Broncos gifted another win by refs

[RunKC]

Sheesh pic.twitter.com/EkLAE0plma

— Michael Shamburger (@mshamburger1) November 13, 2016

Unbelievable that this was missed. He's clearly out.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Of course it was. People arguing you can't push in line play--up down or sideways--know nothing about football.

What about stepping on the white side line?

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by TEX

What about stepping on the white side line?

As many have said, inconclusive. I thought it was going to be reversed, esp at NO.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

As many have said, inconclusive. I thought it was going to be reversed, esp at NO.

Yep. It should have been. Ref was even trailing the play. Go figure...

[kccrow]

I'm not even looking at the return, I'm focused more on the potential infractions during the play. The runner looked out of bounds to me by the way, but that is an argument for requiring players to wear colored shoes.

Let's look at the relevant rules:

Rule 9 Section 1 Article 3 Item 2 (Defensive Team Formation)
(1) A Team B player, who is within one yard of the line of scrimmage at the snap, must have his entire body outside the snapper’s shoulder pads at the snap.
(2) No more than six Team B players may be on the line of scrimmage on either side of the snapper at the snap.
(3) Team B players cannot push teammates into the offensive formation.

Denver was in compliance with all 3 of these rules.

Rule 12 Section 1 Article 6 (Defensive Holding)
It is a foul for defensive holding if:
(b) during a punt, field goal attempt, or try-kick attempt, B1 grabs and pulls an offensive player out of the way, allowing B2 to shoot the gap (pull-and-shoot) in an attempt to block the kick, except if B1 is advancing toward the kicker.

Denver was kind of skating on thin ice on this one, but I'd likely rule in compliance. This wasn't a "traditional" violation, but it was clear that defender B1 holds and even pushes the snapping player down in order to clear a path for defender B2 to leap him. This technically could have been enforced, even though it slightly skews the orginal intent of the rule. To argue in favor of enforcement, one would have to argue that clearing space, in any manner, for another defender to attempt a block, is in the spirit of the rule and a violation.

Rule 12 Section 1 Article 7 (Illegal Use of Hands By Defense)
It is a foul if a defensive player thrusts his hands or arms forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the neck, face, or head.

I'm going with Denver in compliance here. Obviously this depends on the interpretation of "thrust." Clearly the defender made contact with the head of the snapping player, but he more or less put his hands on him to keep him from coming up rather than violently attacking the snapping player's head.

Rule 12 Section 2 Article 7 (Players In A Defenseless Posture)
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(11) The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick.
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if
the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms
to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him
(2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or “hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the
defenseless player’s body
(3) illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to
spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against
any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered
to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)

Denver is in compliance here. The defender did push down on the center's helmet but he did not deliver a forceable blow as described in (b) (1).

Rule 12 Section 3 Article 1 (Prohibited Acts)
(p) Jumping or standing on a teammate or opponent to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick.
(q) Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent to gain additional height to block or attempt to block an opponent’s
kick.
(r) Picking up a teammate to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick.
(s) Running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or Try Kick and landing on players, unless the
leaping player was originally lined up on the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped.

Denver was in compliance with (p), (q), and (r), but there is an argument that could be made that (s) is enforceable given that the leaping player's feet clearly came into contact with the snapping player's back. I'd be inclined to make this call as an official.

Given that there was one slight infraction and another that was more-or-less a clear infraction on the same play by the defense, I'd be inclined to throw a flag here. If there was only one or the other, I might would keep the flag in my pocket. Tough call. I could see an argument made either way, but the player contact on the leap did happen and it is a penalty.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by TEX

What about stepping on the white side line?

If you step on the white line its out of bounds.

The officials thought he didnt during the play and the replay didnt clearly show he did. Claiming that replay clearly showed him out of bounds is absurd. A replay clearly showing him out of bounds would show his foot or some portion of it out of bounds. As Blandino discusses, the perspective of the shots make it impossible to tell if his foot is on the white or really close to the white.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I'm not even looking at the return, I'm focused more on the potential infractions during the play. The runner looked out of bounds to me by the way, but that is an argument for requiring players to wear colored shoes.

Let's look at the relevant rules:

Rule 9 Section 1 Article 3 Item 2 (Defensive Team Formation)
(1) A Team B player, who is within one yard of the line of scrimmage at the snap, must have his entire body outside the snapper’s shoulder pads at the snap.
(2) No more than six Team B players may be on the line of scrimmage on either side of the snapper at the snap.
(3) Team B players cannot push teammates into the offensive formation.

Denver was in compliance with all 3 of these rules.

Rule 12 Section 1 Article 6 (Defensive Holding)
It is a foul for defensive holding if:
(b) during a punt, field goal attempt, or try-kick attempt, B1 grabs and pulls an offensive player out of the way, allowing B2 to shoot the gap (pull-and-shoot) in an attempt to block the kick, except if B1 is advancing toward the kicker.

Denver was kind of skating on thin ice on this one, but I'd likely rule in compliance. This wasn't a "traditional" violation, but it was clear that defender B1 holds and even pushes the snapping player down in order to clear a path for defender B2 to leap him. This technically could have been enforced, even though it slightly skews the orginal intent of the rule. To argue in favor of enforcement, one would have to argue that clearing space, in any manner, for another defender to attempt a block, is in the spirit of the rule and a violation.

Rule 12 Section 1 Article 7 (Illegal Use of Hands By Defense)
It is a foul if a defensive player thrusts his hands or arms forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the neck, face, or head.

I'm going with Denver in compliance here. Obviously this depends on the interpretation of "thrust." Clearly the defender made contact with the head of the snapping player, but he more or less put his hands on him to keep him from coming up rather than violently attacking the snapping player's head.

Rule 12 Section 2 Article 7 (Players In A Defenseless Posture)
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(11) The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick.
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if
the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms
to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him
(2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with the crown or “hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the
defenseless player’s body
(3) illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to
spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against
any part of his opponent’s body. (This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered
to be a defenseless player, as defined in Article 7.)

Denver is in compliance here. The defender did push down on the center's helmet but he did not deliver a forceable blow as described in (b) (1).

Rule 12 Section 3 Article 1 (Prohibited Acts)
(p) Jumping or standing on a teammate or opponent to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick.
(q) Placing a hand or hands on a teammate or opponent to gain additional height to block or attempt to block an opponent’s
kick.
(r) Picking up a teammate to block or attempt to block an opponent’s kick.
(s) Running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or Try Kick and landing on players, unless the
leaping player was originally lined up on the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped.

Denver was in compliance with (p), (q), and (r), but there is an argument that could be made that (s) is enforceable given that the leaping player's feet clearly came into contact with the snapping player's back. I'd be inclined to make this call as an official.

Given that there was one slight infraction and another that was more-or-less a clear infraction on the same play by the defense, I'd be inclined to throw a flag here. If there was only one or the other, I might would keep the flag in my pocket. Tough call. I could see an argument made either way, but the player contact on the leap did happen and it is a penalty.

You can consider this play to include a "slight" infraction only if you consider pushing with an open hand to be the same thing as "grabbing and pulling." If you believe those two things are the same, you believe that all forms of blocking are illegal.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by manchambo

You can consider this play to include a "slight" infraction only if you consider pushing with an open hand to be the same thing as "grabbing and pulling." If you believe those two things are the same, you believe that all forms of blocking are illegal.

I said that I'd likely rule that not an infraction.

However, your donkey loving ass ignores the actual infraction on the play. Kind of like the officials did.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I said that I'd likely rule that not an infraction.

However, your donkey loving ass ignores the actual infraction on the play. Kind of like the officials did.

Are you saying you would throw a flag for stepping out of bounds?

[Mile High Mania]

It's an obscure and recent rule change (2015)... they took advantage of it, and the sideline step wasn't conclusive one way or the other. If you liked Denver, you're cool with it and if you didn't like Denver, you're not.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Are you saying you would throw a flag for stepping out of bounds?

No. What I'm saying is, is that I would have flagged the defender that blocked the kick for leaping because his feet landed on the long snapper's back on his way down. That's illegal.

Had he not touched him, I wouldn't throw a flag.

As for the shit on the sideline, he certainly was OOB, but the angles the officials had to look at were not conclusive and I agree. What I'd agree with is a rule change disallowing white cleats. I hate that they are allowed because of shit like this.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

As I said, I couldn't tell on that play, but wouldn't have complained... it looked borderline.

Can any of you say that without a shadow of doubt he stepped out?

I can. Pretty obvious.

[Reerun_KC]

Wow that was close for sure. Did they even review it?

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by kccrow

No. What I'm saying is, is that I would have flagged the defender that blocked the kick for leaping because his feet landed on the long snapper's back on his way down. That's illegal.

Had he not touched him, I wouldn't throw a flag.

As for the shit on the sideline, he certainly was OOB, but the angles the officials had to look at were not conclusive and I agree. What I'd agree with is a rule change disallowing white cleats. I hate that they are allowed because of shit like this.

I see. You would apply the rules as if words have no meaning. Landing and touching are the same thing. If the rule meant its illegal to touch a player while jumping, wouldnt it say that?

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Will sweep your asses anyway knowmo

[threebag]

Originally Posted by Quesadilla Joe

There was still 1:22 left in the game and Denver has a kicker who makes 70 yard field goals in practice. Denver would've won that game anyways.

Holy Shit