Officiating (Merged Threads)

[HoustonRaven]

"Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line)."

"AT OR BEYOND the line of scrimmage." The ball did NOT it at or beyond the line of scrimmage.

UHh. Right.

And they did not call Intentional Grounding.

Thank you for making my point.

[RavenusMaximus]

The reason the refs called it a fumble in the first place is because it clearly was not and would be overturned. Otherwise, they would have had to call the intentional grounding.

Refs, not as stupid as they pretend to be.

[RavenusMaximus]

UHh. Right.

And they did not call Intentional Grounding.

Thank you for making my point.

I'm just flabbergasted with that one.

[Benny8444]

The reason the refs called it a fumble in the first place is because it clearly was not and would be overturned. Otherwise, they would have had to call the intentional grounding.

Refs, not as stupid as they pretend to be.

It was a close play when watching it live so i can see why they called it a fumble. but once seeing the replay it was obiv. It was a tough call to make live as Ngata was on top of Vick and his had barley moved forward.

[PurpleApocalypse37]

Vick was outside the tackles, the play was snapped on the right hash I believe. And the ball got "near" the line of scrimmage. It was close in both regards, but I don't think it gets called regardless of which refs are in there, and it certainly isn't a clear mistake to refrain from calling that.

The "it was the scab refs" excuse is pretty weak in general. The only call that was very costly that was dubious was the offensive PI and I actually only saw one bad-angle (not from the side) replay of the play and couldn't tell how it looked. It was a weak "push" even if it was a push, but if both his hands went to the DB's back then it makes sense the ref would call it, even if it was sketchy (b/c it looks worse than it is). The rule has almost become automatic (b/c of Irvin's abuse in the old days) that two extended arms with both hands on the DB, regardless of the force you are applying or the advantage gained, is called OPI.

There were several dubious calls on both teams in terms of roughing the passer, and a couple non-called unnecessary roughness penalties (Pollard on Celek sticks out the most). In general, the refs rank way low on the list of why we lost, and the insinuation that the old refs don't make as many or more huge calls or non-calls that affect games (even if they are different calls/non-calls) is nonsense, imo.

You are so biased against the Ravens it is not even worth listening to anything you say. There was NOTHING dubious about the roughing the passer on Flacco. That would've been called in the year 2000. Over a second after he threw it the defender went after him. Oh, and there was a missed DPI on that play. And Pollard did NOT have unnecessary roughness by any stretch of the imagination. You think just because it was a big hit we got lucky it wasn't called. He didn't hit his helmet, and he didn't lead with his helmet. His shoulder pad went to his chest.

[Knox Harrington]

Which is all pointless because they were reviewing the play as a fumble. They can't throw a new penalty flag while under the hood.

Yes they can. Challenge flags have been thrown at whether or not the ball reached the LOS.

[LC_Ravens_87]

UHh. Right.

And they did not call Intentional Grounding.

Thank you for making my point.

Clearly you didn't major in logic. Try taking the two premises in that clause and negating them if you're having trouble.

So originally: Grounding NOT called if Pass lands AT OR BEYOND los.

Therefore: Grounding WILL be Called if a Pass lands NOT AT OR BEYOND the los.

[HoustonRaven]

Clearly you didn't major in logic. Try taking the two premises in that clause and negating them if you're having trouble.

So originally: Grounding NOT called if Pass lands AT OR BEYOND los.

Therefore: Grounding WILL be Called if a Pass lands NOT AT OR BEYOND the los.

What part of they cant review penalties in a review do you not understand.

The play was called a fumble.

[Knox Harrington]

"Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line)."

"AT OR BEYOND the line of scrimmage." The ball did NOT it at or beyond the line of scrimmage.

Not really worth arguing about, the "über moderator" has neve lost a debate on his forum.

[PurpleApocalypse37]

UHh. Right.

And they did not call Intentional Grounding.

Thank you for making my point.

It says right there in text, clear as crystal, that it is still intentional grounding if the ball doesn't make it to the line of scrimmage. The ball did NOT make it to the line of scrimmage. Therefore, it was the wrong call. What is so hard to comprehend about this?

[NCRAVEN]

What part of they cant review penalties in a review do you not understand.

The play was called a fumble.

:word

[NCRAVEN]

Are you an idiot? It says right there in text, clear as crystal, that it is still intentional grounding if the ball doesn't make it to the line of scrimmage. The ball did NOT make it to the line of scrimmage. Therefore, it was the wrong call. What is so hard to comprehend about this?

HE WAS OUTSIDE THE POCKET, THEREFORE THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE IS IRRELEVANT.

Geez... can we move on already!?!?!?