NFL Rules Question

[TheTrain]

The point being when you get hit, and the ball slips out of your hand, is that intentional grounding? The intentional grounding call was hardly a bad call and a call we see regular refs not make (or miss if you will). The game was riddled with terrible calls so to call out a few plays for your team is disingenuous. It was also refreshing to hear Ravens complain about the other team playing dirty. The fact is the Ravens lost the game. When your QB goes 8-25 in the second half and you get dominated on the stat sheet, 486 yards to 325, 29% 3rd down rate while giving up 47% 3rd down conversions and you have the ball for 25:39, I don't sympathize about 1 or 2 "bad" calls.

Both plays occurred in the final five minutes of the game and both directly impacted the final score. The first taking what should have been the game winning touchdown off the board with 5:30 remaining and the second resulting in a subsequent TD with under 2 minutes remaining. Those are not borderline "bad" calls...they were horrific calls that materially impacted the score of the game and are still being discussed by national writers more than 48 hours after the end of the game.

Furthermore....the ball did not slip out of his hand....by Vick's own admission during the post-game presser (as replayed on the NFL Network seconds ago), he was trying to throw it away

[juise]

Furthermore....the ball did not slip out of his hand....by Vick's own admission during the post-game presser (as replayed on the NFL Network seconds ago), he was trying to throw it away

I think that "slipped" could have been interpreted in different ways. I.E. - He was attempting to throw the ball away, got hit, and the ball slipped from his hand before his normal release point during its forward motion. I agree with the majority here that the grounding call was not blatantly wrong. The pass interference call was worse, in my opinion, with all of the contact that was allowed throughout the game.

[gus]

How does this thread need to be before we're all qualified to be replacement refs?

[Reilly]

http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/sto...s-greg-schiano

"But Vick should have been flagged for grounding. He was within the pocket, trying to unload the ball under tackle, and there was no eligible receiver in the area. The replacement zebras seemed so concerned with whether the arm movement was a pass attempt or a fumble that they forgot about grounding. Had grounding been called, Philadelphia would have faced third-and-goal at the 11 rather than at the 1. TMQ thinks this is the first replacement officials mistake that (probably) affected the outcome of the game. One must say probably because if grounding had been called, there's no telling what would have happened next."

[greybeard]

One of the great things about sport is screaming at refs, and discussing after the fact how "we was robbed."

Instant replay I think plays off that, puts the beyond strange expectation into play that misstakes by referees should not occur and should be fixed after the fact. Correcting some referee mistakes by instant replay only serves to increase fan irritation at missed or incorrect calls that are nonreviewable under rules that most fans don't understand.

Irritation must sell.

Irritation followed by review and resolution creates the expectation, heightens the expectation, that the world will somehow be perfect, then, like any good TV dramatic series, the addiction to that paradigm causes pain when when there is no review, no resolution, and thus creates a craving and discussion between episodes that brings the fan/viewer back.

I prefer the old way; at least I can understand what the heck is going on; the ref stinks or not, depending which side you are on. It's easier on my nerves. Besides, I have enough rules in my life that I am supposed to learn and understand but can't or don't. Who needs more.