(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({ google_ad_client: "ca-pub-3070301786099382", enable_page_level_ads: true });
Football Zebras
CallsQuick calls: Week 16
Ben Austro
Ben Austro is the editor and founder of Football Zebras and the author of So You Think You Know Football?: The Armchair Ref's Guide to the Official Rules (on sale now)

6 thoughts on “Quick calls: Week 16

  1. At end of 4q of Eagles-Redskins, eagles are driving and are on Redskins 10 yard line or so. Eagles QB rolls left, under pressure, gets hit and throws ball that lands at maybe 5 yard line not near any receivers. Hochuli and crew call intentional grounding. Explains that though QB was out of pocket, ball did not get back to LOS, so it is grounding. 10 second runoff ends the game. Can it be grounding in that situation since he was hit as he threw?

  2. I thought the umpire did a particularly terrible job. The number of uncalled holds in this game was significantly higher than what it should have been.

  3. Tony, the referee can make a judgement on whether the hit on the QB materially altered the flight of the ball. If he thinks the hit caused the ball to sail, then he can waive off grounding. Apparently Hochuli felt that the Eagles QB dumped the ball off and the hit did not materially alter the flight of the ball.

  4. The Jacoby Jones play was the second time that I have seen controversy related to near endzone receptions/touchdowns this year. The first was the Danario Alexander “touchdown” in the first Denver/San Diego game. To be honest, I am confused as to the interpretation of the rule and think the league needs to revise the rule a little as it seems non-intuitive.

    It should be noted, as Pereira pointed out, that the officiating crew in the Giants/Ravens game was the same one that did the Broncos/Chargers game. The league eventually came back and said that the Alexander touchdown should have been overturned in that game as there was not enough of a second/football move in order to consider possession. With that knowledge in mind, it is easy to see how the crew would reverse this call given that they are so close in nature. With that being said, it seemed as though Jones displayed more control than Alexander. Was it enough, I have no idea, hence my confusion.

    All of that being said, I would love to have a conversation about one of the plays that occurred shortly after the Jones play regarding a potential Eli Manning fumble. The call on the field was incomplete; however, it really looked like it MIGHT be the open hand rule. With that being said, the Ravens picked the ball up and started to run, before fumbling it. The Giants recovered the subsequent Raven fumble. The refs eventually came in and ruled it an incomplete pass. Coughlin tried to challenge the play since it would give the Giants a first down (recovering the second fumble) in theory. The refs ruled that Coughlin could not challenge given that the Giants would receive no benefit from the challenge. I could understand that explanation had the whistle blown shortly after Manning was hit (or before the Ravens fumble)…the Ravens would be the only team to benefit from a challenge. I don’t remember such a whistle (couldn’t hear it on tv), but I could be wrong. With that being said, my question is whether or not the placement of the whistle would determine whether the Giants could receive benefit from the challenge? Granted, the question could be rendered moot based off video, if the whistle blew following the initial hit or before the Ravens fumbled.

Comments are closed.

Top