Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago
Elliot supposedly extended the ball past the marker. But was tackled with it well behind the marker. On goal line once ball crosses the GL, the play is dead; but it doesn't work this way at the 20.

To argue the ball should be ruled down at its furthest point, one must argue that this is the furthest point were forward progress was achieved. Unfortunately, review is only available to determine where a guy got tackled with the ball; it cannot be used to review forward progress.

It's amazing a room full of refs forgot this point during review; but ultimately, its GB's fault.

Our staff, like most others, simply doesn’t have unerring expertise with the rules. I’ve said this before, they need some sort of expert to tell these things to McCarthy.
Zero2Cool
7 years ago
Only flag/play that really kind of ticked me off was the penalty on Blake Martinez on 3rd down that ended up giving the Cowboys 4 more points. I do not know the rule well enough to know it was/was not a penalty. But, the broadcasters and people on twitter and that former head of officials said it was a bad call. I just don't know why New York can't chime in and say hey, pick up that flag. If it's going to change points or who has the ball, I think you gotta make that a little more accurately.


Edit, I think Elliott's reach was the peak of his forward progress. No issue with that play at all.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago
When they say forward progress cannot be reviewed, it means the decision to call the play dead because of stopped progress, that cannot be reviews.

Spot of the ball always can be.

If you say, they can't review the Elliot play, they also wouldn't have been able to review McCarthy's challenge prior that took the 1st down away.


I've never liked the forward progress rule in situations like this, but I don't know if there is a way to fix it. In this case it is clear Elliot pulled the ball back under his own power, not that he was pushed backwards.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago
The Martinez penalty was BS; but ya gotta give the refs a break based on what they may have seen in real time. If that was reviewed, I'd bet the flag gets picked up. Not sure this stuff should be reviewed, it's lead to 3-4-5 reviews per game.

PFWT,

The play before, McCarthy challenged the spot of the ball where Beasley was tackled.

Elliot was tackled and ball spotted 1/2 yard short, that spot was reviewable and it was correct, that's where Elliot was tackled with the ball. But, the refs didn't review the spot of the ball; they reviewed the point of Elliot's most forward progress [the reach].

Forward progress is a judgment as to "when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends." Of course, once a ref believes FP was achieved he blows the whistle. The review doesn't let us know when the whistle blew, nor can it be used as a substitute for a ref's judgment call.

If they saw the ball extended and Elliot's knee or elbow down, then okay, that's reviewable and I get the reversal. But, Elliot had flown thru the air and landed on a pile of bodies; he was not down unless a ref judged his forward progress stopped. Had he got pushed back and landed on his feet; he could have kept running first down around end or tried diving again, unless play was blown dead.

Note: if Elliot pulled ball back on his own accord, then that's is not the point of forward progress!

Note: On GL, the forward progress doesn't come into play because once the ball breaks the plane, the play is dead.
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago
I don't remember how the announcers or officials described it but Let me see if I can explain it better for you.

Forward progress has nothing to do with the ball. It is about the forward movement of the ball carrier. So the challenge wasn't about forward progress, it was about the spot of the ball at the time of the forward progress being stopped.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
beast
7 years ago

Only flag/play that really kind of ticked me off was the penalty on Blake Martinez on 3rd down that ended up giving the Cowboys 4 more points. I do not know the rule well enough to know it was/was not a penalty. But, the broadcasters and people on twitter and that former head of officials said it was a bad call. I just don't know why New York can't chime in and say hey, pick up that flag. If it's going to change points or who has the ball, I think you gotta make that a little more accurately.


Edit, I think Elliott's reach was the peak of his forward progress. No issue with that play at all.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I agree with the announcer's ref... that Martinez hit was not a penalty because the rule states it needs to be a forcible blow to the head/neck and Martinez's arm was a glance blow at best... and as Aikman added, if anything Martinez was avoiding the hit, not causing it... as Martinez went around, playing the ball, not the WR.

I still believe the ref saw Martinez arm glace Dez's helmet, saw Dez laying there motionless and flat on the ground and threw the flag to cover his own ass, because I think IF it was a penalty and he doesn't call it, his ass is going to be chewed out big time... where IF it isn't a penalty and he calls out, he's just going to be told he got it wrong. As I think the refs are told to side towards calling player safety rules.

But Dez was laying there motionless and flat on the ground because he was pouting about his dropped touchdown... not because he was injured by a hit in the head.
UserPostedImage
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago

I don't remember how the announcers or officials described it but Let me see if I can explain it better for you.

Forward progress has nothing to do with the ball. It is about the forward movement of the ball carrier. So the challenge wasn't about forward progress, it was about the spot of the ball at the time of the forward progress being stopped.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



EXACTLY! And that is not reviewable!

A ball spotted at a certain point due to FP [as opposed to a ball spotted at a certain point due to a player downed by contact] is not reviewable!
beast
7 years ago


The play before, McCarthy challenged the spot of the ball where Beasley was tackled.

Elliot was tackled and ball spotted 1/2 yard short, that spot was reviewable and it was correct, that's where Elliot was tackled with the ball. But, the refs didn't review the spot of the ball; they reviewed the point of Elliot's most forward progress [the reach].

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



If I understand the rule correctly (and I am NOT sure that I do), the reviews got both the Beasley and Elliot calls correct. As the ball gets marked at the furthest distances while the player is either downed, touched or held up.

In the case on Beasley on his horizontal route... the ball went further than he did and he grabbed the ball and brought it back to him while he was NOT being touched or held up. So the ball does NOT get placed at the further distances, because he was not downed, touched or held up there.

Meanwhile Elliots extra reach forward happened while he WAS being touched or held up and therefore that counts, and the fact that he brought it back doesn't matter. So the ball does get placed at the further distance, because he was either downed, touched or held up there.

UserPostedImage
buckeyepackfan
7 years ago
My only question on the Zeke play was the camera they used to make the final call.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I got from the guys in the booth was that camera angle is not available in most stadiums.

Would like to hear others thoughts on that.

In the end it all worked out.

Most of the time, bad calls will even themselves out over the season, with exceptions (FAIL Mary 😁).

So maybe we have one in the bank for the future.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
beast
7 years ago

EXACTLY! And that is not reviewable!

A ball spotted at a certain point due to FP [as opposed to a ball spotted at a certain point due to a player downed by contact] is not reviewable!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



I believe the NFL refs would disagree with you.

I think Forward Process can't be reviewed, to say if the play was over or not.

But the actual ball spot is reviewable even during forward process plays.


This is the forward process part that is nor reviewable... they blew the play dead, so what happened after the whistle does not count. But the Vikings could of challenged the ball spot.



UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (11h) : *analysis* gettin' old
dfosterf (11h) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
dfosterf (11h) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
packerfanoutwest (10-Jul) : Us Padres fans love it....But it'll be a Dodgers/Yankees World Series
Zero2Cool (9-Jul) : Brewers sweep Dodgers. Awesome
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : And James Flanigan is the grandson of Packers Super Bowl winner Jim Flanigan Sr.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : Jerome Bettis and Jim Flanigans sons as well!
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Thomas Davis Jr is OLB, not WR. Oops.
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Larry Fitzgeral and Thomas Davis sons too. WR's as well.
Mucky Tundra (5-Jul) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
38m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

59m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

7h / Community Welcome! / lijog

10-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-Jul / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

6-Jul / Random Babble / Martha Careful

4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.