The OTHER bad call on the Tavon Austin punt return

[junkman]

Amid the chaos and flying flags of the Tavon Austin punt return, everyone was focused on Tavon's left foot which was pretty close to the sidelines but clearly not out. This picture shows the closest Tavon came to going out of bounds. The (blind?) ref clearly should have swallowed his whistle because this was not a 100% certain thing, and blowing his whistle killed the play at that moment. 2nd time this game that a ref who did NOT swallow his whistle cost the Rams a huge play, very frustrating.

But it didn't matter, right? The play would have been called back anyway because of a block in the back against Bates (#53). Well, turns out there were TWO bad calls against the Rams on that same huge and critical play.

The OTHER bad call was the block in the back called against Darren Bates #53. It was offset by a block in the back against #35 Eric Reid of the 49ers (wrongly called #34) who pushed McFadden (#51).

So for comparison, let's take a look at the Reid infraction. You can see it right here on the right side of the screen. Reid has both arms on McFadden squarely from the back. Extends his arms. Sends McFadden flying. Textbook block in the back.

But what about the call against Bates?? You can see that "infraction" ready to happen on the top of this picture around the 49ers 45 yard line, EXCEPT Bates is clearly to the SIDE of the 49ers player. That was a legal block. You can even see the 49ers player falling sideways (tho his momentum is moving him down the field). But he clearly falls sideways and lands on his side.

Let's see it from another angle. Again, around the 49ers 45 yard line, Bates is CLEARLY to the players side. The 49ers player's shoulders are still perpendicular to the ground as he's falling. And he actually lands, not on his hands and chest, but on his left hand and left butt cheek. This means that the block was closer to the front than the back. Imho, the (biased?) ref saw a 49er player getting knocked down and just reacted to that. Because if the ref was reacting to the dynamics of the block or the fall, nothing about it says "block in the back."

Poor Bates. He knew what was being called and that it was a bad call. You can see him here, the laundry still on the field right behind him, pleading his case to no avail.

The announcer had it right after the play was over. "Could you imagine if those flags don't fly?? They take away a touchdown." Yes. That's exactly what they did.

 

[fearsomefour]

Hard to tell if his head is even with him or behind him....it looks even to me.
As for Austin, the Rams have to figure a way to get him involved. I would love to see them use him on similiar routes like Britt scored on. Bring him in motion and let him run all the way across the action. Run some interference and who ever is on him will not be able to stay with him. Biggest problem with this type of route is it takes time.

 

[Memento]

Tavon got screwed. Should've had a punt return touchdown this game.

Although, given who the ref is, I'm not surprised.

 

[LetsGoRams]

Nice screenshots, junkman - thanks for sharing.

 

[blackbart]

The Bates call looks very close to me and if you are on the punt return team you have to learn not to do anything borderline. How about he just keeps running along side and screens the guy away from Austin, it would have been just as efffect as knocking him to the ground. Nit picking I know but special teams penalties happen damn near every play and guys whose main job is special teams need to figure it out.

 

[Noregar]

At the time and even more so now I think they made up the call on Bates to save face for the whistle blowing the play dead. The flag was already down for the whiner penalty so they added the Bates infraction to create offsetting penalties and cover up their mistake on whistling Tavon out of bounds.

That's my theory and I am sticking to it.

 

[69superbowl]

Excellent analysis. Much better than fox.

 

[junkman]

At the time and even more so now I think they made up the call on Bates to save face for the whistle blowing the play dead. The flag was already down for the whiner penalty so they added the Bates infraction to create offsetting penalties and cover up their mistake on whistling Tavon out of bounds.

That's my theory and I am sticking to it.

Interesting theory. Makes me wonder - what is this ref looking at which caused him to throw this flag. Realize that:

• This is well after the whistle had blown
• It's probably 30 yards away from Bates, not to mention the terrible angle on the play
• Tavon hadn't even reached the 50 yard line when Bates' victim landed on his butt. By my count, this was a full 5 seconds after the Bates penalty that this ref threw this flag... well after it was clear that a big return was happening.

 

[junkman]

Hard to tell if his head is even with him or behind him....it looks even to me.

The more important thing is Bates hand placement. If your hand is on the numbers or the name, that's an illegal block. But Bates delivered most of his force with his right hand which was on the 49ers player's right arm.

The Bates call looks very close to me and if you are on the punt return team you have to learn not to do anything borderline. How about he just keeps running along side and screens the guy away from Austin, it would have been just as efffect as knocking him to the ground. Nit picking I know but special teams penalties happen damn near every play and guys whose main job is special teams need to figure it out.

I thought about that too. But that's giving in to the obvious double standard, effectively letting the refs literally intimidate the Rams players. I mean, Borland is allowed to suplex slam Tre Mason with impunity. If Ogletree had suplex slammed Frank Gore (and obviously had drawn a flag), we'd all be talking about what an idiot Ogletree is. Why should Rams players NOT be allowed to administer a legal block with reasonable force??

 

[Fatbot]

Great analysis here, thanks for the pics! I think the moral to the story is all Bates had to do was lean his head forward in front of the guy's body and screen the guy off instead of trying to shove him to the ground. Whether or not it was technically a penalty, I think the refs will call that most of the time. Rams need better football IQ on knowing what refs are looking for on returns.

 

[junkman]

Article 9 is under the "unnecessary roughness". That's not what was called, this wasn't a defenseless player situation. Also looking to see if I can find the pertaining rule.

 

[jjab360]

Can't believe they called the play dead for a penalty. There sure was some weird stuff going on Sunday with the refs. Either they really are that incompetent or...

 

[fearsomefour]

Interesting theory. Makes me wonder - what is this ref looking at which caused him to throw this flag. Realize that:

• This is well after the whistle had blown
• It's probably 30 yards away from Bates, not to mention the terrible angle on the play
• Tavon hadn't even reached the 50 yard line when Bates' victim landed on his butt. By my count, this was a full 5 seconds after the Bates penalty that this ref threw this flag... well after it was clear that a big return was happening.

View attachment 3934

I agree with you here. Although that ref is not the one in position to either call the penalty on Bates or see if Austin was in or out of bounds. Hard to know what was happening on that play. But as soon as Booger was busy bungling the offsetting penalties call the thought occurred to me as well. CYA.

 

[fearsomefour]

Can't believe they called the play dead for a penalty. There sure was some weird stuff going on Sunday with the refs. Either they really are that incompetent or...

I would go incompetent on this on. Both teams could make cases for getting screwed on Sunday.

 

[blackbart]

The more important thing is Bates hand placement. If your hand is on the numbers or the name, that's an illegal block. But Bates delivered most of his force with his right hand which was on the 49ers player's right arm.



I thought about that too. But that's giving in to the obvious double standard, effectively letting the refs literally intimidate the Rams players. I mean, Borland is allowed to suplex slam Tre Mason with impunity. If Ogletree had suplex slammed Frank Gore (and obviously had drawn a flag), we'd all be talking about what an idiot Ogletree is. Why should Rams players NOT be allowed to administer a legal block with reasonable force??

I hear you and don't really have an explanation. On the suplex I was yelling about it before he hit the ground.

The thing is, knowing the refs are more against them than for them is the game they have to adjust to.

 

[Selassie I]

Excellent post @junkman

Sadly,,, gone are the days when you'd watch an NFL football game and not remember anything about the officiating.

 

[Rabid Ram]

With all the controversy that ssurrounds EVERY jJerome boger game how is it his crew still has a job

 

[junkman]

@flv the penalty is here, I've bolded the relevant parts.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_2013_Player_Conduct.pdf

ILLEGAL BLOCKS BY OFFENSIVE PLAYER
Article 3: Illegal Block by Offensive Player. It is a foul if an offensive blocker:
(a) Thrusts his hands forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the head, neck, or face (Note: Contact
in close-line play that is not prolonged and sustained is not a foul unless the opponent’s head is pinned back by
direct and forcible contact);
Penalty: For illegal use of hands by the offense: Loss of 10 yards.
(b) Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.
Note: The prohibition applies to a player of the kicking team while the ball is in flight during a scrimmage kick.

The use of hands on the back is not a foul when:
I. a player of the kicking team is warding off a player of the receiving team while going downfield under a kick,
provided that he does not block or push him from behind; or
II. a player is making a personal attempt to recover a loose ball; or
III. the opponent turns away from the blocker; or
IV. both of the blocker’s hands are on the opponent’s side. (If either hand is on the back, it is a foul.)


As I said above, it's all about hand placement. Bates was clearly pushing the guy's arm/side.

 

[Zaphod]

I hear you and don't really have an explanation. On the suplex I was yelling about it before he hit the ground.

The thing is, knowing the refs are more against them than for them is the game they have to adjust to.

Holy smokes, on the duplex I admit I was too surprised to react.

Just couldn't believe he went there and why, then I was beside myself at the non call.

They can't claim to have missed the play in favor of following the football too carefully, so what gives?