PDA

View Full Version : Ref Call In the Chargers/Raiders Game

DaHonorable49er
11-26-2006, 06:56 PM
Did any of you see that call on the supposedly illegal forward pass. Looked like a fumble to me and San Diego got a free pass. For those who didn't see it, #83 for San Diego caught the ball on a diving catch, gets up untouched and spins the ball out his hand to the ground. Oakland wisely recovers. The ref originally said it was a fumble and awarded it to the Raiders. Then after the refs had a brief discussion, they said it was an illegal forward pass and still awarded it to Oakland. Then they huddled again and said it was an illegal forward pass and a 5 yard penalty would be awarded from the spot of the foul, SD Ball. Now that was some BS. I hate Oakland, but I can't stand for anyone, let along an underdog to have that to help contribute to a loss in a close game. I thought it should have been a fumble and the Raiders ball. Your thoughts?

P.S. I think Art Shell should put Randy Moss in charge of guarding the players' jocks for the effort he gives him on the field! I also think that would be the #1 topic Wednesday on Total access for Lou Perelli, or how ever you spell it!
eight2eighty
11-26-2006, 06:59 PM
Did any of you see that call on the supposedly illegal forward pass. Looked like a fumble to me and San Diego got a free pass. For those who didn't see it, #83 for San Diego caught the ball on a diving catch, gets up untouched and spins the ball out his hand to the ground. Oakland wisely recovers. The ref originally said it was a fumble and awarded it to the Raiders. Then after the refs had a brief discussion, they said it was an illegal forward pass and still awarded it to Oakland. Then they huddled again and said it was an illegal forward pass and a 5 yard penalty would be awarded from the spot of the foul, SD Ball. Now that was some BS. I hate Oakland, but I can't stand for anyone, let along an underdog to have that to help contribute to a loss in a close game. I thought it should have been a fumble and the Raiders ball. Your thoughts?

P.S. I think Art Shell should put Randy Moss in charge of guarding the players' jocks for the effort he gives him on the field! I also think that would be the #1 topic Wednesday on Total access for Lou Perelli, or how ever you spell it!


Yea I saw that. Total BS. That was Raider ball.
Optimus Moo
11-26-2006, 07:10 PM
Did any of you see that call on the supposedly illegal forward pass. Looked like a fumble to me and San Diego got a free pass. For those who didn't see it, #83 for San Diego caught the ball on a diving catch, gets up untouched and spins the ball out his hand to the ground. Oakland wisely recovers. The ref originally said it was a fumble and awarded it to the Raiders. Then after the refs had a brief discussion, they said it was an illegal forward pass and still awarded it to Oakland. Then they huddled again and said it was an illegal forward pass and a 5 yard penalty would be awarded from the spot of the foul, SD Ball. Now that was some BS. I hate Oakland, but I can't stand for anyone, let along an underdog to have that to help contribute to a loss in a close game. I thought it should have been a fumble and the Raiders ball. Your thoughts?

P.S. I think Art Shell should put Randy Moss in charge of guarding the players' jocks for the effort he gives him on the field! I also think that would be the #1 topic Wednesday on Total access for Lou Perelli, or how ever you spell it!

Considering this is the "Tuck Rule loser" franchise, would you look at this play today and expect anything less?

Then again, even IF the Raiders would have gotten the ball, they'd have screwed up and turned it back over anyway.
MasterShake
11-26-2006, 07:12 PM
If the guy willingly threw the ball forward, I suppose it could be considered a forward pass...

I don't think the rulebook has a page for that one specificly...
BigB_85
11-26-2006, 07:45 PM
i want to see them explain that on the NFL Network with Eisen and VP of officials.
Is it just me -- Or does it seems like whenever Eisen confronts that Mike Pereira guy of a bad call, he pulls rules out his *** and make excuses?

I could be wrong, I just kinda feel that way sometimes.
Optimus Moo
11-26-2006, 07:46 PM
FYI...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2676820

While the call was questioned on the field, NFL Supervisor of Officials Mike Pereira confirmed to ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the call was correct -- and not without precedent.

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson spinning the ball forward when he was not down by contact constituted an intentional illegal forward fumble and thus an illegal forward pass. Had he spun it backward, it would have been a live fumble.

A similar call was made when Plaxico Burress did the same thing with the Steelers on Oct. 1, 2000.
Pound th' Rock
11-26-2006, 09:29 PM
it was an absolute horse **** call. Define a pass then. He didn't pass the ******* ball, he was spiking it in their faces. The Raiders got burned and burned bad and anyone who backs up that call has no sack. Excuse me for the language, but it's been a bad weekend for football...
sandiegojoe
11-26-2006, 09:31 PM
FYI...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2676820

Makes perfect sense.. unfortunately.

The funny thing is that the dummy easily would have done the same thing backwards if that was the way he had landed. But luckily for SD, he spun it in front of him.
BrentJones84
11-26-2006, 11:28 PM
It was clear the WR thoght he was done, and though the play was over, and he did not intend to make a pass or fumble.

He was just an *****. He could have ran for more yards since the wistle hadn't been blown.
Optimus Moo
11-27-2006, 01:00 PM
Did I hear this on ESPN right?

This rule can stem back to the famous Holy Roller play back in the 70s which benefitted the Raiders in a game against the Chargers?

If I heard that right, that's ironic.
audioaxes
11-27-2006, 01:03 PM
the refs got it right
Fromthe3rdRow
11-27-2006, 01:07 PM
If it helped the Raiduhs lose - I'm happy with it.
Peter Proud
11-27-2006, 01:10 PM
If it helped the Raiduhs lose - I'm happy with it.

:hunter: :hunter: :hunter:
low_N_breezy
11-27-2006, 01:11 PM
I just thought it was funny because my wife was Vince jacksons tutor at widefield H.S. and I like to bust her balls when he is on TV
Optimus Moo
11-27-2006, 01:18 PM
I just thought it was funny because my wife was Vince jacksons tutor at widefield H.S. and I like to bust her balls when he is on TV

After noting the bolded parts... I think I'll take the high road and make no comment, LOL!

Just kidding with ya, man!
DraconisRex
11-27-2006, 01:39 PM
i want to see them explain that on the NFL Network with Eisen and VP of officials.

They'll just lie. That's what they do in calls like that.
DaHonorable49er
11-27-2006, 11:02 PM
You guys buddy Joe Theisman said that Mike Pereira confirmed it with him that it was the correct call. So, I won't be too surprised of him defending the BS call this week and I won't have as many profanities to use in that case.
Optimus Moo
11-28-2006, 11:48 AM
The thing is, the call was correct. No issues whatsoever. It was perfect.

BUT, as statred earlier in this thread, the rule was written before showboating became more prominent in the game.

The rule would be better served if rewritten to say that if it was an intentional fumble out of celebration (or something to that effect), that it is a fumble and live ball, regardless of which direction he fumbled it.

That would put a stop to a lot of that showboating when involving the ball, at least from intelligent players, anyway.

The other thing I would add is a case that came up in the Green Bay-Seattle game last night. Someone was down, they got up and put the ball on the ground a la the San Diego play in question, and the defensive player pounced on it, thinking it was a live ball. The defender got flagged for a delay of game, but all he was trying to do was get what he thought was a fumble for his team; it wasn't an intentional delay. (I THINK that is what happened in the game, but I am not sure.)

That penalty should be reworked, too. It should be the offensive player who gets the delay of game penalty. All he had to do was hand the ball to a ref or put it down on the ground in front of him, like most players do. No need to fling the ball or throw it or whatever.
Nilsen31
11-28-2006, 12:36 PM
Didn't Plaxico Burress do that once, when he was on the Steelers?

It was called a fumble, but maybe he didn't throw it in the fashion Vincent Jackson did...
Optimus Moo
11-28-2006, 01:10 PM
Didn't Plaxico Burress do that once, when he was on the Steelers?

It was called a fumble, but maybe he didn't throw it in the fashion Vincent Jackson did...

Read my earlier post when I quoted an ESPN article.
Peter Proud
11-28-2006, 03:32 PM
The call was correct....the rule needs to be changed!:angry: