To be clear, the official didn't throw a flag. The replay official overturned the non-call. As far as the Masoli play went, IMO it was incredibly clear that he fumbled before his arm was in any kind of forward throwing motion. That was just a terrible, terrible game-changing call and I am still ticked off about it.
Cameron Dukes + Dan Adeboboye + Kevin Mital + David Ungerer + Damonte Coxie + DaVaris Daniels + Dejon Brissett = Unstoppable Force
I'm at the point where I'd like to see penalty challenges eliminated. If the official makes a bad call, so be it. I'm used to that, and that bothers me less than a penalty being called or reversed on appeal, even if it helps my team.
I think the Masoli play is a result of the "egregious" standard they put in this year, which seems like a response to the NHL's standard for offside challenges where they called off goals even if a play was an inch offside. The Als got burned by that earlier this year when they caused a fumble right near the goal line but it wasn't reversed because in the league's opinion it wasn't egregious enough (an inch instead of a mile).
PI rules/interpretations have been tinkered with over the years; the whole "uncatchable" thing I get for borderline interference calls - no way the receiver would have caught the ball. But still - IMO - interference is interference; if a DB tackles or trips a receiver while in his route, and before or during the QB throwing motion, I don't care if the ball lands 15 rows up in the stands, it was still PI - you should not be able to purposely hinder a receiver from his route (other than a "jam" in the first 5 yards - as the rule stands now), and especially with the ball in the air and the receiver trying to go for it - bumping into the receiver, running threw him, etc. And if the receiver stops in his route to adjust for the ball - the DB just gets to run threw him with no PI ? - er, no; look back for the ball and make a play on it yourself, and the DB can claim he has a right to the ball, and bumping into a stopped receiver should then be ok.
All $hitty cover skills DBs should maybe just trail receivers in coverage and then guess when the ball is coming and just run over the receiver plus throw their hands up in his face and hope they get away with it ?
I agree with the first part of your comments above (up to "etc.").
I disagree with the latter part.
A receiver knows the play, his route, and the timing of the throw.
A DB does not.
The receiver only has to watch for the ball.
A DB has to react incredibly fast to any movement by the receiver to maintain coverage.
Guessing when the ball is thrown and turning to find the ball when one doesn't know when it is arriving will likely result in losing the receiver.
Plus, in the CFL the receiver gets to run to the line of scrimmage and meet the DB in full stride, running forward, while the DB waits for the receiver and has to run backward at first.
Every advantage is with the receiver.
Now, you want the DB to anticipate that the ball has been thrown, is about to arrive, has been under thrown, and then get out of the way of the receiver who suddenly stops and tries to run back over the DB?
I don't see how this is fair - or possible.
Agreed, but I will add in or out of bounds to that. I've been saying this for a long time. Illegal contact challenges are the worst of the worst. If they limit it to those 3 categories, there is no need for challenges period, as the eye in the sky should be able to make quick calls on all of those.
It's us vs the rest of the country
Bookmarks