Back to back timeouts? Isn't it a penalty?

[trapezeus]

Just curious? Should the dolphins have been penalized?

[Nighthawk]

Yes, but for some reason they didn't charge the phins with the 2nd one. I'd say it was another gift from the refs.

[trapezeus]

Along with the no roughing the passer or pass interference. Poorly called game.

[Nublar7]

The Dolphins never called that second time out.

[Buddo]

Along with the no roughing the passer or pass interference. Poorly called game.

TBH, I thought the 'roughing the passer' was much more by accident than design, and if all things are equal, not that bad of a call. The hit was in time, and I think they all sort of fell over each other, rather than be looking for additional contact deliberately.

The pass interference miss was a bad one, as the DB had his arm hooked inside Evans for about 5 yards, and when he fell, I thought that if Evans had gone over, he might have got a call on that one, as I think the DB did make contact when he fell.

The bills somehow have to sort out their penalty 'issues'. Basically, whenever they needed a call, they didn't get it, and when they didn't need to get flagged, they were. I'm not calling 'bias' on this, what I'm saying is that they aren't helping themselves much. In fairness, they didn't get penalised that much, but so often timing makes a significant difference, and getting flagged on decent plays, seems to be a habit that they need to get out of quickly.

[Nighthawk]

The Dolphins never called that second time out.

They did, but the refs let them off the hook. Kind of like when a coach goes to challenge, but is told he has no shot at winning it.

[YardRat]

I don't think the roughing the passer was a penalty, and the pass interference was a tough call for the ref's angle.

I'm more frustrated by the lack of holding calls on the o-line, especially in the first half.

[Nighthawk]

I don't think the roughing the passer was a penalty, and the pass interference was a tough call for the ref's angle.

I'm more frustrated by the lack of holding calls on the o-line, especially in the first half.

That's what bothered me the most...Long was holding Maybin on every play and it wasn't very subtle either. Then the refs call the Bills on back-to-back plays for holding...pretty sh**ty reffing, if you ask me.

[Nublar7]

If you guys want to complain about lack of penalties, how about the fair catch interference on the free punt? Marshall made a fair catch and was run into by a Bills player. Should have been a flag.

Also, that so called "roughing the passer" was definitely not one. The Dolphin player tripped over his own player and just happened to land on top of Edwards. Not intentional, and the reason it wasn't a penalty.

As for the no-call on Allen for PI, that is a call that could have went either way. Wasn't clear cut either way, but thank goodness it wasn't called.

Don't act like there were calls that cost you the game.

[Nighthawk]

If you guys want to complain about lack of penalties, how about the fair catch interference on the free punt? Marshall made a fair catch and was run into by a Bills player. Should have been a flag.

Also, that so called "roughing the passer" was definitely not one. The Dolphin player tripped over his own player and just happened to land on top of Edwards. Not intentional, and the reason it wasn't a penalty.

As for the no-call on Allen for PI, that is a call that could have went either way. Wasn't clear cut either way, but thank goodness it wasn't called.

Don't act like there were calls that cost you the game.

Stop...just stop...that PI was clearly pass interference, but the ref missed it. Saying otherwise is plain ignorant.

[TacklingDummy]

Anyone see the Lions get robbed?

[Mr. Pink]

Stop...just stop...that PI was clearly pass interference, but the ref missed it. Saying otherwise is plain ignorant.


As was the fair catch interference on the free kick.

These calls tend to cancel themselves out over the course of a game/season.

[Nighthawk]

Anyone see the Lions get robbed?

Yeah, I saw that, but I knew it was coming. That is the rule in the endzone...you need to keep the ball threw the entire play. Sucks, but I knew it wasn't a TD...per the rule.

[Dr. Lecter]

Meh.

The refs were fine - sure there some bad calls, but nothing that changed the game.

I thought the fair catch interference and the lack of a roughing call were the two worst. So each team got one.

[Novacane]

Anyone see the Lions get robbed?



Yeah. That was BS. Correct call but terrible rule!

[mightysimi]

What I don't understand is on Levitre's holding call. The defender throws him to the ground by his jersey and Levitre did hold after but I thought that was a defensive holding call? Whatever. The refs didn't cost us the game. 72 yards at the 10 min mark of the 4th is what did.

[Yasgur's Farm]

The last time the fins downed the punt at the 1... The player that downed the punt was in the endzone and was the 1st to touch the ball... I thought that was an automatic touchback.

[Michael82]

The last time the fins downed the punt at the 1... The player that downed the punt was in the endzone and was the 1st to touch the ball... I thought that was an automatic touchback.
I noticed that too....WTF! :mad:

[starrymessenger]

Yeah, I saw that, but I knew it was coming. That is the rule in the endzone...you need to keep the ball threw the entire play. Sucks, but I knew it wasn't a TD...per the rule Rule was misapplied by the refs. He had possession when his body hit the ground. Ball came out after contact.

[DraftBoy]

Rule was misapplied by the refs. He had possession when his body hit the ground. Ball came out after contact.

Not misapplied, player must maintain posession through hitting the ground, not just at first touch.

[psubills62]

Not misapplied, player must maintain posession through hitting the ground, not just at first touch.

It still appears to me that Johnson touching the ball to the ground was part of a separate action - getting up. He's on his way up when the ball hits the ground.

[DraftBoy]

It still appears to me that Johnson touching the ball to the ground was part of a separate action - getting up. He's on his way up when the ball hits the ground.

That's the part that is almost impossible to decipher, which is why I think its the correct call.

[trapezeus]

if this play happens to the patriots in the playoffs, do they call it an incomplete pass? I think not.

I don't care what the rule says, it looked like a catch, he was over the plane of the goalline, once his knees are down, the play is over. I don't care that he tapped the ball to the ground a second later.

letter of the law rulings are idiotic when the rule itself is vague and idiotic.

[Barb]

I don't think the roughing the passer was a penalty, and the pass interference was a tough call for the ref's angle.

I'm more frustrated by the lack of holding calls on the o-line, especially in the first half.

on both sides i hope, cameron wake was held 80% of the game

[starrymessenger]

Not misapplied, player must maintain posession through hitting the ground, not just at first touch.To me he did maintain possession through hitting the ground. To say otherwise is to imply that the ball can never come out, which I dont believe is the requirement.

[DraftBoy]

To me he did maintain possession through hitting the ground. To say otherwise is to imply that the ball can never come out, which I dont believe is the requirement.

That is the requirement though.

The ball is not allowed to squirt out if you're falling to the ground at any point. You basically have to get up with the ball still fully in your posession.

[psubills62]

That's the part that is almost impossible to decipher, which is why I think its the correct call.

I don't think it's impossible, as his body is getting up as the ball touches. He catches the ball, takes two steps, hits the ground, then goes to get up. It seems apparent to me that when he puts the ball on the ground, it's no longer part of the "going to the ground" action.

[psubills62]

if this play happens to the patriots in the playoffs, do they call it an incomplete pass? I think not.

I don't care what the rule says, it looked like a catch, he was over the plane of the goalline, once his knees are down, the play is over. I don't care that he tapped the ball to the ground a second later.

letter of the law rulings are idiotic when the rule itself is vague and idiotic.

I've seen the rule applied correctly, and in those times, it makes perfect sense to me. I remember seeing players catch the ball, get both feet in bounds, then fall and hit the ground and the ball comes out when they hit the ground. This, imo, is completely different because it's not when he went to the ground, it's when he got up.

To me, this is just like if a player catches the ball, lands on the ground, and then places the ball on the ground as he gets up. Just because he doesn't have the ball when he gets up doesn't mean he didn't have control of it the entire time.

[DraftBoy]

I don't think it's impossible, as his body is getting up as the ball touches. He catches the ball, takes two steps, hits the ground, then goes to get up. It seems apparent to me that when he puts the ball on the ground, it's no longer part of the "going to the ground" action.

Again I cant be sure of that, his arm was still moving and only came to a complete stop after the football hits the ground.

[starrymessenger]

That is the requirement though.

The ball is not allowed to squirt out if you're falling to the ground at any point. You basically have to get up with the ball still fully in your posession.Does that mean that having established possession having hit the ground you cannot the put the ball on the ground, for example, in the act of getting up? Contact with the ground had nothing to do with the ball coming out. CJ was getting up after the play to celebrate. If the rule is susceptible of being interpreted reasonably then it should be when the alternative is to rob a team and player.

[Dr. Lecter]

The last time the fins downed the punt at the 1... The player that downed the punt was in the endzone and was the 1st to touch the ball... I thought that was an automatic touchback.
No, that is true if he is out of bound, not the endzone. As long as he re-establishes himself in the field of play before touching the ball, he is OK.

[Nighthawk]

Does that mean that having established possession having hit the ground you cannot the put the ball on the ground, for example, in the act of getting up? Contact with the ground had nothing to do with the ball coming out. CJ was getting up after the play to celebrate. If the rule is susceptible of being interpreted reasonably then it should be when the alternative is to rob a team and player.

He was continuing a motion that he started while in the process of making the catch. If he would have pulled the ball to his chest and then put it on the ground while getting up, then it would've been different. Stupid rule, but the right call.