Jump to content
ExtremeRavens: The Sanctuary

One Winning Drive: Officials Already?


dc.
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://blogs.extremeravens.com/ravens/2009...ds-already_155/

 

 

A quick take on the kickoff controversy.

 

First and foremost, when it comes to rules and on-field rulings: never trust Joe Buck.

 

In case you missed it, it was a bit of a wacky play. The Cardinals, following a score to go up 21-6, pooch the kickoff toward the sideline. The ball appears to hit in bounds at approximately the 28 yard line, bounce and hit an Eagles blocker whose foot is out of bounds, and then stay in bounds to be recovered by the Cardinals.

 

Now, the officials got it wrong. But unfortunately for Cards fans, the ball should not have gone to the Cardinals anyway.

 

Official Walt Anderson, after a lengthy conversation with his crew and later with both coaches, announced that the ball was ruled out of bounds after touching an Eagles player and that, by rule the ball belonged to the Eagles at that mark. He also said that such a ruling was non-challengable, after Ken Wisenhunt of the Cardinals dropped his little red hanky. [by the way, if Anderson’s announced version of the events is correct, his ruling is correct. Unfortunately, that’s not how it happened on the field.] Additionally, a flag was on the field (appearing to be for a kick out of bounds) that was never mentioned by Anderson. That is likely because Anderson’s ruling is that the player touched the ball before it went out of bounds.

 

Looking at the replays, however, the officials got it wrong. First, the ball does not touch the Eagles blocker until after the Eagles player establishes himself out of bounds. At the point of contact, the ball is then out of bounds and the ball is dead. Additionally, by rule, the kick has gone out of bounds and a flag should be thrown for illegal procedure on the kick-off. Ravens fans should remember this rule from several years ago. A Matt Stover kick appeared to be headed for the endzone when an opposing player stood out of bounds and reached in to touch the kick, thus establishing the kick as out of bounds.

 

So, what’s the point? Well, apologies to the Cardinals, but its actually the Eagles that got the raw deal. The Eagles should have been given the ball 12 yards further upfield.

 

Walt Anderson did get one thing right: once the ball is established as out of bounds, whether its by going out itself or by touching a player, the play is dead. There is no way the ball should have been awarded to the Cardinals.

 

… get it?

 

 

http://blogs.extremeravens.com/ravens/2009...ds-already_155/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BallTMore

Noticed that too. It amazes me how little the announcers know about the rules.

 

I believe Yamon Figurs or BJ Sams is the player that stepped out of bounds for the Ravens, then touched the ball, which gave us the ball at the 40. Correct call. I don't remember the Stover kickoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noticed that too. It amazes me how little the announcers know about the rules.

 

I believe Yamon Figurs or BJ Sams is the player that stepped out of bounds for the Ravens, then touched the ball, which gave us the ball at the 40. Correct call. I don't remember the Stover kickoff.

 

The problem is:

 

a: the ball never hit Abiamiri

 

b: His foot was not out of bounds until the ball had already hit the ground (in bounds), so even if he had tipped it, it would have been before he was out of bounds. While Coleman was right about it not being reviewable (a la Hochuli earlier in the year), the call on the field was horrid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Anderson did get one thing right: once the ball is established as out of bounds, whether its by going out itself or by touching a player, the play is dead. There is no way the ball should have been awarded to the Cardinals.

Except that, in reality, the ball never went out of bounds whatsoever. You can't say that the Eagles got a more raw deal than the Cardinals, because it should have been the Cardinals' ball in the first place.

 

If you want to consider referee screwups, they screwed up by calling the ball out of bounds when it wasn't far more glaringly than they did rob the Eagles of 12 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It hit the Eagles player in the arm and changed direction AFTER the bounce when his foot was out of bounds. Having never been touched in bounds, it should have been considered illegal procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that, in reality, the ball never went out of bounds whatsoever. You can't say that the Eagles got a more raw deal than the Cardinals, because it should have been the Cardinals' ball in the first place.

 

If you want to consider referee screwups, they screwed up by calling the ball out of bounds when it wasn't far more glaringly than they did rob the Eagles of 12 yards.

 

Well Anderson was wrong but based on what he was told he did the right thing.

 

Meanwhile, the ball WAS touched while the player was out of bounds, thus establishing the ball as out just as in any other play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It hit the Eagles player in the arm and changed direction AFTER the bounce when his foot was out of bounds. Having never been touched in bounds, it should have been considered illegal procedure.

 

No way, it bounced the completely wrong direction for it to even come close to hitting him after the bounce, straight back into the field while the player was running off of it.

 

We'll see when they inevitably replay it after the game, and it pops up on youtube (which it hasn't yet) but after watching it closely 4-5 times during the game, it didn't hit, and it would have been to early for him to be out of bounds even if it had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it bounce while he was in bounds. It popped straight up, hit his forearm, and ricochet (before bouncing again) toward the cards endzone. I just don't see how a bounce straight up can change direction like that without being touched

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it bounce while he was in bounds. It popped straight up, hit his forearm, and ricochet (before bouncing again) toward the cards endzone. I just don't see how a bounce straight up can change direction like that without being touched

It's a football. It probably didn't bounce directly up, anyway. And even if it did, there's absolutely no way that the ball touching his forearm so little (because we can't even tell that it did) would affect the bounce that much.

 

It just never touched him. It couldn't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...