 'round these parts.

 

[Ghost12]

I see some dancing going on ol' Ghost. So you admit that the proper rule was applied then.

Uh, no I don't. You need to reread my post. I'll be happy to clarify it for you if you would like.

And BTW I notice how you are completely ignoring the main point I had: An 8 year Philadelphia Eagle veteran was in the booth with Riveron "advising" him on his replay reviews. If that happened to the Cowboys in the regular season - to say nothing about the Super Bowl - this forum would explode.

 

[Ghost12]

some people just hate the fact the eagles won ... even more so because of all the things they over came . Its also pretty hard to not have a ball move with a defender trying to knock it out and pulling on arm .

Yes. Yes it is. And that is why defenders are trained to use the sidelines when trying to force incompletions.

 

[MarcusRock]

Uh, no I don't. You need to reread my post. I'll be happy to clarify it for you if you would like.

And BTW I notice how you are completely ignoring the main point I had: An 8 year Philadelphia Eagle veteran was in the booth with Riveron "advising" him on his replay reviews. If that happened to the Cowboys in the regular season - to say nothing about the Super Bowl - this forum would explode.

That's because most people can't look at anything negative happening to the Cowboys with at least some conspiracy slant. So if it helps our opponents and/or doesn't benefit us, then no one is capable of being impartial in doing the job they were hired to do. No proof is ever required of course. I get it.

 

[kskboys]

The NFL often officiates games with specific agendas, so why would this garner national attention?

Yeah, if anyone watched the AFC championship game w/ any objectivity whatsoever, the agenda was pretty clear.