(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({ google_ad_client: "ca-pub-3070301786099382", enable_page_level_ads: true });
Football Zebras
CallsQuick calls: Week 10

Quick calls: Week 10

Check this post for a breakdown of calls made by the officiating crews today. Did you see something that is controversial or have a question about a rules interpretation? Respond in the comments section of this post or tweet us @footballzebras.

[Note: Updates might be a little slow today, as I will be in and out all day.]

(Officiating assignments)

[liveblog]

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

8 thoughts on “Quick calls: Week 10

  1. i was at today’s Bills – Patriots game. Brandon Spikes (Pats) was called for roughing the passer for a helmet-to-helmet hit, which was apparently a correct call. But it seemed to me, without benefit of replay, that Fitzpatrick intentionally grounded the ball just before the hit in order to avoid the sack that was about to take place. No intentional grounding was called but should it have been as an offsetting penalty to the roughing the passer call?

  2. Many parts to an intentional grounding call. Don’t know the specific play, so I can’t say for sure. Was Fitzpatrick running out of the pocket? In that case, he only has to get the ball near the line of scrimmage, even if no receiver is in the area. If he was in the pocket, then the ball must go to the area of a receiver (also, must be under imminent threat of sack, which is implied in your description). If you can provide more details, I can give you a better idea.

  3. I can’t find a complete video of the play where Spikes hit Fitzpatrick but a segment of it is at http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?439936-Video-of-Spikes-hitting-Fitzpatrick . What this doesn’t show is that (1) Fitzpatrick was in the tackle box, (2), the ball never made it to the line of scrimmage, (3) no eligible receivers, to my recollection, were in the area, & (4) Fitz threw the ball because he saw the protection had broken down and Spikes as well as two other Pats were closing in. Notice that another two Pats were already behind Fitz and Fitz knew they were coming back at him. My seats had a 45 degree angle view from the front and I thought the flag was for grounding since I didn’t see the helmet-to-helmet hit. This play occurred early in the 4th Q around the Bills 45 yard line.

  4. I looked at the video — youtube link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWUp3S7IiGg — and I see #84 in the area being blocked. By virtue of his number he is an eligible receiver (unless he happened to line up in an ineligible position). Even though it was towards his feet, there is a receiver in the area.

    Thanks for pointing it out and for the video link.

  5. Excellent! I was convinced that the refs got this wrong but it’s clear that they didn’t. Thanks very much for clearing this up.

Comments are closed.

Top