PDA

View Full Version : Broadcasters getting carried away and forgetting the rules.


HMc
02-07-2006, 06:47 AM
Nobody's perfect.

But it really shits me when guys who are "experts" get a rule blatantly wrong, but protest it's accuracy with loads of authority.


Example. On Sunday (well, monday here) Darryl Johnston (who was calling the game with Dick stockton for us international viewers) went into rant mode over the officials suggesting Hasselbeck had fumbled the football when he dived after that run. He kept going on about "the ground can't cause a fumble" but refused to consider that perhaps the QB hadn't been tackled and therefore was not "down" at all. He just kept going on about how the ground not causing a fumble was one of the basic rules of football. I wonder if Darryl has considered that a player who falls over untouched 5 yards from the endzone, and then gets up with the ball to continue, would be happy to be considered "down" at the 5? Or if that player let go of the ball after hitting the ground, would the defensive team be happy with him being considered "down"?

He referred to it as a grey area. Um, no it's not, Darryl.

Phobia
02-07-2006, 08:59 AM
Darryl Johnson is an idiot because of all the concussions Troy Aikman had and all the coke Irvin did. Can you imagine all the stupidity that got on him in that huddle?

I actually like Moose but I understand the point.

Rain Man
02-07-2006, 09:17 AM
I presume that it would not have been a fumble if he had been sliding feet first, though, right? It seems to me that a QB going down feet first is conceding that he's down as soon as the ball hits the ground, but a QB going down head first is not conceding that he's down.

Slightly off topic, but what happens if a QB goes down at a 90 degree angle? Is he down? Or can he get back up? I'll bet this could be a cool trick play.

Bob Dole
02-07-2006, 09:20 AM
I presume that it would not have been a fumble if he had been sliding feet first, though, right?

Didn't being touched by an opposing player as he went to the ground constitute a tackle?

Rain Man
02-07-2006, 09:22 AM
Didn't being touched by an opposing player as he went to the ground constitute a tackle?

Yeah. I'm just thinking of the theoretical situation of a QB diving head first versus feet first versus hip first. (I'm still fascinated by this 90 degree dive thing.)

HMc
02-07-2006, 09:24 AM
Didn't being touched by an opposing player as he went to the ground constitute a tackle?

Yeah - he was touched - that was why it wasn't a fumble. The point here is what would happen if he wasn't touched. Seemingly feet first is considered "submission" and hence "down". Hands first probably isn't.

My initial point was merely that Moose had forgotten that being tackled was a fairly integral part of being down (given that he hadn't gone feet first).

morphius
02-07-2006, 09:40 AM
Using Irvin as a judge for pushing off is a bit stupid, just because they never called it against his pushing off on every damn play ass doesn't mean the rule isn't there.

Amnorix
02-07-2006, 09:59 AM
Yeah. I'm just thinking of the theoretical situation of a QB diving head first versus feet first versus hip first. (I'm still fascinated by this 90 degree dive thing.)


A feet first slide is a special QB only rule and the QB is considered down when and where he FIRST BEGINS his slide.

Head first is like any other player doing any other thing.

I think the 90 degree angle thing doesn't work. To get the special "I'm sliding, don't kill me" rule in effect, he needs to start a proper slide. If he does some kind of whacko jump and turn sideways crazy thing to get to the 90 degree angle, then I don't think he's initiated a slide at all. :shrug:

As always, however, your mind works in mysterious ways... :D

Big Slick
02-07-2006, 11:13 AM
Didn't being touched by an opposing player as he went to the ground constitute a tackle?.

I still think a case could be made that even though he was touched, he wasn't down yet. Clearly, if he's laying on the ground, any contact by a defender and the runner is down. Just as obvious is if the runner is knocked to the ground by the defender, the runner is obviously down.

But in this case, the runner was already in a forward dive, he was going down by his own momentum. So is that one hand the defender got on him mid-dive enough to be called a tackle? He wasn't forced down, he fell down. I don't know the official rule on that gray area (and I'm sure the announcers didn't either! :) ) but it doesn't make sense to me that it should be. The contact was irrelevant Kinda like on the offensive pass interference!

bkkcoh
02-07-2006, 11:17 AM
Didn't being touched by an opposing player as he went to the ground constitute a tackle?


I was trying to explain to my wife that, it would have been a fumble if he hadn't been touched, even though the ground can't cause a fumble. That was a real odd play. I couldn't get her to understand that was the case, that since he was touched and went down, it wasn't a fumble, but if he hadn't been touched, it would have been a fumble.


:banghead:

Baby Lee
02-07-2006, 11:19 AM
Anyone have any insight in whether the 'touch' has to be at all instrumental in the fall?
What if Hasselback had started to stumble, got touched by one finger, took 4-5 halting steps, appeared to have righted himself, then tripped over his own feet 10-15 yards downfield?
What if Hasselback had been touched, again a fleeting touch, while he was in full stride, then the instant after contact with the defendant ended, he tripped over his own feet?

leviw
02-07-2006, 11:25 AM
I don't think any broadcaster, writer or anyone of the sort are referred to as "expert"s anymore. Yet when criticizing, people always seem to throw "expert" out there in quotes.

plbrdude
02-07-2006, 12:46 PM
Yeah - he was touched - that was why it wasn't a fumble. The point here is what would happen if he wasn't touched. Seemingly feet first is considered "submission" and hence "down". Hands first probably isn't.

My initial point was merely that Moose had forgotten that being tackled was a fairly integral part of being down (given that he hadn't gone feet first).


do you think had he not dropped the ball and got up and ran he would have been ruled down by contact? my guess is no.
1 question on the slide. is not the qb considered down at the point where he begins the slide, and the ball to be spotted there? seems like most of the time he is give progress through most of the slide.

Rain Man
02-07-2006, 12:58 PM
Anyone have any insight in whether the 'touch' has to be at all instrumental in the fall?
What if Hasselback had started to stumble, got touched by one finger, took 4-5 halting steps, appeared to have righted himself, then tripped over his own feet 10-15 yards downfield?
What if Hasselback had been touched, again a fleeting touch, while he was in full stride, then the instant after contact with the defendant ended, he tripped over his own feet?

Yeah, that's the interesting thing. The touch had nothing to do with the fact that he was falling. I can see why they would rule him down, but it's hard to elaborate why that touch counts versus a touch when he was in control and running. I guess if you're being touched "while imminently falling", it's a tackle.

Baby Lee
02-07-2006, 01:05 PM
Yeah, that's the interesting thing. The touch had nothing to do with the fact that he was falling. I can see why they would rule him down, but it's hard to elaborate why that touch counts versus a touch when he was in control and running. I guess if you're being touched "while imminently falling", it's a tackle.
OK folks. My bad. When I asked if anyone had 'insights,' I completely forgot to exempt RainMan's unresearched fevered musings on 'the imminent touch rule.'

;)

Mr. Flopnuts
02-07-2006, 01:17 PM
Yeah - he was touched - that was why it wasn't a fumble. The point here is what would happen if he wasn't touched. Seemingly feet first is considered "submission" and hence "down". Hands first probably isn't.

My initial point was merely that Moose had forgotten that being tackled was a fairly integral part of being down (given that he hadn't gone feet first).


Does this feet first vs. head first philosophy work in baseball as well? For example if you slide feet first into 2nd base you have to stay there, but if you slide head first you can get up and head for 3rd? Just curious.

chefsos
02-07-2006, 02:17 PM
Does this feet first vs. head first philosophy work in baseball as well? For example if you slide feet first into 2nd base you have to stay there, but if you slide head first you can get up and head for 3rd? Just curious.
No. Doesn't matter in baseball. You get to the base the fastest way you can (foot, hand, ass, face, whatever), and the method you choose has no bearing on getting up and going, or not.

Rain Man
02-07-2006, 02:39 PM
Does this feet first vs. head first philosophy work in baseball as well? For example if you slide feet first into 2nd base you have to stay there, but if you slide head first you can get up and head for 3rd? Just curious.

I always thought that if you slid feet first, you were allowed to spike the second basemen, but if you slide head first, you are NOT allowed to bite him. That's the only difference that I knew of.

chefsos
02-07-2006, 02:47 PM
I always thought that if you slid feet first, you were allowed to spike the second basemen, but if you slide head first, you are NOT allowed to bite him. That's the only difference that I knew of.
That's only in an American League park. No spiking in the National League, though biting is allowed. Indeed, it's required.

jspchief
02-07-2006, 03:09 PM
Anyone have any insight in whether the 'touch' has to be at all instrumental in the fall?
I don't know for certain, but I don't think the league is going to make officials try to judge what effect the touch has on the subsequent fall.

It's always been my understanding that a touch is all it takes.

Baby Lee
02-07-2006, 03:17 PM
I don't know for certain, but I don't think the league is going to make officials try to judge what effect the touch has on the subsequent fall.

It's always been my understanding that a touch is all it takes.
What about my two scenarios above?

jspchief
02-07-2006, 03:22 PM
What about my two scenarios above?Not really sure.

My guess is in the first scenario, he wouldn't be down. Maybe there's some sort of "football move" type of language in the rules.

I'm pretty sure in the second scenario he would be down.

Chiefs Express
02-07-2006, 03:55 PM
Anyone have any insight in whether the 'touch' has to be at all instrumental in the fall?
What if Hasselback had started to stumble, got touched by one finger, took 4-5 halting steps, appeared to have righted himself, then tripped over his own feet 10-15 yards downfield?
What if Hasselback had been touched, again a fleeting touch, while he was in full stride, then the instant after contact with the defendant ended, he tripped over his own feet?

The touch apparently does not have to impact the runner. It does seem strange that because of the "fingerwave" touch that was involved with the play that he was considered down by contact. That phrase in it's own context seems to indicate that the "tackler" has to be the reason the runner went down.

The 10-15 yards downfiled thing would be considered that he made the infamous "football move" and then it would have been a fumble (unless there was a fly on his sleeve when he finally went down, the replay would have to have found Steelers colors on the fly to say it was contact).ROFL

Chiefs Express
02-07-2006, 04:08 PM
I don't think any broadcaster, writer or anyone of the sort are referred to as "expert"s anymore. Yet when criticizing, people always seem to throw "expert" out there in quotes.

EX-sPERT
EX = Has Been
spert = Drip under pressure.

FAX
02-07-2006, 04:10 PM
I like the idea of the "fake slide" play.

The QB takes the ball and runs like hell. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts to slide and the defenders pull up to avoid a penalty. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts running again. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts to slide again, etc.

Even though it would probably mean a serious groin injury for the QB, it would be fun to watch and result in some positive yards which, after all, is the only thing that matters.

FAX

leviw
02-07-2006, 04:13 PM
EX-sPERT
EX = Has Been
spert = Drip under pressure.

Ok. I'm very confused. Did you mean "spurt" or "sperm"? I just can't see "spert" being a word. Correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

jspchief
02-07-2006, 04:15 PM
I like the idea of the "fake slide" play.

The QB takes the ball and runs like hell. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts to slide and the defenders pull up to avoid a penalty. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts running again. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts to slide again, etc.

Even though it would probably mean a serious groin injury for the QB, it would be fun to watch and result in some positive yards which, after all, is the only thing that matters.

FAXIf I was an NFL defender, I'd let a QB get away with that once.

After that, the 15 yards would be a small price to pay for what I'd do to that sliding QB.

leviw
02-07-2006, 04:20 PM
I like the idea of the "fake slide" play.

The QB takes the ball and runs like hell. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts to slide and the defenders pull up to avoid a penalty. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts running again. Then, with no warning whatsoever, he starts to slide again, etc.

Even though it would probably mean a serious groin injury for the QB, it would be fun to watch and result in some positive yards which, after all, is the only thing that matters.

FAX

I like the idea, but I'm confused by the "starts to slide" part. Do you mean go all the way down then get back up and start running again? The reason I bring it up, because if you remember, in the Denver game at Arrowhead this past season, Plummer tried sliding feet-first into the endzone. It was first called a TD, but Trent got the Chiefs to review it and, for once in Dick's legendary career, he was able to get a challenge right. It was truly a miracle.

Apparently once the QB's knee hits on a slide, he's down automatically. Right?

FAX
02-07-2006, 04:25 PM
Few athletes could execute the play, of course, Mr. leviw, as it violates several laws of physics and at least a dozen NFL rules.

Those are other people's worries though. I'm more of an Xs and Os guy.

FAX

leviw
02-07-2006, 04:30 PM
Few athletes could execute the play, of course, Mr. leviw, as it violates several laws of physics and at least a dozen NFL rules.

Those are other people's worries though. I'm more of an Xs and Os guy.

FAX

Oh. Well in that case, I completley understand.

How about this, then...

Hypothetical: Trent Green drops back and finds a wide open Marc Boerigter over the middle. He fires the pass, and for some reason, Boe drops the ball. (How Boe drops a ball, I'm not sure. But, as I said, it's just hypothetical.) As Green turns away shaking his head and Boe hangs his and the entire opposing defense takes a collective sigh of releif and starts to huddle up, Eddie Kennison comes out of nowhere and scoops up the ball on the ground and runs in untouched for a touchdown!!!!

What do you think?

FAX
02-07-2006, 04:34 PM
First, you have to have a mobile quarterback.

After faking a pass to the fullback in the left flat, he would take off downfield. During the run, he would have to extend one leg while moving at full speed and lean his torso, shoulders, and head backwards thereby simulating a slide.

Then (with no warning whatsoever, mind you), he would have to tuck the ball and plant his other foot under his center of gravity (which, by this time, is somewhere near Cleveland), launching himself forward into another full sprint downfield.

The quarterback would then have to repeat this several times in order to properly execute the play.

At least, that's how I would draw it up.

FAX

FAX
02-07-2006, 04:38 PM
Oh. Well in that case, I completley understand.

How about this, then...

Hypothetical: Trent Green drops back and finds a wide open Marc Boerigter over the middle. He fires the pass, and for some reason, Boe drops the ball. (How Boe drops a ball, I'm not sure. But, as I said, it's just hypothetical.) As Green turns away shaking his head and Boe hangs his and the entire opposing defense takes a collective sigh of releif and starts to huddle up, Eddie Kennison comes out of nowhere and scoops up the ball on the ground and runs in untouched for a touchdown!!!!

What do you think?

I like it, Mr. leviw. I like it a lot, as a matter of fact.

We'll need to send Boomer over to disconnect the instant replay system, though. In order to prevent any bad officiating.

FAX

leviw
02-07-2006, 04:41 PM
I like it, Mr. leviw. I like it a lot, as a matter of fact.

We'll need to send Boomer over to disconnect the instant replay system, though. In order to prevent any bad officiating.

FAX

Wow. Great call. We should be writing these down. (Okay, so we are. But you know what I mean.)

Rain Man
02-07-2006, 05:03 PM
That's only in an American League park. No spiking in the National League, though biting is allowed. Indeed, it's required.

You're correct, of course. But for some reason, I thought it was the American League that had the designated biter rule.