PDA

View Full Version : Why a safety & not a TD?


Kimmy
10-30-2011, 08:55 PM
OK, how was that a safety in the Patriots/Pittsburgh game? Sometimes the blonde in me comes out, so explain it to me like I'm a 2 year old.

I'm comfuzzled

thunderkyss
10-30-2011, 08:57 PM
OK, how was that a safety in the Patriots/Pittsburgh game? Sometimes the blonde in me comes out, so explain it to me like I'm a 2 year old.

I'm comfuzzled

Because the ball was knocked out the back of the end zone. Had the Pittsburgh player demonstrated possession (which he did not) it would have been a touchdown. Since he had a foot out of bounds when he touched the ball, the ball was out of bounds. Since it was out of bounds at the back of the end zone it's a safety

Had it gone out of bounds before the endzone, it still would have been Patriots ball.

By the way, being a blonde has nothing to do with it. Some of these rules depend on this situation and that situation, you damn near need to be a lawyer.

Kimmy
10-30-2011, 09:09 PM
I had to wiki safety rules and still didn't get it. :thinking: I knew the sack, or an offensive holding penalty, but this was a new one on me!

El Tejano
10-31-2011, 04:13 PM
Partly because of the rules but partly because The NFL, once again, came to Pittsburgh's rescue and didn't call the penalty on Troy P. for smacking the ball forward. They didn't want to make it too obvious so they went with a safety instead.

Dutchrudder
10-31-2011, 04:27 PM
Partly because of the rules but partly because The NFL, once again, came to Pittsburgh's rescue and didn't call the penalty on Troy P. for smacking the ball forward. They didn't want to make it too obvious so they went with a safety instead.

Came to their rescue? They were up by 6 with 20 seconds left in the game on their own 20 yard line. The Patriots were the one's that needed rescuing.

JCTexan
10-31-2011, 04:38 PM
I had to wiki safety rules and still didn't get it. :thinking: I knew the sack, or an offensive holding penalty, but this was a new one on me!

The player recovered the ball out of bounds in the end-zone, causing it to be a safety. If the player would have recovered the ball in the end-zone it would have been a touchdown. The difference was the ball wasn't in the field of play when the Steeler player recovered it.

Simple note: If the ball is fumbled out of bounds in the end-zone it's either a safety or touchback depending on which end-zone it is. The safety was the play we're talking about, Brady fumbled the ball in the back of the end-zone causing a safety. The touchback? If say Houston (or any other team) is driving for a touchdown and before crossing the endzone a player fumbles the ball into the end-zone and it goes out of bounds, it would be a turnover and the other team would get possession at the 20 yard-line.

JCTexan
10-31-2011, 04:40 PM
Partly because of the rules but partly because The NFL, once again, came to Pittsburgh's rescue and didn't call the penalty on Troy P. for smacking the ball forward. They didn't want to make it too obvious so they went with a safety instead.

The correct call was made. The ball went out of bounds in the end-zone. A safety was the right call.

El Tejano
10-31-2011, 04:56 PM
Came to their rescue? They were up by 6 with 20 seconds left in the game on their own 20 yard line. The Patriots were the one's that needed rescuing.

Yeah but when it comes to contreversial calls (and I know New England has had it's share) the NFL always sides with Pittsburgh. If I'm correct, that would've given them 15 more yards and an automatic 1st down?

Dutchrudder
10-31-2011, 06:20 PM
Yeah but when it comes to contreversial calls (and I know New England has had it's share) the NFL always sides with Pittsburgh. If I'm correct, that would've given them 15 more yards and an automatic 1st down?

So they would have been on their own 30 yard line with 10 seconds to go and down by 6 points with no timeouts. And you think the Steelers needed help winning this game at that point?

paycheck71
10-31-2011, 06:24 PM
Yeah but when it comes to contreversial calls (and I know New England has had it's share) the NFL always sides with Pittsburgh. If I'm correct, that would've given them 15 more yards and an automatic 1st down?

This was definitely a bad call. But count me among those who don't believe in conspiracy theories in the NFL. I think this league has some of the best refs in sports and puts its refs in positions to make correct calls. Not to say that they don't make mistakes, as is evidenced here, but as far as pro sports go, the NFL is top notch, IMHO.

infantrycak
10-31-2011, 06:30 PM
This was definitely a bad call. But count me among those who don't believe in conspiracy theories in the NFL. I think this league has some of the best refs in sports and puts its refs in positions to make correct calls. Not to say that they don't make mistakes, as is evidenced here, but as far as pro sports go, the NFL is top notch, IMHO.

I think the NFL in general has excellent refs. I do think some crews are prone to giving calls to the "favored" team. Note I do not think it has to do with any one team. It isn't an anti-Texan thing, it is just as stated a favored team them. I don't think they get together and favor the Steelers etc. per se.

paycheck71
10-31-2011, 06:43 PM
I think the NFL in general has excellent refs. I do think some crews are prone to giving calls to the "favored" team. Note I do not think it has to do with any one team. It isn't an anti-Texan thing, it is just as stated a favored team them. I don't think they get together and favor the Steelers etc. per se.

I probably agree with all of this. I didn't mean to insinuate that the refs are perfect. I do think that some of the QB's, for example, get protected more than others (Manning, Brady). I don't think that it's any kind of conscious bias or any kind of directive from the league, but my general feeling is that those two get more calls than others.

eriadoc
10-31-2011, 09:48 PM
I think the NFL in general has excellent refs. I do think some crews are prone to giving calls to the "favored" team. Note I do not think it has to do with any one team. It isn't an anti-Texan thing, it is just as stated a favored team them. I don't think they get together and favor the Steelers etc. per se.

When it comes to the Steelers and refs, I suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias. Something that happened in 1978 ....

I suspect the folks in Seattle do as well.

texanhead08
11-01-2011, 12:11 AM
When it comes to the Steelers and refs, I suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias. Something that happened in 1978 ....

I suspect the folks in Seattle do as well.

It was actually 1979 but we get what you meant.