• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Officiating mistake in the SuperBowl?

icedaman

icedaman

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
64
Reaction score
6
Did anyone else notice that on the first play from scrimmage on which Seattle scored a safety, that the referee threw a flag on Denver for a false start? He then announced that Denver had committed a fs penalty, but the penalty was declined. According to the NFL rulebook (and is also the case on every level of football) the play should have been blown dead immediately, and all action afterwards ignored. Therefore Denver should have had the ball facing 1st and fifteen. It probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it most likely would have changed Denvers initial mindset.

Just to be clear....I am not a Denver fan. However, I am an official and this just felt wrong to me.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't a false start. It was an illegal shift. Not sure how that affects the call.
 
Wasn't it illegal motion? Not a false start. No idea what the rule is for illegal motion.

ETA: Jinx, DeaconCav.
 
They called the penalty on Peyton because he was moving towards the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped. That is not a type Of false start that makes the play dead, because you can reset
 
On the replay they showed either the right guard or tackle flinch?? Anyone have this on tape for clarification?
 
It was an illegal shift called on number 18 (Peyton) because he was moving while the ball was snapped.
 
That thought occurred to me very briefly, but I passed it off. Now that you have pointed it out, wonder if others will bring it up.
Also, who would the FS have been called on? Not the center, so someone else on offense would have had the same thought that it was time to snap the ball. That then makes two Bronco players, Interesting.

I see the other explanations.
 
Haas anybody looked into whether it was a false start or an illegal shift?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
That play aside, I certainly noticed there were quite a few hits which have caused flags all season long which were just ignored by the zebras. Several leading w/ helmets and targets from both teams which were clear as day- no flag. NFL continues its downward slide.
 
94Deac said:
That play aside, I certainly noticed there were quite a few hits which have caused flags all season long which were just ignored by the zebras. Several leading w/ helmets and targets from both teams which were clear as day- no flag. NFL continues its downward slide.
Click to expand...

NFL will address all the hand to hand combat next year in the defensive backfield and mack freedom of movement a key issue, just like basketball has done. You will not be able to touch each other, whether you are a defensive back or an offensive receiver so players will have to keep hands off. There will be lots more defensive holding calls and both types of pass interference calls next year.
 
If only Denver had called tails, they clearly would've won the game.

Also I'm sure TheReff is yet again wrong, and hopefully so. The last thing the league needs to do is make the rules favor offense more. Contact within 5 yards is completely legal as long as you don't go overboard
 
bobknightfan said:
Everyone keeps talking about the safety....but the play before the safety was where the big mistake occurred. And in my opinion, mental mistakes are worse than physical mistakes. If the idiot hadn't tried to return the opening kickoff from nine yards deep in the endzone, the bad snap on the next play would not have resulted in a safety. Denver would have recovered it somewhere between the 5 and 10-yard line.
Click to expand...

Or the Seahawks would have recovered it for a TD.
 
One thing that you all may have discussed Sunday night, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread -- when Carroll challenged the spot of Wilson's run/stretch out of bounds, the refs changed the spot -- why was Carroll still charged the TO? I didn't think it was contingent on getting a new set of downs.
 
smallbigtall said:
One thing that you all may have discussed Sunday night, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread -- when Carroll challenged the spot of Wilson's run/stretch out of bounds, the refs changed the spot -- why was Carroll still charged the TO? I didn't think it was contingent on getting a new set of downs.
Click to expand...

"Technically, the coach retains his time out if the ruling on the field is overturned in a way that has a competitive impact on the game. A re-spot of the ball with respect to the line to gain, for instance, is only successful if the result of the re-spot places the ball past the line to gain. Similarly, a coach challenging a double (or triple) fumble that was ruled otherwise will not win the challenge, even if the referee agrees the initial ruling was incorrect, unless the review results in a change of possession."
 
bojanglefunk said:
"Technically, the coach retains his time out if the ruling on the field is overturned in a way that has a competitive impact on the game. A re-spot of the ball with respect to the line to gain, for instance, is only successful if the result of the re-spot places the ball past the line to gain. Similarly, a coach challenging a double (or triple) fumble that was ruled otherwise will not win the challenge, even if the referee agrees the initial ruling was incorrect, unless the review results in a change of possession."
Click to expand...

Thanks bojangle, that helps.

I'd argue that the whole point of the game is to move the ball "with respect to the line to gain," but that's clearly not the official interpretation in this situation.
 
On a minor related note, both the challenges cost each team a first-half timeout.

Was this the first Super Bowl which saw neither team use a timeout (lost challenge notwithstanding)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top