Football question

[Ken King]

The play in the Denver/Washington game that was ruled as a safety but overturned and ruled incomplete has me asking why. The ball only went backwards by the quarterback's act and as such should it not be a backward pass (aka lateral) versus the incomplete pass as it was ruled?

 

[remaxrealtor]

This game reaked of bad calls.

 

[remaxrealtor]

This game reaked of bad calls.

Not all by the refs.....

 

[willie]

Even the replay looked like a safety.

 

[BuddyLee]

The play in the Denver/Washington game that was ruled as a safety but overturned and ruled incomplete has me asking why. The ball only went backwards by the quarterback's act and as such should it not be a backward pass (aka lateral) versus the incomplete pass as it was ruled?

I agree, the same happened to the Raiders last year in a big game. However, you win some calls and you lose some calls.

I believe we had this game in every aspect except for the defense giving up three touchdowns and the kicking game. Boy did I loathe that kicking game, it's the little things that lost this game. If we had a better kicker I believe we'd have it!

You can't blame Brunnel, 30/53 for 322 yards and two touchdowns. The only thing he did wrong, really, was fumble that handoff to Portis.

I stress that we really really really need a better kicker! The defense should have to run all week long, non-stop mind you.

 

[Larry Gude]

Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2 of the NFL rule book:

"...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."

Thus, as the ball then hits the ground, both in Plummers and Bradys case, an incomplete pass.

This is an 'illogic' rule because it allows, specifically, that the player is NOT trying to throw the ball, but to 'tuck' it away, making the player fair game for tackling as he is still not down. The rules states, specifically, that when attempting to 'tuck' the ball back it is to be considered an attempted pass.

But this is totally unfair to the defense as they are expected to act like the ball has been throw downfield when it is actually rolling around at their feet, the QB scrambling maddly to get it back, as in the case if a fumble.

Fist off, the 'tuck' rule allows no protection for the QB, far from it. Plummer picked up the ball and got HAMMERED. If he just threw an incomplete pass, then the Redskins were guilty of a personal foul, first down Broncos. BAD RULE.

Converesly, if the 'tuck' rule indicates a forward pass is to be consided as attempted then, clearly, both Jake and Tom thus 'intentionally' grounded the ball, loss of 10 yards and down, as intentional grounding is; "Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion."

Clearly, as Jake was strying to put the ball away, tuck it, he had no realistic chance of completion and he was in the pocket, a further requirement.

This is a rule with no purpose of safety or fairness, that is decidely adverse to the oppenent. It should be changed.

If it looks like a fumble and everyone acts like it is a fumble then...

 

[cattitude]

I agree, the same happened to the Raiders last year in a big game.

BL, your memory should be better than mine. That was quite a while ago...3 years I think, the last year Gruden coached the Raiders. They were playing the Pats in a driving snow. Brady's fumble was ruled a tuck and the rest is history.

 

[Otter]

Some very bad officiating, LOUSY announcers and, once again, moving the ball everywhere but into the endzone.

 

[Vince]

All you Redskin fans, get over it, they lost. But to tell the truth, I couldn't believe some of the calls myself.

 

[Larry Gude]

If you'll notice...

All you Redskin fans, get over it, they lost

...everyone mentioned the rule itself including how it impacted another team.
Nobody sad it was a bad call, no sour grapes. They called it right. I just think it's a bad rule.

Not much to get over.

Now, Mark Brunnel as your starter...that's another matter.

 

[ptbrien]

Tuck sucks

I am a Cowboys fan and even I thought it was a fumble. The rule has to go. It has already decided one championship game and is b ound to affect more. It made the difference in this game.

 

[Otter]

Now, Mark Brunnel as your starter...that's another matter.

Hey, we're 1/4 of the way thru the season, the QB position is the least of our worries.

We need -

• more pressure on the opposing QB from the front 4
• force more turnovers
• Hall to get healthy(which I doubt is gonna happen this yr)
• better play calling when we are in the red zone.

Hey, we're 3-1, lost a close game to Denver at Denver. We beat Dallas at Dallas, which at the time wasn't much until Dallas handed it to Philly yesterday. We're winning the time of possession game, which keeps the defense fresh and usually keeps the games close. The wide receivers are a couple notches above what we had last year, offensive line is way above last years line. Don't worry, be happy.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

...you play good cop, I'll be the bad guy.

You simply can't have much problem with a defense that gives up 14 1/2 points a game. Yes, it would be nice to have more sacks but we're not getting killed in the air.

Hall, I agree, is likely done but I have no problem with Novak. He didn't false start when he made the 53 yarder which tells me he ain't kicking to low, making a long one like that.

Turnovers is just one of those things. They're just not coming right now.

Play calling is always hard to pick on though the 3rd and two pass on the next to last possession was odd given that Portis was strong up the middle and showing speed to the outside all game. For the Broncos game in particular it sure as hell doesn't figure to have so many more passes than runs, especially before desperation time came.

This all leads to you know where: QB.

Brunnel is right in the middle of the pack, starting qb's, rating wise. He's completing a middling 55% of his passes in a short throw/high percentage, uber conservative offense. He did nothing against the Bears. Threw two perfect miracles against Dallas after playing poorly for 55 minutes, I don't see where he did all that much against Seattle and, while making some nice throws yesterday and had a few dropped, he also threw plenty of muck and he didn't get it done when he had to, THE stat that counts.

Thus the Grand Mark Has Something Left quest. Yes, he does. He has SOME left but he is not completing the 65% this offense requires nor even the 62% of Ramsey. He is what he is and every game adds nothing to him in terms of experience or acheiving potential. He is on the downside and that is simple fact. You pointed out yourself he should have paused a second before throwing the ball Gold tipped. So much for the savvy, been there vet.

In the mean time Ramsey sits, gaining nothing. Not proving or disproving himself while Brunnel plods on, throwing his 55%.

We're heading into the heart of the season with an offense that is only outscoring 6 teams and is behind the 49'ers. Gibbs has said the goal is 21 points which would only put is right in the middle of the pack with 14 teams scoring more than that.

Brunnel is not an improvement over Ramsey, let alone a demonstrable one.

You say QB isn't the problem but we were as close to losing against Dallas and Seattle as winning. We could easily be 1-3 right now with Brunnel as the starter but his fans (more correctly Ramsey detractors) rightly point to the fact that we DID win against Dallas and the Seahawks and that is all that matters.

Well, we lost to Denver. We lost gaining over 400 yards and dominating time of possession. If winning is the baromoter, and it is, we've got to find a way to put more points on the board.

That boils down to one player; the QB.

 

[itsbob]

"...any intentional forward movement of [the passer's] arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body."

Thus, as the ball then hits the ground, both in Plummers and Bradys case, an incomplete pass.

This is an 'illogic' rule because it allows, specifically, that the player is NOT trying to throw the ball, but to 'tuck' it away, making the player fair game for tackling as he is still not down. The rules states, specifically, that when attempting to 'tuck' the ball back it is to be considered an attempted pass.

But this is totally unfair to the defense as they are expected to act like the ball has been throw downfield when it is actually rolling around at their feet, the QB scrambling maddly to get it back, as in the case if a fumble.

Fist off, the 'tuck' rule allows no protection for the QB, far from it. Plummer picked up the ball and got HAMMERED. If he just threw an incomplete pass, then the Redskins were guilty of a personal foul, first down Broncos. BAD RULE.

Converesly, if the 'tuck' rule indicates a forward pass is to be consided as attempted then, clearly, both Jake and Tom thus 'intentionally' grounded the ball, loss of 10 yards and down, as intentional grounding is; "Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion."

Clearly, as Jake was strying to put the ball away, tuck it, he had no realistic chance of completion and he was in the pocket, a further requirement.

This is a rule with no purpose of safety or fairness, that is decidely adverse to the oppenent. It should be changed.

If it looks like a fumble and everyone acts like it is a fumble then...

I understand the tuck rule, but in this case he wasn't in the process of tucking the ball, he had two hands on it when he lost it.

 

[cattitude]

I understand the tuck rule, but in this case he wasn't in the process of tucking the ball, he had two hands on it when he lost it.

Thank you.

 

[Larry Gude]

That makes one of us...

I understand the tuck rule, but in this case he wasn't in the process of tucking the ball, he had two hands on it when he lost it.

...I don't understand the tuck rule at all.

As for details, the rule states the player must have the ball completely tucked away in order for a fumble to then be possible and yesterday I think it's clear enough that he did not have it fully 'tucked' into his side.

I mean, OK, a guys arm is going forward and the ball gets knocked out; incomplete pass. But attempting to tuck it means he isn't trying to throw it; he's trying to do something else with it, ergo, live ball.

 

[Ken King]

...I don't understand the tuck rule at all.

As for details, the rule states the player must have the ball completely tucked away in order for a fumble to then be possible and yesterday I think it's clear enough that he did not have it fully 'tucked' into his side.

I mean, OK, a guys arm is going forward and the ball gets knocked out; incomplete pass. But attempting to tuck it means he isn't trying to throw it; he's trying to do something else with it, ergo, live ball.

I think the direction the ball travels when it leaves the QBs arm should be the deciding factor. If it goes straight into the ground or forward then okay it's an incomplete pass, but if it goes behind him it should be a live ball.

 

[Otter]

That boils down to one player; the QB.

Well, I submit to you that if Ramsey was playing, we would probably be 2-2 at best(IMO). In a perfect world, Ramsey would be starting. But the Redskins can not afford Ramsey having a couple of those "oops, I lost my mind for a moment" plays during any game. I realize the only way that stops is him playing but I still say that Brunnel gives them a better chance at winning now. His completion percentage is down, yes, but how many sacks does he avoid by throwing the ball away?..Regardless of Brunnel being on the downside of his career, he does move better in the pocket than Ramsey.

On Novak, he's had two kicks blocked in 2 games, that has to be more than coincidence. Listening to the Seattle game last week, I believe Sam said the kick that was blocked was way too low. I'm a Terp fan,too and I want to see Novak make it big time in the pros. BTW, Foxworth(another exTerp) had a great game, played well beyond his years for Denver IMO.

I believe someone else mentioned the "pause" before missing out on the 2 pt'er, but I agree with it. Gold made a great play to tip that ball, he was going the other way and was able to reach back and tip it. That pass, a microsecond later, would have been complete.

All in all, I am happy with the way things have gone this year, beats the hell out of the previous 10 years. About the only good point Maas made during the entire game is that the Redskins are getting back to Redskin football, meaning they are always hanging around, keeping the game close.

Hell, Larry, I've said before that I like Ramsey and would prefer him to be playing, but I still say that Brunnel is a better choice to win now, this year.

 

[cattitude]

A chic's opinion

I'm sad that Ramsey isn't playing in some respects and I don't really think he got a fair shake. But for whatever reason, he just doesn't do it for Gibbs and I really think he doesn't do it for his teammates. I'm not much into stats or comparing Ramsey and Brunnel stat-wise. I think Brunnel gives the team a confident air. He's a leader and he looks like he's having fun..he's enjoying the game. His teammates are buying into Brunnel. Ramsey just didn't show me that he felt comfortable and I don't think the team felt it. Brunnel brought them back against Dallas to win. That practically makes him a god in my book. And you can bet he made believers out of his teammates.

You can compare attempts/completions/passing yards..whatever. Sometimes I think it's a little more simple that what you put on paper, it's what makes the heart of a team. What really matters is how they play as a unit and how they feel as a unit. If they've got the confidence, the rest will come. Pass the cup, Otter.

 

[Larry Gude]

Foxworth...

...showed me all I needed when he was what, a freshman, against Spurriers Gators. He's a hell of a player.

he does move better in the pocket than Ramsey.

Ramsey? Move in the pocket? When? LOL. Got me there.


I'll argue this all season: Us at 2-2 with a developing Ramsey (I admit an assumption, developing, but that is my whole point) is better than 3-1 with a flat line Brunnel. Marks not gonna get any better.

Mark got away with murder against Dallas. They dropped a sure pick before his first toss to Santana and both of them ALMOST got knocked away, so, that's 2-2 anyway. Seatle MISSED the game winner. That's 1-3.

If your argument is that Mark is a good luck charm, OK, but he is not BEATING anyone. Teams know he is most comfortable rolling left, can buy time that way, virtually useless rolling right therefore most likely to run if he goes right, can't throw outs or deep slants anymore, likes to float a deep out over the line backers. Gonna throw losts of short junk, keep it in front of you. Happy feet in the pocket.

I appreciate you allowing me to vent, one fan to another but this should have been settled, right now; Ramsey plays his way in or out in the first month of the season. Over and done and we're all behind the same QB with questions answered. As it is, Mark is not playing as well as Ramsey did last year, % wise, and the big arm threat is non-existent.