| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
swiss_vike
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 240
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:39 pm Post subject: 2 rules question |
 |
|
|
1. why called they the penalty for 12 man on the field, even though the ball was not snapped?
2. when the ball is intercepted and the defender intercepting the ball is not in bounds, why is it still ruled an interception? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lil Uno
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 5282
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: 2 rules question |
|
|
|
| swiss_vike wrote: | 1. why called they the penalty for 12 man on the field, even though the ball was not snapped?
2. when the ball is intercepted and the defender intercepting the ball is not in bounds, why is it still ruled an interception? |
To the first rule, I had the same question but I think the refs just called the wrong penalty. What I think they meant to say was 12 men in the huddle, not on the field. Similar to the NFC Championship game a few years ago.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
milanb
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 5180
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: 2 rules question |
|
|
|
| swiss_vike wrote: |
2. when the ball is intercepted and the defender intercepting the ball is not in bounds, why is it still ruled an interception? |
The rule for the defender making the INT is exactly the same as the one for the receiver making the completion. You have to have control with both feet in. And if you step out of bounds prior to making the catch you cannot be the first to touch the ball.
_________________
The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11
But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
milanb
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 5180
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
While we're on the subject did anyone else notice that on several of the screen plays that the Packers ran so successfully the Packers receivers were starting into their blocks before the ball was caught? That's offensive interference and they didn't get flagged even once.
They also got away with a lineman downfield on the screen that went for a TD.
_________________
The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11
But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yfz01
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 8297
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| milanb wrote: | While we're on the subject did anyone else notice that on several of the screen plays that the Packers ran so successfully the Packers receivers were starting into their blocks before the ball was caught? That's offensive interference and they didn't get flagged even once.
They also got away with a lineman downfield on the screen that went for a TD. |
Yes. There were quite a few non-calls that bugged me. The push off on the long Jordy Nelson sideline grab, a few blatant holds by the Packers O-lineman as well.
_________________
Lil Uno with the sig. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrplChilPill
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 7814
Location: SLP, MN
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
They changed the 12 man on the field penalty this year, so the D couldn't just have 12 men, stop a play, and have time run off the clock.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3425
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: 2 rules question |
|
|
|
| swiss_vike wrote: | | 1. why called they the penalty for 12 man on the field, even though the ball was not snapped? |
The snap was "imminent." New rule.
_________________
2013 Adopt-a-Viking: FB Jerome Felton - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Viking
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 2610
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 39543
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
good point, milanb.
I remember Collinsworth gushing over the Packers receivers blocking on the screen plays and saying that they were not even running routes but looking for contact. Should that not be a penalty?
I dont mean to cry over things in the past, its just interesting how things are called from game to game and the inconsistencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3425
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| vikingsrule wrote: | good point, milanb.
I remember Collinsworth gushing over the Packers receivers blocking on the screen plays and saying that they were not even running routes but looking for contact. Should that not be a penalty?
I dont mean to cry over things in the past, its just interesting how things are called from game to game and the inconsistencies. |
They did that at the Dome too. Frustrating!
_________________
2013 Adopt-a-Viking: FB Jerome Felton - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HighHopes
Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 25335
Location: Courtroom
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Anyone else think its stupid that you can advance you own fumble?
_________________
XBL/PSN: Chainedsniper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rpmwr19
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 17009
Location: Stillwater, MN
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| milanb wrote: | | While we're on the subject did anyone else notice that on several of the screen plays that the Packers ran so successfully the Packers receivers were starting into their blocks before the ball was caught? That's offensive interference and they didn't get flagged even once. |
Were they within 5 yards?
_________________
Adopt a Viking - Erin Henderson
Stats: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrplChilPill
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 7814
Location: SLP, MN
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| HighHopes wrote: | | Anyone else think its stupid that you can advance you own fumble? |
No. I do think it is stupid you cannot advance any backward fumble though.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
milanb
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 5180
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rpmwr19 wrote: | | milanb wrote: | | While we're on the subject did anyone else notice that on several of the screen plays that the Packers ran so successfully the Packers receivers were starting into their blocks before the ball was caught? That's offensive interference and they didn't get flagged even once. |
Were they within 5 yards? |
I don't recall. It looked like more than that.
_________________
The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11
But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rpmwr19
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 17009
Location: Stillwater, MN
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I wasn't paying that much attention so I'm not sure either. I had the same gripe coming out of the week 17 game, but it was explained on the air that within five yards that contact is fair game.
_________________
Adopt a Viking - Erin Henderson
Stats: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
