Gene Steratore on the fumble called back

[Zaphod]

It's not going to be popular to say, but ticky tack as some of the calls have seemed, I think the game has actually improved as the officials are now encouraged to call everything instead of evening out missed calls for the flow of the game.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but I've noticed offensive pass interference called more. I've been critical of officiating in the past, but game seems more honest to me, and I do like that coaches can challenge pass attempts for interference.

You can take yesterday as an example, as the officials were clearly trying to call a clean game, and I do think the Rams benefited from that.

I really don't criticize the officials for calling Goff's pass an incompletion initially, and if I'm not mistaken, the reason they called it a fumble but had to call back the play was that they had blown the whistle, meaning that at least some of the Rams defenders respected that play being dead, which is really about preventing injury to the players. So in that light, it's not even an automatic touchdown for them if they had let the play continue, especially if you tack on unnecessary roughness.

I don't think the officials should apologize to the Complaints or their fans.

 

[Ants]

The thing is - it looked to me that the Rams played to the whistle - which is to say that the Rams players didn't really respond when the ball was loose. So it's not a given that the Saints would have recovered and advanced the ball anyway. Whatever.

 

[I like Rams]

If it should've been called a fumble, how would it still be 'roughing the passer'? Wouldn't it then be 'unnecessarry roughness'? I dont know. Ref's need to speak and be accountable for bad calls like this (possible fines? etc.).

Either way, NO should've had 7 points on that play and bottom line, they got beat by 18.

Yea, ive never heard of "roughing the passer" before the ball leaves the qbs hands...



Actually nm. I forgot you cant put full force on the qb anymore. In that case lets jist be glad Matthews didnt get called for it. I thought Bridgewater was dead after that hit. Lol

 

[Jorgeh0605]

It wasn't "clearly" a fumble in real time during the game. Goff fumbled, but was still able to push the ball forward with his throwing motion. In real time, I think its very understandable to mistake this as an incomplete pass. In slow motion or with replays, clearly a fumble, but the initial call doesn't have slow motion or replays. Football happens fast on the field, let's get off the refs for trying to enforce such specific nuances in such a fast pace game.

 

[bubbaramfan]

I've watched that play five times now. It's clear the guy was leading with his head and forced the fumble and should have been called for "roughing the passer" nullifying the fumble return. Gene Stetetore, rietired NFL official, said as much during the game.

 

[WarnerToBruce]

If it should've been called a fumble, how would it still be 'roughing the passer'? Wouldn't it then be 'unnecessarry roughness'? I dont know. Ref's need to speak and be accountable for bad calls like this (possible fines? etc.).

Either way, NO should've had 7 points on that play and bottom line, they got beat by 18.

Not sure I follow. The fumble was real. But Goff was hit in the mouth. The penalty reverses everything after, including the fumble and any blown whistles or TD returns afterward.

Rams then get 3 or 7, depending on Goff's mood.

 

[Jacobarch]

I've watched that play five times now. It's clear the guy was leading with his head and forced the fumble and should have been called for "roughing the passer" nullifying the fumble return. Gene Stetetore, rietired NFL official, said as much during the game.

Love it,

Hilarious tho, because those fucking announcers Aikman and that other tool were saying the Saints were robbed again. Such Fing BS!!! The NFL should make them apologize for spreading a fake news.

 

[Angry Ram]

View: https://twitter.com/GeneSteratore/status/1173352914024316930?


But we won't hear this reality from the media or Saints fans will we

I've yet to see anyone else bring this up anywhere.

Seems like more people should look into this...

 

[kurtfaulk]

I've yet to see anyone else bring this up anywhere.

Seems like more people should look into this...

but if they did that there wouldn't be a story. nobody tunes into these shows to see reasoned discussion. they want to see people shouting. i've never understood it but if people weren't tuning in these shows wouldn't last this long.

.

 

[EastRam]

If it should've been called a fumble, how would it still be 'roughing the passer'? Wouldn't it then be 'unnecessarry roughness'? I dont know. Ref's need to speak and be accountable for bad calls like this (possible fines? etc.).

Either way, NO should've had 7 points on that play and bottom line, they got beat by 18.

No they shouldn't have. It should have also been a personal foul hit to the face mask of Goff.

Which would have nullified the fumble and given the Rams the ball back with a first down.

If your gonna call one. You have to call the other.

 

[LARams_1963]

I dunno fellas. I rewatched the play today multiple times and I just don't see a roughing the passer penalty. Bottom line is that the only way the Taints would have won this game is by an act of God! Even with that TD.

 

[Angry Ram]

but if they did that there wouldn't be a story. nobody tunes into these shows to see reasoned discussion. they want to see people shouting. i've never understood it but if people weren't tuning in these shows wouldn't last this long.

.

It's not that. No one else has brought that up. Unless someone else is with Gene, hes on an island. Not saying I disagree with anything. A 27-9 drubbing speaks for itself.

 

[Dodgersrf]

But their offense still wouldn't have scored more than 9 points.

Seriously their longest drive was what?...40 yards? Did they ever sniff our redzone?

Yes. They sniffed it, but had back-to back- to back - to back offensive penalties. Backing them up to midfield. 4 in a row I believe.

Very undisciplined team, those Aints

 

[WarnerToBruce]

I dunno fellas. I rewatched the play today multiple times and I just don't see a roughing the passer penalty. Bottom line is that the only way the Taints would have won this game is by an act of God! Even with that TD.

It was a punch to his helmet. I saw in realtime and 100 times since.

But in the end, does it really matter? We won by a lot.

 

[RamFan503]

I dunno fellas. I rewatched the play today multiple times and I just don't see a roughing the passer penalty. Bottom line is that the only way the Taints would have won this game is by an act of God! Even with that TD.

It comes as they start to pan away. It only shows up on the one angle I saw. I think it may be the angle Benatori (sp?) showed in his tweet? Anyway, the defender's arm and hand come down and whack Goff in the facemask. Watch as Goff's head comes down from it.

 

[EastRam]

It was a clear PF that was not called. And that's twice now Goff has had a hand in his face mask against the saints that would have changed the game.

Should I file a lawsuit or eat some ice cream.

 

[Farr Be It]

I wish the NFL would apologize on behalf of the refs and award the Saints the 7 points the were robbed. They still wouldn’t have enough points to win but maybe it would shut them up.

Heck, give them another TD for pain and suffering.

They still lose.

Careful, you show that kind of weakness, they may hold out for visitation rights for our NFC title.

 

[Farr Be It]

Should I file a lawsuit or eat some ice cream.

"What's that supposed to mean?"

 

[RamFan503]

It was a clear PF that was not called. And that's twice now Goff has had a hand in his face mask against the saints that would have changed the game.

Should I file a lawsuit or eat some ice cream.

I saw at least two others that would have given Tammy a free 15 yards.

 

[OldSchool]

I dunno fellas. I rewatched the play today multiple times and I just don't see a roughing the passer penalty. Bottom line is that the only way the Taints would have won this game is by an act of God! Even with that TD.

Copied from another forum.

A passer who is standing still or fading backward after the ball has left his hand is obviously out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by an opponent through the end of the down or until the passer becomes a blocker, or a runner, or, in the event of a change of possession during the down, until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. However, at any time after the change of possession, it is a foul if:

1. an opponent forcibly hits the quarterback’s head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder
2. if an opponent lowers his head and makes forcible contact with any part of his helmet against any part of the passer’s body. This provision does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a conventional block.