Questionable officiating last night

[MarcusRock]

My problem is in order the ball to go to SF, the defender must gain clear control of the ball, be established in bounds before going out. There is no way that is a definite call that he recovers, makes complete control before going out of bounds.

THAT's the case someone can make if they do. But here is the recovery and frozen at the point he corrals the ball before he slides out of bounds. He's clearly in. The ball appears to be clutched tight as he slides out. This is tight but I would call this a recovery, especially if they ruled it on the field.

 

[aikemirv]

The Wilson hit would be a penalty every day of the week. The Call on Kearse for unsportsmanlike conduct was BS. I thought he was standing over McCaffery because he thought he might be hurt from the hit he took from Wilson, and I think he was bit woozy after that hit too.

Kearse is such a far cry from what he was 2-3 yrs ago. It is sad to see what his play has declined to.

The idiot was a whole step offside as well!

 

[dueyhemlock]

The ball never touches him. He's ahead of where the ball is rolling.

From this video, it looks like it hits his lower shin / top of shoe area. Like a short dribbled basket bouce back to the ground.

You need a top arial view to say that contact was not made. I see a change of direction.

Watch the ball, heading upward and then changes direction downward after contact for a short distance. Then it continues on down the sideline.

Either way, it needed to be conclusive to be overturned.
It seams we all see something different.
.

 

[aikemirv]

THAT's the case someone can make if they do. But here is the recovery and frozen at the point he corrals the ball before he slides out of bounds. He's clearly in. The ball appears to be clutched tight as he slides out. This is tight but I would call this a recovery, especially if they ruled it on the field.

There is absolutely no way that ball does not move with his hands in front of it and his 300lb body rolling across the top of it.

However, you cant see it so you have to stick with the call on the field. We would be making the same claim if it was in our favor!

 

[dueyhemlock]

THAT's the case someone can make if they do. But here is the recovery and frozen at the point he corrals the ball before he slides out of bounds. He's clearly in. The ball appears to be clutched tight as he slides out. This is tight but I would call this a recovery, especially if they ruled it on the field.

Can you show the 1st part of this clip to see if the ball hits #48 lower leg.
thanks

 

[aikemirv]

The most aggregious call/non-call of the night was the first series body slam of Pollard out of bounds. That's not even legal in bounds

 

[MarcusRock]

You can see that the blocker gets his arms around Bland's shoulder pads from the angle they showed on TV last night. He pulls Bland away from the tackle.

Bland tries to go inside the block and the FB spins him out of the play at the angle he hits him. Not a hold in any sense, and certainly not a "material restriction" as the rules state, meaning some restriction is okay. If he had pulled him with the force of the facemask that happened, then you could make a case. It was a quick impact and spin. Not a hold.

 

[MarcusRock]

Can you show the 1st part of this clip to see if the ball hits #48 lower leg.
thanks

Yep. Was taken from the same sequence I was about to show next. You see the ball hit 48 here too? It didn't. The 2 clips taken together prove it. This clip proves it didn't hit his "lower leg" like you said and the other clip proves it didn't hit his foot like it appears to here. Angles are everything and sometimes it takes more than 1. First clip shown beneath this latest one.

 

[coyboy]

Anyone see anything else besides this? No flag on either play.

this was at the start of the game and i believe happened on 3rd down....

 

[Creeper]

Yep. Was taken from the same sequence I was about to show next. You see the ball hit 48 here too? It didn't. The 2 clips taken together prove it. This clip proves it didn't hit his "lower leg" like you said and the other clip proves it didn't hit his foot like it appears to here. Angles are everything and sometimes it takes more than 1. First clip shown beneath this latest one.

Just a bad bounce for Dallas. The ball is heading out of bounds and it makes a bounce to the right to stay in bounds.

 

[dueyhemlock]

Yep. Was taken from the same sequence I was about to show next. You see the ball hit 48 here too? It didn't. The 2 clips taken together prove it. This clip proves it didn't hit his "lower leg" like you said and the other clip proves it didn't hit his foot like it appears to here. Angles are everything and sometimes it takes more than 1. First clip shown beneath this latest one.

In both of these videos, there is no space between the ball and #48's foot.
I see a slight direction change of the ball after contact from the back offence side view as i stated before.

eye of the beholder...I guess

thanks for posting

 

[Creeper]

Bland tries to go inside the block and the FB spins him out of the play at the angle he hits him. Not a hold in any sense, and certainly not a "material restriction" as the rules state, meaning some restriction is okay. If he had pulled him with the force of the facemask that happened, then you could make a case. It was a quick impact and spin. Not a hold.

Do you have the angle from behind the defense? That shows the "block" more clearly and you can see the blocker with his hands grabbing the pads of Balnd.

The rule states:

Use his hands or arms to materially restrict or alter the defender’s path or angle of pursuit. It is a foul regardless of whether the blocker’s hands are inside or outside the frame of the defender’s body. Material restrictions include but are not limited to:

1. grabbing or tackling an opponent;
2. hooking, jerking, twisting, or turning him; or
3. pulling him to the ground.

I think the 2nd part describes what happened and it is right next to the tackle so it is hard to argue the hold was not material.

I am not going to make a federal case out of this. This one play did not matter Both teams were doing a lot of holding and little of it was called.

 

[Pola_pe_a]

You can see that the blocker gets his arms around Bland's shoulder pads from the angle they showed on TV last night. He pulls Bland away from the tackle.

Thats a clean block. Contrary to what many fans think you’e allowed to grab jersey. As soon as Bland changed direction SF player let go. He got turned because he got blocked.

If you want that called, football would be unwatchable.

 

[CoachD]

Only losers would question the officiating last night over a loss like that!

 

[MarcusRock]

Do you have the angle from behind the defense? That shows the "block" more clearly and you can see the blocker with his hands grabbing the pads of Balnd.

The rule states:

Use his hands or arms to materially restrict or alter the defender’s path or angle of pursuit. It is a foul regardless of whether the blocker’s hands are inside or outside the frame of the defender’s body. Material restrictions include but are not limited to:

1. grabbing or tackling an opponent;
2. hooking, jerking, twisting, or turning him; or
3. pulling him to the ground.

I think the 2nd part describes what happened and it is right next to the tackle so it is hard to argue the hold was not material.

I am not going to make a federal case out of this. This one play did not matter Both teams were doing a lot of holding and little of it was called.

Yep, here's that angle. He spins Bland out and lets him go after Bland pushes back to get back to the ball. Had he stayed with the block and held on to him as Bland tried to change direction, THAT would be a hold. Same as Deebo on Kearse on the same play if you check the other video. He initially contacted him and when Kearse wanted to change direction, he let him go or THAT would have been a hold. Remember, it's "material restriction." Some restriction is okay until you materially impact where the other wants to go.

 

[Creeper]

Yep, here's that angle. He spins Bland out and lets him go after Bland pushes back to get back to the ball. Had he stayed with the block and held on to him as Bland tried to change direction, THAT would be a hold. Same as Deebo on Kearse on the same play if you check the other video. He initially contacted him and when Kearse wanted to change direction, he let him go or THAT would have been a hold. Remember, it's "material restriction." Some restriction is okay until you materially impact where the other wants to go.

Read the rule again. "hooking, jerking, twisting, or turning him; or..."

You can't see his right hand but he hooks Bland by the shoulder pad and turns him, right next to the play. So by the rule it is holding and it has to be material since the RB was coming in his direction.

 

[MarcusRock]

Read the rule again. "hooking, jerking, twisting, or turning him; or..."

You can't see his right hand but he hooks Bland by the shoulder pad and turns him, right next to the play. So by the rule it is holding and it has to be material since the RB was coming in his direction.

Wait, "it has to be material" because the RB was near? Where is that in the rules? You're putting stuff there that isn't present.

Yes read the rule again. "Material restriction" is the whole basis of the rule. It's either deemed material or it isn't. There are degrees. Otherwise any hooking or turning should be called holding as the other poster said. And it's not. This is no different than people thinking they see Parsons being held but when he uses a rip move it greatly increases the chance it's not a hold because it's an exception in the rule.

 

[HungryLion]

THAT's the case someone can make if they do. But here is the recovery and frozen at the point he corrals the ball before he slides out of bounds. He's clearly in. The ball appears to be clutched tight as he slides out. This is tight but I would call this a recovery, especially if they ruled it on the field.

This play drove me nuts.

1. I can’t believe the ball didn’t touch somebody who was out of bounds.

2. I can’t believe how clean the defender recovered the ball. All we needed was the slightest bobble and it would have been declared out of bounds.

Just terribly bad luck and a great recovery by the defender.

 

[visionary]

Losers always blame the refs.

Usually i would agree but key fouls can alter the game

 

[MarcusRock]

In both of these videos, there is no space between the ball and #48's foot.
I see a slight direction change of the ball after contact from the back offence side view as i stated before.

eye of the beholder...I guess

thanks for posting

Well, if you're NOW saying it hit is foot, then you consult video 2 of the post you quoted which shows it missed his foot completely. That is indisputable. Again, both videos cover every part of his body you say it touched to clearly show it didn't. As for the ball changing directions, many people thought Gilmore's pick against the Giants hit the ground because of the action of the ball but when I posted this video below, the ball popped up from Gilmore's hands, not the ground but it sure looked like the ground did it because we're biased towards ball action. Can't just watch the ball's action though. You have to see contact. There wasn't any on the fumble play.