PDA

View Full Version : Confusion over a few plays; help me out


Stevo
02-03-2009, 07:38 AM
Now that the game is over I am looking for some input or even debate over a few plays and scenarios that left me wondering what the “correct outcome” would have been. I know it doesn’t matter as far as the game goes, but I just want to clarify what would have been the CORRECT outcome. Kind of like those “you make the call” spots back in the day.



WHAT HAPPENED: James Harrison TD. He picks off Warner’s pass and runs it back 100 yards for the touchdown. He is brought down right at the end zone and the half ends as he crosses the goal line. During the play there was a penalty against the Cardinals. After a review, it is ruled a TD and the Steelers decline the penalty.

IF: He was ruled down before the crossing the end zone, and the time had expired, the penalty would have given the Steelers one more play because the half can not end on a defensive penalty. RIGHT?

What about Fitz running out of bounce? Was that legal?

And was I thought I heard someone talking about a Steeler making and illegal chop-block, which could have taken away the TD.



WHAT HAPPENED: Larry Fitzgerald catches his first TD with 7:41 to play in the game, a leaping grab over Ike Taylor.

IF: He does not maintain control of the ball and it touches the ground as he is falling to the ground, it is an incomplete pass. The replay from the front shows Fitzgerald holding the ball in one hand while it is moving around his head and chest, and as he hits the ground the ball touches the ground (his hands were never completely under the ball, unlike Polamalu’s famous interception against San Diego on November 16th). Isn’t that an incomplete pass?



WHAT HAPPENED: At 3:04 for to play, a holding penalty on Steeler center J. Hartwig is enforced in end zone for a Cardinals Safety.

IF: The Steelers center is lying on his back while being run over by a defensive end, how is that holding?

FYI: If they don’t complete the pass then Tomlin was taking the safety anyway. But (as far as momentum is concerned) it is always much better to give something away, than to have it taken away.


...I am just looking for some insight. Thats all.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-03-2009, 09:43 AM
The INT return, I dont know what the penalty was. I saw Timmons being held on the blitz, so it was pre possession and I think the Cards would get the ball back 10 yards deeper. If it was on the runback, then its still Steeler ball. Players get blocked out of bounds on punt coverage and come back to make tackle all the time.....Fitz was OK in doing do.

On the Fitzgerald TD, he clearly had possession when he went to the ground and maintained it. It was a TD.

On the Hartwig hold call, he is blocking the DT and then sees Okefor stunting inside and shifts over. Hartwig is standing upright and gets run over by Okefor who has leverage and Hartwig grabs outside his shoulder pads to block and goes down with him. I thought it was questionable as Hartwig was almost defensive, but if he had his hands inside on the chest of Okefor while getting run over, its no call. Basically he placed his hands "outside the frame" and allowed the ref to make the call.

I dont agree with the call, but believe it could have been called either way only because Hartwig had bad hand placement and wouldnt cry about it if we lost.

SuzyPeppercorn
02-03-2009, 09:58 AM
yes players get pushed out of bounds all the time and are still legal. But fitz went out of bounds all on his own and made no effort to get back into the field until trying to tackle harrison.

i think this is a penalty. can anyone confirm?

SuperSteelers
02-03-2009, 10:06 AM
yes players get pushed out of bounds all the time and are still legal. But fitz went out of bounds all on his own and made no effort to get back into the field until trying to tackle harrison.

i think this is a penalty. can anyone confirm?

Yes, it is a penalty. If it weren't, then players could routinely get out of bounds do avoid being blocked and run back in to make the play.

stlrtruck
02-03-2009, 10:15 AM
The penalty was a facemask against Warner on Harrison during the run back. So it still would have been Steelers ball with one "untimed" down.

MJ5150
02-03-2009, 10:30 AM
Hey stlrtruck....fix your sig..

6 trophies

:chuckle::tt02:

-Mike

jjpro11
02-03-2009, 10:39 AM
The penalty was a facemask against Warner on Harrison during the run back. So it still would have been Steelers ball with one "untimed" down.

no, it was a facemask on #61 elton brown

jjpro11
02-03-2009, 10:47 AM
i actually have a question myself.. when warner's fumble was overturned in the 3rd quarter, why was he not called for grounding? he threw the ball two feet in front of him at the feet of a steelers and cardinals lineman. i want to say its because farrior had hold of him and caused the incompletion/fumble, but i have seen qbs being grabbed or hit by defenders and still get called for it. so i dont know.

SuperSteelers
02-03-2009, 01:24 PM
i actually have a question myself.. when warner's fumble was overturned in the 3rd quarter, why was he not called for grounding? he threw the ball two feet in front of him at the feet of a steelers and cardinals lineman. i want to say its because farrior had hold of him and caused the incompletion/fumble, but i have seen qbs being grabbed or hit by defenders and still get called for it. so i dont know.

Exactly the same question I had at the time... Why no intentional grounding??

steelerdave1969
02-03-2009, 01:55 PM
Alot of great questions and alot of great answers, this is why I love this forrum. Alot of people that know their football and are very informational about it..

:hatsoff:

drizze99
02-03-2009, 01:57 PM
On the Fitzgerald TD, he clearly had possession when he went to the ground and maintained it. It was a TD.

I don't think so Gonzo. I watched that play frame by frame and to me he does not clearly establish possession and then the front part of the ball hits the turf. It wasn't until after that the ball was clearly secured.

IMHO, Tomlin should have challenged that.

drizze99
02-03-2009, 01:59 PM
Exactly the same question I had at the time... Why no intentional grounding??

When a play is reviewed, it is only for reviewed for ONE reason and the rest of the pay is not reffed. The challenge was whether it was a fumble or incomplete pass.

FacemeIke
02-03-2009, 02:24 PM
I had a question myself. On the very last play of the game when Warner gets stripped and the Steelers recover Farrior takes off his helmet and is called for a 15 yr penelty. If they would have reviewed the play and overturned the call and given the ball back to Arizona would they have also gotten to accept the 15 yr penalty? Or would it have been a post possession penelty that gets wiped out if the Cardinals get the ball back? I am assuming they would have gotten those 15 yrs, which could have really came back to hurt us.

4xSBChamps
02-03-2009, 02:25 PM
What about Fitz running out of bounds? Was that legal?

I immediately saw that, and commented while watching the game, yet neither Michaels nor Pinkie commented..... have been told by other 'fans' on other Forums that Fitz would've been a legal-man to make the tackle, but am still leery of this answer, as I doubt their 'knowledge':
have contacted several long-term, respected NFL writers, asking for their ideas regarding this play, and am awaiting their reply.

Neil-Still-Rules-14
02-03-2009, 04:39 PM
I had a question myself. On the very last play of the game when Warner gets stripped and the Steelers recover Farrior takes off his helmet and is called for a 15 yr penelty. If they would have reviewed the play and overturned the call and given the ball back to Arizona would they have also gotten to accept the 15 yr penalty? Or would it have been a post possession penelty that gets wiped out if the Cardinals get the ball back? I am assuming they would have gotten those 15 yrs, which could have really came back to hurt us.

The Cardinals would have gotten the extra 15 yards. I remember a play between the Eagles and Browns a while ago where the Eagles player got tackled with no time on the clock left and a Browns player took off his helmet to celebrate the victory. As it turned out, the Eagles player had lateraled it as he was going down, resulting in 10 more yards plus the 15 yards due to penalty. The Eagles then kicked a field goal to win.

4xSBChamps
02-03-2009, 04:50 PM
from Joe Girvan, of Bright House Sports Network in Tampa

this is right out of the NFL rulebook:


Touchdown Awarded (Palpably Unfair Act)

When Referee determines a palpably unfair act deprived a team of a touchdown. (Example: Player comes off bench and tackles runner apparently en route to touchdown.)

Dino 6 Rings
02-03-2009, 04:51 PM
What about after the first Inc/Fumble when Warner takes HIS helmet off to argue with the Ref...they showed it on ESPN today...and they even questioned why no flag was thrown then...He clearly takes his helmet off on the field of play and argues with the Ref. Should have been a 15 yarder right there.

westcoastransplant
02-03-2009, 05:00 PM
What about after the first Inc/Fumble when Warner takes HIS helmet off to argue with the Ref...they showed it on ESPN today...and they even questioned why no flag was thrown then...He clearly takes his helmet off on the field of play and argues with the Ref. Should have been a 15 yarder right there.

Beat me to this one. I was curious at the time why he didn't get called. Remember Vanderjagt when he missed the FG in 2005. He took off his helmet and flung it into the ground in frustration and was called for the 15 yards. If you are strictly enforcing the rules, then that would be called. Of course, the same would go for Santonio using the ball as a prop in a celebration.