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
Martha Careful (3h) : meh
Zero2Cool (7h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (7h) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (7h) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (10h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (10h) : Only 4
wpr (10h) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (13h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (13h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
43m / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

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