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.

[Weapon X]

This thread is the funniest thing I've seen since watching TV talking heads slowly melt into depression on election night.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Weapon X

This thread is the funniest thing I've seen since watching TV talking heads slowly melt into depression on election night.

Now THAT was FUNNY as hell to watch...

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I'm not even looking at the return, I'm focused more on the potential infractions during the play.

Let's look at the relevant rules:...

Thanks for posting the rules and it doesn't look like there is anything clear enough for a flag.

That said, having one player hold the snapper's head down while another jumps over him isn't something I like and I think the rules should be changed. Maybe it is on the center to get out of his stance more quickly, but still...

More importantly, the jumping over the player is problematic to ref. You can make incidental contact but not land. Oh boy... That is horribly hard to ref. Just make it illegal to jump over the snapper if he is still in his stance. (I guess you would need some exception if the snapper goes to the ground while trying to block).

And until they start making white shoes illegal, I expect every KC player who might carry the ball to wear white shoes from now on...

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by petegz28

He's out..

Watching the broadcast, it's very hard to determine if he actually stepped out. I think NY made the right decision. they didn't have the back right heel angle.

[DaFace]

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.

The fact that this level of analysis is even possible speaks volumes about how stupid it is for the officials to have to think through all of these things in a split second.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by 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.

How New England of you.

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

How New England of you.

Hey, as long as things are legal --- I applaud any team for taking full advantage of the rules. The rules are there to tell you exactly when you've crossed the line. Maximize all that you can to your team's benefit.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

How New England of you.

It's completely bizarre that the Patriots are faulted for doing things that are completely legal just because someone else didn't think of them before. Or, in some cases, someone else DID think of them before, but no one noticed because it was the Titans or whatever and nobody gives a damn about the Titans.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Watching the broadcast, it's very hard to determine if he actually stepped out. I think NY made the right decision. they didn't have the back right heel angle.

That doesn't matter. The heel thing comes into play on if receptions are made in bounds, not if a runner can be considered out of bounds while running the ball.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

It's completely bizarre that the Patriots are faulted for doing things that are completely legal just because someone else didn't think of them before. Or, in some cases, someone else DID think of them before, but no one noticed because it was the Titans or whatever and nobody gives a damn about the Titans.

No. New England is faulted for doing things that are completely illegal...

[Quesadilla Joe]

Here is the best sideline view I've seen. Still inconclusive, if anything it looks like he was juuuusstt able to keep his foot inbounds.

Here is VIDEO @wdsu sports photographer (twitter-less) Alvin Moore shot today of blocked PAT.
Did Will Parks step out of bounds? pic.twitter.com/es6ZLWv34g

— Fletcher Mackel (@FletcherWDSU) November 14, 2016

[Mile High Mania]

I've frozen that moment and gone frame by frame... so incredibly razor thin and inconclusive.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by Quesadilla Joe

Here is the best sideline view I've seen. Still inconclusive, if anything it looks like he was juuuusstt able to keep his foot inbounds.

Here is VIDEO @wdsu sports photographer (twitter-less) Alvin Moore shot today of blocked PAT.
Did Will Parks step out of bounds? pic.twitter.com/es6ZLWv34g

— Fletcher Mackel (@FletcherWDSU) November 14, 2016

People are inferring from the other angle that the rest of his foot (not visible in the photo) must have been out of bounds. This angle shows that his heel didn't come down on that step.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The fact that this level of analysis is even possible speaks volumes about how stupid it is for the officials to have to think through all of these things in a split second.

And the alternative is???

There are no rules on it and you can line up over the long snapper and hit him the moment he starts to snap the ball? Or you create a rule to allow him to get out of his stance but that starts creating fine distinctions you have to deal with. Some player (or some coach wearing a hoody) thinks of a grey area that isn't exactly covered by the rules: hey, I'm standing outside of the snappers shoulders when he hikes the ball, but I reach over and hold his head down so he can't lift up... And the league makes a rule to clarify so that all games will be reff'ed the same. What's the issue?

I never played football and I'm rarely surprised (anymore) by a rule I didn't know. I don't see any signs that refs are struggling to know the rules. They have to make fine distinctions, but that is always the case. If you already know the basics of football and then read through the complete rule book at the start of each season, I'm just not seeing the problem. I passed the CA bar exam. It's not that hard to internalize a vast, complicated rule set. Just takes a little determination.

Not directed at you personally (but feel free to be offended anyway), but when I hear fans complain about the rules being too complicated, it always seems that it is either homer's who didn't like the call, or lazy fans that are upset that they don't understand the rules. If the rules are too complicated for you, being a ref (or announcer) may not be the job for you.

[Mr. Laz]