Posted on 01/07/2007 1:35:07 PM PST by ml/nj
Last night Dallas, in the shaddow of their own goal line through a pass which was completed at about the one yard line. A Seattle player knocked the ball out of the receiver's hands towards and into the endzone. It was initially ruled that the ball was recovered by Seattle before it went out of bounds and so it was a Seattle Touchdown. Upon video review the refs (and everyone else) saw that the ball went out of bounds before it was recovered, and so it was ruled a Safety, two points for Seattle.
Should this play have been rulled a touchback and Dallas given the ball on their 20 yard line?
The announcers, oblivious to everything not whispered into their ears by someone in the production truck, didn't consider this at all. (Just as they didn't consider whether Romo got a first down, or fumbled, after the botched field goal attempt.)
I did a little searching that would seem to suggest that the play should have been ruled a touchback. http://www.footballbet.net/rules.html
Touchback: When a ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line, provided the impetus came from an opponent and provided it is not a touchdown or a missed field goal.http://football.calsci.com/TheRules2.html
No. It was a safety, because the ball had been in control of an offensive player prior to the ball entering the end zone and going out of bounds, no different than a punter stepping out of the end zone with the ball. If the offense had controlled the ball in the end zone it still would have been a safety. If the defense had controlled the ball in the end zone, they would have scored a touchdown.
Breaking news?????...uh, another no????
Not only that, Dallas deserved to lose. So thinking they have some sort of appeal is ridiculous.
Last night Dallas, in the shadow of their own goal line through a pass which was completed at about the one yard line. A Seattle player knocked the ball out of the receiver's hands towards and into the endzone. It was initially ruled that the ball was recovered by Seattle before it went out of bounds and so it was a Seattle Touchdown. Upon video review the refs (and everyone else) saw that the ball went out of bounds before it was recovered, and so it was ruled a Safety, two points for Seattle.
Should this play have been ruled a touchback and Dallas given the ball on their 20 yard line?
The announcers, oblivious to everything not whispered into their ears by someone in the production truck, didn't consider this at all. (Just as they didn't consider whether Romo got a first down, or fumbled, after the botched field goal attempt.)
I did a little searching that would seem to suggest that the play should have been ruled a touchback.
The important factor in a safety is impetus. Two points are scored for the opposing team when the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line if the impetus came from a player on that team. Examples of Safety: (a) Blocked punt goes out of kicking team's end zone. Impetus was provided by punting team. The block only changes direction of ball, not impetus. http://www.footballbet.net/rules.htmlI'm a Giants fan. I don't really care that much about who won the game. But rules are rules. Seattle got two points for that safety, and they won by one point.Touchback: When a ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line, provided the impetus came from an opponent and provided it is not a touchdown or a missed field goal.http://football.calsci.com/TheRules2.html
ML/NJ
Zee game, zee is over my friend.
The reciever caught the pass but while he was trying to secure posession and complete "a football move" (as the rules state) he lost his balance, pitched forwad and regained his balance by placing the ball on the ground.
This was apparently not seen by the officials since they initially ruled it a touchdown after the fumble.
Since this wasn't the call on the field...I think they got it right. A safety...since the Seattle player clearly gained control of the ball THEN stepped out of bounds.
I like the conspiracy theory floating around Big D today....the ball that Romo dropped was greased! Yes! Greased!
Or.... the play that was ruled a safety had NEVER, EVER, EVER been called before last night. In the entire history of football. Home cooking for the Hawks....ROFL
You never know what might have happened, but looking it now, Dallas would have been better off not challenging the original touchdown call. Then Dallas would have got the ball back with a tie game instead of Seattle getting the safety and the ball and the touchdown to go ahead.
That would have been a touchdown.
While I agree that maybe the pass should have been ruled incomplete, that's not what they ruled. And they certainly didn't rule that Seattle ever gained control. (In that case it would have been ruled a TD or a first down close to the goal line.)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that giving Dallas a first down on the 20 would be "fair," but I think that's what the rule is.
ML/NJ
The ball was never possessed by the defense, so there's no way it could be a touchback. In this case, once the ball went out of bounds the last team to possess it was Dallas. The ball is placed at the spot it left the field of play; hence it is a safety.
Give it up. Seattle won. Dallas lost. Romo cries and Parcells is finished. And that's all there is to it.
True. I stated it incorrectly.
You're telling me what you think the rule should be. (And I agree.) But that's not what the rule is. The quotes I cited both would indicate that this was not a safety, and that this was a touchback. Show me anything (aside from reason) that would suggest that the play should not have been ruled a touchback.
ML/NJ
Who suggested that this shuld be breaking news?
ML/NJ
The impetus didn't come from the defense. Even though they forced the fumble, the impetus still came from the offense. No different than a blocked punt, in which the impetus is from the offense.
No. Actually the rule is pretty specific to/about punts. Maybe you missed my corrected post at #5 on this thread? There is no way on the play in question where it could be suggested that any of the momentum of the ball could be thought to have come from an offensive player.
ML/NJ
Dallas had no business winning the game...period. It's an embarrassing statement on the NFC that Dallas and Seattle are even in the playoffs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.