Please Explain the Calls

[Selassie I]

There was a PI call made on us later in the game on our defender (can't remember who it was)... but the pass was COMPLETELY UNCATCHABLE. It was thrown SO far past anybody on the field that Superman wouldn't even have been able to catch it.

WTFFFFFFFF

To be considered PI... the ball has to be considered CATCHABLE. That has always been part of the rule. That ball was in no way, shape, or form catchable. It was not PI.

Maybe they could have called holding... which is 5 yds and a 1st Down at MOST. But calling PI on a ball that was not catchable in the slightest is robbery. They gave the foreskins like 20 or 30 yards on that bogus call.

Fucking maddening doesn't begin to describe it.

 

[bomebadeeda]

The call I have a question about other than this crazy call was the PI on Woods. Wasn't the pass caught by Gurley behind the line of scrimmage? If that were the case, you can block as if it were a running play correct? I know you can in college ball.

The simple answer is.....he didn't even try to act like he was doing anything else but block. If he had taken the same path and ran a curl. It would have worked as well as a block. But just running a slant into the def back was blatant.

 

[bomebadeeda]

There was a PI call made on us later in the game on our defender (can't remember who it was)... but the pass was COMPLETELY UNCATCHABLE. It was thrown SO far past anybody on the field that Superman wouldn't even have been able to catch it.

WTFFFFFFFF

To be considered PI... the ball has to be considered CATCHABLE. That has always been part of the rule. That ball was in no way, shape, or form catchable. It was not PI.

Maybe they could have called holding... which is 5 yds and a 1st Down at MOST. But calling PI on a ball that was not catchable in the slightest is robbery. They gave the foreskins like 20 or 30 yards on that bogus call.

freaking maddening doesn't begin to describe it.

I thought the call should have been holding instead of PI. I agree the ball was too far to be caught, but our guy did impede their receiver....just not 20 some odd yards worth on a ball he would have never caught. A 5 yarder and a first down. I wouldn't have liked.....but it would have been fair.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Rams return it to the 26 yd line. A Ram holding occurs at the 20 yd line. Worst case scenario the Rams start 1st and 10 at the 10. But wait, the Redskins commit a personal fouls for face mask! So, what happens? The Rams are punished for the Redskin personal foul and start at the 2!

How is this possible and if it was correct, going forward the Rams kick off special teams should have designated players on the sidelines looking for obvious penalties of holding that a flag is thrown for. At that time begin yelling flag or some code word and somebody make sure they grab a face mask not to injure but just to make sure it is called. Make the same rule be applied and have them start inside the 5. Make the NFL address this ridiculous rule and change it if it was even interpreted right.

Next, why did Washington start at their own 30 yd line on the touchback for the last drive? No penalty was announced by the refs or announcers.

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION: I knew ( And said so!) that this game would be a mess the second "Boger" was announced as the Ref!!

 

[Snaz]

Refs shouldn't decide games, but some calls listed above that don't appear to be called correctly plus a lot of the non-calls certainly had a major effect on the outcome.

 

[Memento]

I fucking hate Jerome Booger/Bogus.

 

[RamsFlash80]

Kupp was also being held alot uncalled off the line of scrimmage and imo thats why he had a quiet game. Skins got away with alot of holding on both sides of the ball. I think the coaches were fired up at the refs on that game winning Skins drive because they kept holding Donald and particularly on a crucial 3rd down. If Donald doesnt get held hes sacking Cousins on 3rd down and were getting the ball back with a chance to win the game.

 

[Snaz]

The announcers kept saying the Rams coaches were going ballistic on the sidelines, but have no clue what it was about.

 

[Ellard80]

How exactly is there a line of scrimmage on the kick off...

There is no way that rule was interpreted correctly.

Also I did NOT see any coaches questioning that call.

Sometimes McVay looks like he is so focused on the offense and figuring things out that he doesn't really pay attention to much else.

 

[DaveFan'51]

The announcers kept saying the Rams coaches were going ballistic on the sidelines, but have no clue what it was about.

I lost track of how many time the Changer the penalty called on the field! "Face mask against the Rams" "Wait, Oh No, That face mask was against the "Skins!" It was a Cluster F--k of monumental proportions! It's no wonder Coaches where yelling allover the place!

Edit: I'm getting Heart-Burn just writing about this^!!

 

[LARams_1963]

That was the most assinine call and ruling I think I've ever seen. How the fuck does the other team commit a personal foul and you get the ball on the 2???

 

[Fatbot]

I believe the rule they (Blandino?) mentioned during broadcast is Rule 14, Section 5-(Double Fouls), Article 2. Double Foul with a Change of Possession that states:

If both teams foul after the last change of possession (Double Foul After Change of Possession), the penalties are offset, and the team last in possession shall retain the ball at the spot where possession was gained.​

What's interesting is it seems earlier versions of this rule, like this version from 2013, state differently:

If both teams foul after the last change of possession (Double Foul After Change of Possession), the team last in possession shall retain the ball at the spot of its foul or the dead-ball spot, whichever is less beneficial for it.​

Here's the reasoning for the change according to NFL communications press release (see proposal no. 19, pg. 37):

Submitted by Competition Committee
Effect: Eliminates multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession.
Reason: Simplifies penalty enforcement.​

I could be wrong since this stuff reads like an insurance policy... but if this is indeed the case that this was the rule... and they changed it to make it easier on the poor refs ... yet didn't think how it could screw a team like it did ... all I can say is after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new rule change sucks...

 

[XXXIVwin]

Excellent, excelled post Fatbot. I looked at the rule book too, curious about the call.
Yes, it seems quite possible the goal was to "simplify" the ruling.
Your WarGames photo is an inspired response.
I have never ever seen an NFL rule that is so bad that it could actually reward a team for committing a personal foul, as appeared to be the case yesterday.

 

[rdlkgliders]

Well, lets see. So your team scores a TD on a given play, the refs threw a flag and it is announced that a personal foul was committed by the opposing team. If you can't decline the penalty, you would lose the TD you just scored so yes, you can deny it.

I hear what you are saying all penalties can be declined.
In your example Wouldn't it be applied on the kickoff ?

 

[XXXIVwin]

Man, can't wait to hear somebody from the NFL try to explain Boger's kickoff ruling yesterday !

 

[EasyE]

I think the rule was applied correctly, it is just a stupid rule.

On another note, I feel anytime the kickoff is in the end zone, the return team should take the touchback at the 25. Too many bad things can happen on the return - NOT reaching the 25, fumble, penalty, stupid rule applied etc.

Risk-Reward deal there...I am with you...

 

[Ramlock]

I believe the rule they (Blandino?) mentioned during broadcast is Rule 14, Section 5-(Double Fouls), Article 2. Double Foul with a Change of Possession that states:

If both teams foul after the last change of possession (Double Foul After Change of Possession), the penalties are offset, and the team last in possession shall retain the ball at the spot where possession was gained.​

What's interesting is it seems earlier versions of this rule, like this version from 2013, state differently:

If both teams foul after the last change of possession (Double Foul After Change of Possession), the team last in possession shall retain the ball at the spot of its foul or the dead-ball spot, whichever is less beneficial for it.​

Here's the reasoning for the change according to NFL communications press release (see proposal no. 19, pg. 37):

Submitted by Competition Committee
Effect: Eliminates multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession.
Reason: Simplifies penalty enforcement.​

I could be wrong since this stuff reads like an insurance policy... but if this is indeed the case that this was the rule... and they changed it to make it easier on the poor refs ... yet didn't think how it could screw a team like it did ... all I can say is after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new rule change sucks...

Nice job man

 

[London59]

Excellent, excelled post Fatbot. I looked at the rule book too, curious about the call.
Yes, it seems quite possible the goal was to "simplify" the ruling.
Your WarGames photo is an inspired response.
I have never ever seen an NFL rule that is so bad that it could actually reward a team for committing a personal foul, as appeared to be the case yesterday.

Didn't the rule used to be that a personal foul trumped a regular penalty?

 

[XXXIVwin]

Didn't the rule used to be that a personal foul trumped a regular penalty?

Sometimes. Gotta admit it can get complicated.

 

[XXXIVwin]

According to Gonzalez at ESPN, today McVay said that the kickoff ruling was correct.
So, fatbot's post is confirmed: Boger correctly enforced a rule that sucks.
NFL is trying to discourage kickoff returns... this rule is a big deterrent because of its potential to screw over the receiving team.