You are here
Football Zebras > Calls > Quick calls: Week 15

Quick calls: Week 15


We will have our eyes on the games, but if you see anything confusing, unusual, or controversial, please let us know.


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

Similar Articles

28 thoughts on “Quick calls: Week 15

  1. and elmer fudd just screws another team over on that terrible reversal. bet dean blandino now gives him the super bowl since he got a playoff game after the ind/cin screw up.

  2. So… did you just not watch the replay, or what? Because he obviously didn’t have possession. It wasn’t even close. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what “terrible” means?

  3. And yet, repeatedly, we are told that when crossing the goal line once the ball crosses the imaginary plane the play is over and TD.

    So if RGIII regained control before crossing the line it should be a TD. Period.

    Either that or there are two rules that contradict each other.

  4. The Glenn.. Of course there are contradictory rules, how else could the NFL congratulate itself for always getting the call correct? The other great part in the redskin’s game idiocy is that moss will be very publicly fined or suspended – while we will never hear what (if anything) happens to the members of that crew.

  5. Also just saw the continuation of the play…he maintains control all the way through after he crosses the goal line.

  6. It’s a touchdown if the ball crosses the imaginary plane while a player is IN POSSESSION OF THE BALL. Since he lost possession of the ball, he has to REGAIN possession of the ball, and to regain possession while going to the ground you have to control it through contacting the ground.

    It is clear that he lost possession of the ball before crossing the plane, thus he MUST regain possession to score a touchdown. Upon making contact with the ground he lost control of the ball, thus he did not regain possession and did not score a touchdown. This is very simple. It is not contradictory. The relevant rule is even posted above. What is so difficult to understand?

  7. Edit to that: He did lose control after hitting the ground. I still think that’s a pretty obscure rule though. And comparing fumbling the ball in your own hands to completing a pass is pretty dumb.

  8. “Ground cannot cause a fumble” nope, no contradiction there. 2 even better ideas, how about we 1) eliminate replay and 2) have the refs be full time league employees rather then expensive part-timers. 1) because the NFL proved long ago that it was never about getting all calls right, but only maybe a few… and you will be penalized if the ref was “right” the 1st time.

  9. No one is saying the ground caused a fumble on this play, so you’re right, there’s no contradiction.

  10. The Eagles/Cowboys game on December 14, 2014. An illegal contact call, which was the right call, against the Eagles was thrown after the refs could see the replay. If the replay has shown the refs should not be able to throw a flag. The Eagles were murdered in the game against Seattle by the refs and it is already starting again.

  11. Still struggling with Parry’s decision on the safety in the Jets-Titans dumpster fire. Yes the call was correct as a forward pass. But in the video I don’t see an initial flag nor do I hear Parry saying to disregard a flag because there was a fumble. I think Mike Carey was right, and fortunately for sanity (but unfortunately for the New York tabloid writers) the game wasn’t decided by those two points.

  12. Just wow on the Hochuli crew call on the roughing the passer call in the Seattle – San Francisco game. If that hit by Moody on Wilson is roughing the passer than I don’t know how a defender can hit a QB anymore without drawing a penalty. Even Joe Buck and Troy Aikman were appalled by the call, especially Buck who would not let it go and kept referring to how bad the call was over and over while announcing the game. As well he should – it was the deciding factor in a close game, changing the score from a probable 13-7 game with the fourth down FG attempt to a 17-7 game when the call allowed Seattle to keep their drive moving and they scored a TD. Here is Eddie’s reasoning for making the call:

    “I felt that he hit the quarterback in the chest with the hairline, and that’s a foul unless he has his face completely up and would hit it face on with the face mask. It’s a foul, and that’s why I called it.

    “I felt that he hit him with the hairline. The facemask, after you hit him, the facemask comes up. But the first thing that hit him was the hairline of the helmet.

    “That is still a foul when you hit the quarterback with that part of your head.”

    I think it is a good explanation for why he made the call, but if you look at the play, it is VERY close. To me, and I would imagine the vast majority of the viewing audience (as well as the announcers) it was a clean hit and the penalty flag should not have been thrown.

  13. And that’s why it should be reviewable. He called what he “thought” he was because he’s trained to protect QB’s. And , again, it affected the outcome of a game when it could be easily reviewed and corrected.

  14. Bill Leavy’s crew made the crew in last weeks Seattle-Philly game look good. Buffalo defenders raped Packer receivers all game long. Even Aaron Rodgers eluded to it int he press conference. Bills defense is very stout and deserved the win, but if you let defenders play pass defense like that, they wil all be Richad SHermans.

  15. Ed Hochuli needs to learn to know when he does not know. His view was completely blocked by the quarterback and yet he threw the flag anyway. Why? To err on the side of caution?! A ref should be allowed to ask for a replay review if he is in doubt. especially when a bad call can have a severe impact on the game he is officiating. We all know that officials are human and make mistakes, so why not allow technology to aid them?

  16. Does anyone know why the intentional grounding to safety *was* reviewable in Jets/Titans, but not in 49rs/Seahawks? It was clear in the 2nd game the coach wanted to challenge it, and the ref said you can’t challenge the penalty (even if it would have been a scoring play), but that seems to be the exact thing that happenend in reverse with Jets/Titans. So if no flag, you can challenge it and add the penalty/safety, but if they flag and give a safety, you can’t challenge it (even if the call is wrong)? That doesn’t seem consistent. Which crew messed up?

  17. WOW! Imagine if a REPLACEMENT had made that call?! The OUTCRY! Where are John Gruden and Steve Young NOW with their harangues of Hochuli, et al after this weekend of some REALLY bad officiating? The hypocrisy continues.

  18. Jesse – As I understand it, the intentional grounding was enforced after the replay because R announced PRIOR to the review that there was no intenetional grounding only BECAUSE of the fumble ruling. When that ruling was reversed, the intentional gounding penalty was then back in play. Not sure what happened in the 49er/Seahawk game, but I can only assume from your description that the challenge would have been that there was no eligibles or other factors related to intentional grounding, which was not reviewable. The Jets/Titans review was for a fumble vs pass, not for intentional grounding. The ruling on the field as announced was that there WOULD have been grounding had that been a pass. Since the replay reversed the fumble to a pass, grounding could then be enforced.

  19. On an unrelated topic, there was an ineligible downfield and an OPI called this past week when the pass clearly did not cross the NZ. In NFHS and I believe NCAA, neither would have been a foul. I can only assume that requirment does not exist in the NFL.

  20. Thanks for your reply Ottobabble. In the 49rs game, they called IG, but the ball did cross the line of scrimmage. Had they reviewed it, they would have been able to reverse it. Instead (as I understand the rule), they wrongly gave the safety. That appears to be pretty much what the refs said to the pool reporter after the game to. So they wrongly gave a safety saying the pass did not go over the LOS, and were not able to review it because you can’t review a penalty (but you can review a scoring play–and the penalty on an objective fact, did the ball cross the LOS–is exactly what makes it a scoring play). I mean, in that instance, could the Ref have said that it is a saftey because the ball did not cross the LOS, and review it? Because that seems to be what happened in the Jets game (no saftey because fumble). I guess I just don’t by that announcing it before the review allows you to go and add a penalty because of the review. If that makes sense. I’m pretty familiar with the NFL rule book, and I don’t really see where you can add a penalty after a review as long as you announced it before the review.

Comments are closed.