PDA

View Full Version : Football Giants penalized, but it helps them out...??


DRU
11-20-2011, 07:38 PM
Eagles throw 50 yard pass to Jackson, he gets called for taunting after the play. That would typically just be a 10 yard penalty after the play, right?? Or maybe even 5, I don't remember..??

But because the Giants also had a penalty, illegal hands to the face, during the play, the penalties offset and the play never happened. Eagles ball back at the goal line again.

Never have seen that happen before.

DaFace
11-20-2011, 07:39 PM
Yeah, I'm confused as well. I would have thought it would be a dead ball foul rather than "two fouls on the play."

Bane
11-20-2011, 07:43 PM
Taunting after the play should not offset with one that happened during the play.Just my opinion.

DRU
11-20-2011, 07:44 PM
Yeah, I'm confused as well. I would have thought it would be a dead ball foul rather than "two fouls on the play."

Yeah, exactly. One foul occurred during the play, and another occurred after the play.

There are lots of times when something like that happens and they make it a point to say "after the play, blah blah blah".

I don't see why this is any different.

BigMeatballDave
11-20-2011, 07:48 PM
Yeah, the officials goofed. The taunting foul was after the play. Had it been during the play, then it would be offsetting penalties.

BigMeatballDave
11-20-2011, 07:50 PM
Sloppy football.

Eli not looking like an Elite QB.

DRU
11-20-2011, 07:52 PM
Yeah, the officials goofed. The taunting foul was after the play. Had it been during the play, then it would be offsetting penalties.

Pretty big goof. Collinsworth and Michaels would usually say something, but they didn't act like anything was wrong with the play other than Jackson being stupid.

BigMeatballDave
11-20-2011, 07:52 PM
Sloppy football.

Eli not looking like an Elite QB.

LOL oops wrong thread

Nickel D
11-20-2011, 08:02 PM
So if the refs would have enforced it as two separate fouls, how would they assess them (i.e., how would they step off the penalties and would the down count or not?)? If the "hands to the face" penalty resulted in a first down, then stepping off the second penalty would result in the Eagles having a first-and-long situation, no?

Kyle DeLexus
11-20-2011, 08:10 PM
So if the refs would have enforced it as two separate fouls, how would they assess them (i.e., how would they step off the penalties and would the down count or not?)? If the "hands to the face" penalty resulted in a first down, then stepping off the second penalty would result in the Eagles having a first-and-long situation, no?

No. The Eagles would have declined the hands to the face and got the TD and then the taunting would have been assessed on the kickoff.

Mr. Laz
11-20-2011, 08:13 PM
So if the refs would have enforced it as two separate fouls, how would they assess them (i.e., how would they step off the penalties and would the down count or not?)? If the "hands to the face" penalty resulted in a first down, then stepping off the second penalty would result in the Eagles having a first-and-long situation, no?
eagles decline the hand to face
refs step off 15 yards on the dead ball taunting foul
eagles get the ball at their 35-ish yard line, 1st and 10.


Refs screwed the pooch imo

chefsos
11-20-2011, 08:13 PM
No. The Eagles would have declined the hands to the face and got the TD and then the taunting would have been assessed on the kickoff.EDIT! EDIT! EDIT! :)

BigMeatballDave
11-20-2011, 08:15 PM
No. The Eagles would have declined the hands to the face and got the TD and then the taunting would have been assessed on the kickoff.

Huh?

BigMeatballDave
11-20-2011, 08:16 PM
eagles decline the hand to face
refs step off 15 yards on the dead ball taunting foul
eagles get the ball at their 35-ish yard line, 1st and 10.


Refs screwed the pooch imo

That sounds about right

GloryDayz
11-20-2011, 08:20 PM
eagles decline the hand to face
refs step off 15 yards on the dead ball taunting foul
eagles get the ball at their 35-ish yard line, 1st and 10.


Refs screwed the pooch imo

Yep... See, we do have good offcials...they just aren't on the field!

Bob Dole
11-20-2011, 08:24 PM
Yep... See, we do have good offcials...they just aren't in the NFL!

FYP

threebag02
11-20-2011, 09:12 PM
Sloppy football.

Eli not looking like an Elite QB.

Is he suppose to? I've always thought he sucked.

royr17
11-21-2011, 02:28 AM
Let me just say I dont care if the refs goofed or not, the act after the catch by Jackson was uncalled for, he'll end up hearing from Goodell bout that, im glad that they stripped his sorry ass catch away after that. Pathetic pure pathetic, plays like that make wanna jump through the tv and just beat the living shit for them acting like that, this is a game that is suppose to be play with dignity and respect not show off. None of this would have happened in the old days.

Great call by the refs i feel, because it was one of the dumbest things that a player could have done and the refs made him pay for it.

Refs win 1 to 0.

DRU
11-21-2011, 02:42 AM
Let me just say I dont care if the refs goofed or not, the act after the catch by Jackson was uncalled for, he'll end up hearing from Goodell bout that, im glad that they stripped his sorry ass catch away after that. Pathetic pure pathetic, plays like that make wanna jump through the tv and just beat the living shit for them acting like that, this is a game that is suppose to be play with dignity and respect not show off. None of this would have happened in the old days.

Great call by the refs i feel, because it was one of the dumbest things that a player could have done and the refs made him pay for it.

Refs win 1 to 0.

To say that people didn't taunt "in the old days" is ridiculous. People have taunted in all sports at all times. It's a part of sports. He really didn't do that much, anyway. He flipped the ball and wiped his hands on his chest while talkin a little shit. Big Whoop.

That said, I don't disagree at all that it makes him look stupid, and they do have a rule against it now, which makes him even more stupid. You did your job. Good. Now go back quietly and do it again. Best shit talking I could think of. He chose to do it the other way, though.

The fact remains that had the Giants not committed a penalty and Jackson still did the same thing, the Eagles would have gotten the ball around the 35 yard line. The Giants did commit a penalty, though, and as such, they were rewarded for it because the Eagles were sent back to the goal line again.

Whether the taunting bugs you or not, any time a team is rewarded for committing a foul seems flawed to me, and I find it interesting that they didn't bat an eye to it on the telecast.

royr17
11-21-2011, 03:05 AM
To say that people didn't taunt "in the old days" is ridiculous. People have taunted in all sports at all times. It's a part of sports. He really didn't do that much, anyway. He flipped the ball and wiped his hands on his chest while talkin a little shit. Big Whoop.

That said, I don't disagree at all that it makes him look stupid, and they do have a rule against it now, which makes him even more stupid. You did your job. Good. Now go back quietly and do it again. Best shit talking I could think of. He chose to do it the other way, though.

The fact remains that had the Giants not committed a penalty and Jackson still did the same thing, the Eagles would have gotten the ball around the 35 yard line. The Giants did commit a penalty, though, and as such, they were rewarded for it because the Eagles were sent back to the goal line again.

Whether the taunting bugs you or not, any time a team is rewarded for committing a foul seems flawed to me, and I find it interesting that they didn't bat an eye to it on the telecast.

True Dru it does happen in sports, yes it happened back in the old days. If you wanna celebrate then fine, but all im saying is find a better way to celebrate other than throwing it at a coach or a player, that is low and very unclassy, taunting like that irks me, sure its fine to flex your muscles but when it comes to throwing the ball at another coach after the catch or a player then yea thats when the line has to be drawn.

DRU
11-21-2011, 03:24 AM
True Dru it does happen in sports, yes it happened back in the old days. If you wanna celebrate then fine, but all im saying is find a better way to celebrate other than throwing it at a coach or a player, that is low and very unclassy, taunting like that irks me, sure its fine to flex your muscles but when it comes to throwing the ball at another coach after the catch or a player then yea thats when the line has to be drawn.

Ok, well, they've done that. They introduced a taunting penalty and you can cost your team valuable yards if you're a dumb ass like that.

It's a dead ball foul, though. The play was done. They don't take TD's away from people for taunting like they do with a holding call. They apply it to the next play.

Let's consider an example like that. Say a team scores a TD (or even just a big play), but they had a holding call, and the defense had an illegal hands to the face, too. The penalties offset and balance each other out. The offense doesn't lose 10 yards, and the defense doesn't give up the big play.

In this case, though, the offset doesn't make sense because it favors one side big time. One team made a stupid mistake (taunting) and got penalized 50 yards for it. The other team made a mistake (illegal hands to the face) and were rewarded with the additional 35 yards taken away from the opponent.

The Eagles got nothing out of the Giants penalty, but the Giants got a huge gain out of the Eagles penalty. That's pretty much the exact opposite of the definition of offsetting. Both things went one way instead of balancing each other out.

orange
11-21-2011, 04:09 AM
14-1-9: FOUL AND DEAD BALL FOUL
Article 9 If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other
team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement
of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1).

14-3-1: DOUBLE FOUL WITHOUT CHANGE OF POSSESSION
Article 1 If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and
the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and
the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_Rule14_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

DRU
11-21-2011, 04:30 AM
14-1-9: FOUL AND DEAD BALL FOUL
Article 9 If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other
team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement
of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1).

14-3-1: DOUBLE FOUL WITHOUT CHANGE OF POSSESSION
Article 1 If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and
the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and
the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_Rule14_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

Well, I guess that would answer it, yet 14-3-1 (2) reads...

"If one of the fouls is a dead ball foul for delay of game for spiking the ball and the opponent’s foul is a
live ball foul, the team that committed the delay of game foul, in addition to Article 1 and Exception 1,
will have the option to decline the foul committed by its opponent and be assessed the penalty for
delay from the dead ball spot."

Interesting that a delay of game is the only thing that wouldn't offset in this case. Seems very close to the line, but I guess technically what happened fits the rule.

I still think it's flawed, though. That circumstance should go just like the delay of game rule reads IMO. The Giants came out of that play the big winners ONLY because they committed a foul. That just doesn't seem right.

orange
11-21-2011, 04:36 AM
The rule seems to be intended to prevent retaliations, after a hold or personal foul, for example.

GloryDayz
11-21-2011, 08:15 AM
Let me just say I dont care if the refs goofed or not, the act after the catch by Jackson was uncalled for, he'll end up hearing from Goodell bout that, im glad that they stripped his sorry ass catch away after that. Pathetic pure pathetic, plays like that make wanna jump through the tv and just beat the living shit for them acting like that, this is a game that is suppose to be play with dignity and respect not show off. None of this would have happened in the old days.

Great call by the refs i feel, because it was one of the dumbest things that a player could have done and the refs made him pay for it.

Refs win 1 to 0.

LOL, skroo the refs!! This is entertainment, and if spiking the ball is OK, if doing some 1st down dance is OK, and if some post-sack dance is OK, then so is a little friendly taunting. It adds to the game... There's a place for it... It's not like these guys don't meet on the 50 and French-kiss after the game, so they're all friends. And a few scuffles never hurt a contact sport. Heck, I'd be entertained by watching a few of these game-changing refs get hit in the nuts with a perfect spiral and see if they still want to keep missing calls.

Maybe it comes from my years of being a defensive tackle, but it would sure be nice if they'd quit having a love-fest with the QB position and start watching for any "tugged" jerseys along the line. Funny how a corner or safety can't tug a WR's jersey or it's "a hold", but you can yank the hell out of a D-lineman's jersey "as long as it's on the inside".

Frankie
11-21-2011, 08:57 AM
Yeah, I'm confused as well. I would have thought it would be a dead ball foul rather than "two fouls on the play."

Dead ball fowls should always be less important in the order of enforcement than live ball ones. I've seen this type of sh!t happen a lot. It's ridiculous.

In the example of this thread, what's wrong with enforcing both? The eagles should have been given a chance to take or decline the NYG foul and then be penalized for the taunting.

DaFace
11-21-2011, 09:12 AM
14-1-9: FOUL AND DEAD BALL FOUL
Article 9 If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other
team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement
of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1).

14-3-1: DOUBLE FOUL WITHOUT CHANGE OF POSSESSION
Article 1 If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and
the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and
the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_Rule14_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

Good to know, I suppose, but it's still a very odd way of enforcing it it. As DRU mentioned, the Giants penalty seems to have helped them. If there weren't the hands to the face penalty, then it would have been a completed pass with a 15-yard dead ball penalty. But because the Giants committed a foul, the effect was essentially a 50-yard penalty instead. It doesn't make any logical sense.

Molitoth
11-21-2011, 09:13 AM
The refs goofed, although dumbf*ck should've handed the ball to the ref and moved on. He knew he was going to get flagged, yet he did his stupid little stunt anyway. Serves him right, but I feel sorry for Andy Reid who has to deal with that sh*t.

Andy HAS to play him because he's good, yet he's also a liability because he's a f*cking jackass.

chefsos
11-21-2011, 10:49 AM
Judging by info in the last few posts, the referees called it correctly by rule. It seems to me that the problem lies in the details, specifically that "taunting" should probably come under the umbrella of "spiking the ball" and delay of game, which gives the team called for taunting the opportunity to decline the live ball foul committed by the other team.

madmike
11-21-2011, 10:57 AM
Does it seem to you that the refs have a double standard when it comes to catches in the endzone and just normal catches on the field when it comes to maintaining control. Idk if yall saw the antonio gates catch before the half but he did not maintain "control" and they called it a completion.

Dylan
11-21-2011, 07:12 PM
This is what exactly happened and why DeSean Jackson received a taunting penalty and why his catch didn't count. I've also posted the correct NFL rule - It is different than the rule posted above.

After Jackson caught the 50-yard pass from Vince Young, Jackson flipped the ball on the sidelines to Perry Fewell, the Giants def coordinator. Also on the play, Linval Joseph, the Giants DT was called for illegal use of the hands.

Joseph's penalty was during the play (a live ball foul), while Jackson's penalty was after the play -- a dead ball foul.

I thought it was interesting that after Jackson taunted the Giants defensive coordinator, and he was walking back to huddle, Jackson made sure to bump into the official who had penalized him. That incident prompted the NBC announcers to loudly berate him.

Clearly, Jackson should have been ejected from the game for bumping an official.

The officials announced offsetting penalties, but the catch did not count, and the Eagles returned to their original line of scrimmage, their own 2-yard line.

Here is the NFL Rule:

Section 3: Fouls by Both Teams

Double Foul Without Change of Possession

Article 1 If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.

In other words, in the case of offsetting penalties, they just replay the down. There is no differentiation because Jackson's taunting penalty came after the play was over. Had Joseph not been whistled for a penalty, Jackson's catch would have counted and the taunting penalty would have been assessed from the new line of scrimmage.

==

Orange cited another NFL rule in his post and why it does not apply unless of course, Jackson had scored a touchdown.

A.R. 14.195 DOUBLE FOUL—TAUNT AND LIVE-BALL FOUL

Third-and-3 on A30. B2 intercepts a pass and returns it for a touchdown. When B2 is at the A10, he turns and taunts A1 who is chasing him. A2 clips B5 during B2’s run.

Ruling: Touchdown Team B. Kickoff B35. The taunting foul is treated as a dead-ball foul, thus making this a "clean hands score." The fouls offset on the kickoff. (12-3-1-c)


So if Jackson would have scored a touchdown, the Eagles would have declined the penalty on the Giants and the TD would have counted and the 15- yd penalty against Jackson would have been enforced on the kickoff.

"The difference is purely because penalty enforcement in this situation when a score is involved is different from a non-scoring play."

Next time, if Jackson wants to taunt an opposing team, he should make damn sure he scores first.

orange
11-21-2011, 08:16 PM
This is what exactly happened and why DeSean Jackson received a taunting penalty and why his catch didn't count. I've also posted the correct NFL rule - It is different than the rule posted above.


Wrong. I posted the right rule.



Orange cited another NFL rule in his post and why it does not apply unless of course, Jackson had scored a touchdown.

A.R. 14.195 DOUBLE FOUL—TAUNT AND LIVE-BALL FOUL

Third-and-3 on A30. B2 intercepts a pass and returns it for a touchdown. When B2 is at the A10, he turns and taunts A1 who is chasing him. A2 clips B5 during B2’s run.

Ruling: Touchdown Team B. Kickoff B35. The taunting foul is treated as a dead-ball foul, thus making this a "clean hands score." The fouls offset on the kickoff. (12-3-1-c)


So if Jackson would have scored a touchdown, the Eagles would have declined the penalty on the Giants and the TD would have counted and the 15- yd penalty against Jackson would have been enforced on the kickoff.

"The difference is purely because penalty enforcement in this situation when a score is involved is different from a non-scoring play."

Next time, if Jackson wants to taunt an opposing team, he should make damn sure he scores first.

While you are correct that that rule does not apply, it is NOT the one I posted above. The one I posted above is posted above and can be read by anyone and is quite obviously different. You can also look at that chunk of the rulebook and see it for yourself, complete with NFL logo.

Perhaps Mike Florio can offer some insight:

6. Sorting out the offsetting penalties in Eagles-Giants.

The PFT email box and Twitter pipeline exploded on Sunday night, after a penalty for illegal use of hands against the Giants during a 50-yard pass to Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson and a post-play taunting penalty on Jackson completely wiped out the gain and gave Philly an unwanted do-over from their own two yard line.

The prevailing thought was that Eagles should have been able to decline the penalty against the Giants, and then to have the 15 yards walked off after the play, giving Philly a 35-yard gain.

But the outcome reflected the proper application of a strange donut hole in the rule book.

The process gets started at Rule 14, Section 1, Article 9 (same rule I posted above): “If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1).”

Regarding double fouls, Article 14, Section 3, Rule 1 provides as follows: “If there is a double foul . . . without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot.”

In this case, a key exception almost applied, but ultimately didn’t. “If one of the fouls is of a nature that incurs a 15-yard penalty and the other foul of a double foul normally would result in a loss of 5 yards only (15 yards versus 5 yards),” the rule book states, “the major penalty yardage is to be assessed from the previous spot.” Since the penalty on the Giants entailed a five-yard penalty AND an automatic first down, the exception didn’t apply in Jackson’s case. Even if it had (for example, if the Giants had simply been offside), the Eagles would have had the 15 yards walked off (or, in this case, half the distance to the goal) from the previous spot.

Either way, the penalty on the Giants ultimately penalized the Eagles. Though the officials sorted it all out properly in real time, the rule book definitely needs to be tweaked to prevent such unfair outcomes.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/21/week-11-monday-10-pack-2/


This post is typical of sports rules discussions - they just keep going on and on even after they're solved. Let it rest - the game's over, the rule was properly applied, and the only one who owes anyone any apology is DeSean Jackson.

Dylan
11-22-2011, 02:21 PM
Orange:

With all due respect:

Mike Florio's readers have grown accustom to taking him seriously. However, Florio has an obligation for his own ethical performance to report the facts and to check for accuracy.

Florio should have contacted an NFL spokesperson and asked for clarification. He was wrong and that he had done his due diligence in contacting the league, they would have referred him to the rule in Section 3: Fouls by Both Teams, Article 1 (3-11-2-c).

Nonetheless, Florio inaccurately reported information to his readers pertaining to this matter.


OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 85

Section 3 Fouls by Both Teams

DOUBLE FOUL WITHOUT CHANGE OF POSSESSION
Article 1 If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.
15 YARDS VERSUS 5 YARDS
Exceptions:
(1) If one of the fouls is of a nature that incurs a 15-yard penalty and the other foul of a double foul normally would result in a loss of 5 yards only (15 yards versus 5 yards), the major penalty yardage is to be assessed from the previous spot. See 4-8-2-c-Exc. 2 and 14-1-9-Exc. 2 for dead ball fouls at th end of a half.
Note: If a score occurs on a play that would normally involve a 5 vs. 15 yard enforcement, enforce the major penalty from the previous spot.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf

orange
11-22-2011, 04:34 PM
Orange:

With all due respect:

Mike Florio's readers have grown accustom to taking him seriously. However, Florio has an obligation for his own ethical performance to report the facts and to check for accuracy.

Florio should have contacted an NFL spokesperson and asked for clarification. He was wrong and that he had done his due diligence in contacting the league, they would have referred him to the rule in Section 3: Fouls by Both Teams, Article 1 (3-11-2-c).

Nonetheless, Florio inaccurately reported information to his readers pertaining to this matter.


OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 85

Section 3 Fouls by Both Teams

DOUBLE FOUL WITHOUT CHANGE OF POSSESSION
Article 1 If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.
15 YARDS VERSUS 5 YARDS
Exceptions:
(1) If one of the fouls is of a nature that incurs a 15-yard penalty and the other foul of a double foul normally would result in a loss of 5 yards only (15 yards versus 5 yards), the major penalty yardage is to be assessed from the previous spot. See 4-8-2-c-Exc. 2 and 14-1-9-Exc. 2 for dead ball fouls at th end of a half.
Note: If a score occurs on a play that would normally involve a 5 vs. 15 yard enforcement, enforce the major penalty from the previous spot.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2011_Rule_Book.pdf

I don't know what you think is different there than what Florio said. Here:

The process gets started at Rule 14, Section 1, Article 9: “If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1).”

Regarding double fouls, Article 14, Section 3, Rule 1 provides as follows: “If there is a double foul . . . without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot.”

In this case, a key exception almost applied, but ultimately didn’t. “If one of the fouls is of a nature that incurs a 15-yard penalty and the other foul of a double foul normally would result in a loss of 5 yards only (15 yards versus 5 yards),” the rule book states, “the major penalty yardage is to be assessed from the previous spot.” Since the penalty on the Giants entailed a five-yard penalty AND an automatic first down, the exception didn’t apply in Jackson’s case. Even if it had (for example, if the Giants had simply been offside), the Eagles would have had the 15 yards walked off (or, in this case, half the distance to the goal) from the previous spot.


By the way, that ... that he cut out (for reasons I cannot begin to fathom) is simply a reference to 3.1 - the rule you're quoting - which says the same thing.

Backwards Masking
11-22-2011, 04:44 PM
2 Days after the game is over and peole are still arguing whether or not they got it right.

I've seen some piss poor officiating in other sports, but no league consistently f*cks things up more and can't explain them in a way that makes sense than the NFL.

Backwards Masking
11-22-2011, 05:12 PM
Let me just say I dont care if the refs goofed or not, the act after the catch by Jackson was uncalled for, he'll end up hearing from Goodell bout that, im glad that they stripped his sorry ass catch away after that. Pathetic pure pathetic, plays like that make wanna jump through the tv and just beat the living shit for them acting like that, this is a game that is suppose to be play with dignity and respect not show off. None of this would have happened in the old days.

Great call by the refs i feel, because it was one of the dumbest things that a player could have done and the refs made him pay for it.

Refs win 1 to 0.

So showing off is disrespectful to the game and league, wheras the refs changing the rules in the middle of the game to punish said player as they see fit was a "great call" and you "don't care if the refs screwed goofed or not."

With that line of thinking, you should apply for a job as an NFL ref. I bet Goodell would hire you in a second!

Dylan
11-22-2011, 06:12 PM
I don't know what you think is different there than what Florio said. Here:



By the way, that ... that he cut out (for reasons I cannot begin to fathom) is simply a reference to 3.1 - the rule you're quoting - which says the same thing.

Thank you.

DRU
11-22-2011, 06:54 PM
I think we all understand that the play was actually called according to the book, it's the logic behind the ruling that's confusing us (at least me.)

Again, 14-3-1 (2) states that a spiked ball, delay of game would have gone the way most of us are thinking this one should have gone. So what's the difference? Why single out a delay of game? The timing of the fouls is the same (one during and one after.)

Even if I wasn't confused at all about the rule itself, and I could in my own mind say, yup, that was 100% by the book, I'd say man, the book is flawed.

The main, basic point here is that the Giants were rewarded for committing a foul. Simple as that. Had they not committed a foul on that play they would have given up 35 yards or so. They did commit a foul, though, and as such were given those 35 yards back. I just do not see the logic in that regardless of whether it matches the rule book or not.

Backwards Masking
11-22-2011, 07:53 PM
I think we all understand that the play was actually called according to the book, it's the logic behind the ruling that's confusing us (at least me.)

Again, 14-3-1 (2) states that a spiked ball, delay of game would have gone the way most of us are thinking this one should have gone. So what's the difference? Why single out a delay of game? The timing of the fouls is the same (one during and one after.)

Even if I wasn't confused at all about the rule itself, and I could in my own mind say, yup, that was 100% by the book, I'd say man, the book is flawed.

The main, basic point here is that the Giants were rewarded for committing a foul. Simple as that. Had they not committed a foul on that play they would have given up 35 yards or so. They did commit a foul, though, and as such were given those 35 yards back. I just do not see the logic in that regardless of whether it matches the rule book or not.

Funny how everyone says it was "called by the book", yet over the years every penatly committed after the play was dead is enforced on the NEXT play, not offsetting. I've never seen this offsetting sh*t on pentalites after the whistle was blown ever once in my entire life. Not saying it never happened, just that I can't recollect it happening (i drink during most games).

Of course, this rule changing stuff happens with the giants all the time. Why, just earlier this year, against arizona, on the game winning drive, a giant fell down, wasn;t touched, threw the ball on the ground, an Arizona guy jumped on it, and New York got to keep the ball. Why? Because apperently a player isn't declared down when touched on the ground or sliding, he's down "when its obvious to the officals that the player intended to go down" (which of course, could be whenever they say so).

A thread like this was started and one of the people posting in this one posted the exact article in the rulebook : " a player is said to have given himself up and the play dead when it's obvious to the offical the player gave himself up". That's almost word for word how it reads.

So of course, everyone decided that was fair, looked the other way and no ones mentioned on here since.

Backwards Masking
11-23-2011, 02:18 PM
Wow. I posted last night that I had never before seen a penalty after the play was over offset, EVER ONCE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. I figured by now someone would come up with at least one example, or try to justify the NFL's piss poor excuses for their "officating".

Apparently I'm the only one on here that has a problem with the refs changing the rules on a game by game, team by team, or play by play basis. Like they did in the OP during the Giants Eagles game Sun. night.

orange
11-23-2011, 08:22 PM
Wow. I posted last night that I had never before seen a penalty after the play was over offset, EVER ONCE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. I figured by now someone would come up with at least one example, or try to justify the NFL's piss poor excuses for their "officating".

Apparently I'm the only one on here that has a problem with the refs changing the rules on a game by game, team by team, or play by play basis. Like they did in the OP during the Giants Eagles game Sun. night.

Everyone else can read the damn rule - either version of it - and knows that the refs got it right.

Congratulations on being unique. :thumb:

DaFace
11-23-2011, 08:24 PM
Why the hell is this thread still alive?

1. Rule is dumb.
2. Refs interpreted it correctly.

What else is there to discuss? :spock:

notorious
11-23-2011, 08:29 PM
Why don't they just do simple math:


15 yard penalty against a 5 yard penalty = 10 yard change.


I never understood that if an offense has an illegal formation penalty, the defense can fist rape the QB into the ground, get a late hit, and it is offsetting. Doesn't make sense.

It has happened a few times this year. Headscratching.

TinyEvel
11-24-2011, 11:02 PM
At first look I thought the thread title was "Giant Penis size"