Hyperbole alert for that article, but lost in the afterglow of that fantastic win is how close the team came to complete disaster on that last lateral play. Not sure what Nick Perry was thinking once he got the ball and stood there like a statue, but I doubt I was the only one screaming at the TV. Hope Zook and co. talk this one through for future reference.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Muscle memory. I'm guessing this isn't something they practice or discuss more than once before the season starts. Looked like Perry thought it was an incomplete pass.
Nice job by Rollins to not quit on the play and get on the ball to finally end it.
I actually think the refs blew the whistle as if Perry had "given himself up" on the play. I don't know that for sure...but there was sure a lot of standing around by both teams at that point.
When Witten’s lateral hit the ground I think it becomes a fumble. Meaning he’s the only player who can recover and advance the ball when the clock is under two minutes. The game was effectively over at that point.
Agree that Nick needs to fall on the ball though.
Elliot's "lateral" to Prescott was about 1 yard forward as well...
Elliot throws it at the 47 and a half
Prescott catches the ball at about the 46 to the 46 and a half
But, whatever.
It's a dumb article. Does PFT write other articles about tipped or dropped passes that might have resulted in something else?
Why not write an article about how Crosby's 2 missed XP almost cost them? Or ARod missing Jordy on the 2 pt conversion?
Oh wait GB won
Can't stand Florio and that garbage website. It's one level above the National Enquirer and TMZ
I think Perry realized the same thing I did - there was a forward lateral there. It would never have stood had they somehow found the endzone.
It appears the Cowboys may have done a little cheating on Elliott's "First Down"...hmmmm...
http://www.12up.com/posts/5648..._source=facebook.com
I still want an explanation of why Zeke extending the ball and then voluntarily bringing it back calls for the ball to be spotted at the furthest point it reaches.
justanotherpackerfan posted:I still want an explanation of why Zeke extending the ball and then voluntarily bringing it back calls for the ball to be spotted at the furthest point it reaches.
me too.Especially with the earlier explanation about Beasly's "not where the ball is when you catch it but when you are down"
I admittedly yelled out loud "Are you stupid?" when I saw the Packer guy just standing there letting the ball get knocked out of his hands with no effort to get on the ground.
Those last 11 seconds... the Pack made them very interesting. First by letting Beasley completely run by the secondary and dodging a bullet with the pass from Prescott being a little off the mark, and then the keystone cops stuff on the laterals. I just breathed a sigh of relief when it was over.
IMO, the Zeke stretch is similar to say Arod running along sideline near the stick - stretching forward beyond marker, then pulling back and securing for the hit? (example only, not saying this happened yesterday)
Then conversely what about when a WR is forward of sticks then retreats laterally to gain more ground to be downed before marker. Definitely seems inconsistent.
And until a whistle is blown, #53 or whoever needs to dive on that ball and down it like Big Gilbert snacking on a plate of mini corndogs. Never, ever, never rely on Officials to make a call when whistle was not blown - see Fail Mary for Exhibit A
Why would I want to give Pure F***ing Trash a click?
I believe the Beasley play was because he caught the ball in the air (at or just beyond the first down line) and when he landed, he was not at or beyond the first down marker. He didn'r establish being on the ground until after his momentum took him backwards of a first down. I believe the ruling would be the same at the goal line. A player needs to establish the have the ball and be on the ground.
antiworst posted:It appears the Cowboys may have done a little cheating on Elliott's "First Down"...hmmmm...
http://www.12up.com/posts/5648..._source=facebook.com
The chain location is marked not by that pad on the ground, but by a 5yrd marker most near the mid-point in between the 10 yards to gain. For that play the chain location would have been marked by the 25 yard line.
PackLandVA posted:I believe the Beasley play was because he caught the ball in the air (at or just beyond the first down line) and when he landed, he was not at or beyond the first down marker. He didn'r establish being on the ground until after his momentum took him backwards of a first down. I believe the ruling would be the same at the goal line. A player needs to establish the have the ball and be on the ground.
But we have all seen the play where a receiver catches a crossing route past the first down marker and voluntarily gives ground to try and get around a defender and is tackled behind the line to gain....no first down, even though the ball had been beyond the marker when he made the catch.
I still come back to this when I see Zeke's reach out. I don't think he should have gotten the reach since he brought the ball back (presumably before the whistle since he was still fighting forward).
I read this article yesterday morning, and then low-and-behold the very same camera is used to determine Zeke got a first down! How convenient! Nobody has had that perspective before, but it's already decisive. As usual the NFLFU makes up rules as it goes...
I would like to see the NFL make a ruling on what is the correct call in that situation and WHY.
Hungry5 posted:antiworst posted:It appears the Cowboys may have done a little cheating on Elliott's "First Down"...hmmmm...
http://www.12up.com/posts/5648..._source=facebook.com
The chain location is marked not by that pad on the ground, but by a 5yrd marker most near the mid-point in between the 10 yards to gain. For that play the chain location would have been marked by the 25 yard line.
I see, thanks. Didn't they say that after they had said Elliot was denied, the sticks were moved and had to be replaced after the Dallas challenge? I wonder how they did that?
Aside from just getting the guy on the ground that currently has the ball, if a defensive player that is near the guy that looks to be the one receiving the lateral can said defensive player just straight out tackle the "receiving" player without fear of a penalty. Offensive player on grown ball goes flying over his head and is now just laying on the ground for some one, preferably another defender, to land on it...game over. God I hope I explained what I'm trying to mean right.
Also, how did Beasly get so dam open on the first play? but a the same time did we have too many players too deep on the last play?
I don't think you can get pass interference on a lateral - blow that **** up! at least that's how I'd coach my players.
The refs can call whatever they want pass interference.
We need Mr. Zapruder.
Football....a game of millimeters
Back and to the left...
