Was Polamalu's ball poke legal?

Huh? I hope that was sarcasm. :?

 

Ohhh I don't think we were really that fortunate, what was Brady and co going to do? Score from their 20 with like 2 seconds left? The play was pretty irrelevant.[/quote:3rpptuo9]


That was a mistake. The defense pushed the ball into the end zone. It should have been a touchback.

 

Knox, the problem is that we're not talking about the Holy Roller rule. That's for something else, "fumbling" the ball forward on purpose like you said. For that, yes, Troy would need posession. That's the rule they talked about on TV, incorrectly (Nantz and Simms made a mistake?? ) There is a separate rule that says you can't just hit a loose ball forward (intentionally). It happens all the time by accident, so really in order for the refs to call it they'd have to know that Troy did it on purpose. It's clear to me that it was on purpose, but that's hard to prove after one live viewing. And like i said earlier, it's only so clear it was intentional because of who it is. If it was Ike Taylor, Mr. Clumsy Hands himself, he could have batted it the same way, only by accident. That wouldn't be a penalty. It's so rare that it comes up, and even when it does it's so hard to call because you have to know intentions... Which is why we never see it.

 

OK, I can live with that. I guess it just goes to show how absolutely clueless Simms and Nance are. Anyhoo, here is the rule violation/penalty: "Deliberately batting or punching a loose ball". So, had they called it, it would have been a 10 yard penalty and replay the down. http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries

I guess we dodged a bullet on the no-call. But like someone else said, I seriously doubt that Brady and patsies could have done anything with it. They would have had 1st down from around their 32 yd line with 12 seconds or so and no time outs. So, if any of the patsies faithful try to assert that the no-call was the difference in the game, we all know that is pure bullcrap.

 

Yeah, but I don't think any of them did. I'm sure their message board probably says so, but I didn't hear it in any of the interviews. That would be a load. Since they don't put time back on the clock due to penalties, they would have had 8 seconds from the 32. That means they would have had to throw a quick sideline pass, get out of bounds, and then complete a hail mary. Not even the Patriots are dumb enough to complain about that, especially since penalties are the only reason they were in the game to begin with.

 

I think the truly amazing point to be made about this play is how Troy showed up out of nowhere at 100 mph to reach the ball beneath 2 players that were falling, and he still touched it first and had the time to flick it forward.

I love Troy. What a beast.

 

I don't know. As happy with the win as I am, they got robbed on the Gronk TD. They robbed themselves by not challenging it also. But, they were in that game because we kept kicking FG in the red zone and even missed one. Had we converted one of those TD's I wouldn't be bitching. At least not nearly as much.

 

The Gronkowski play was very close. If I had to bet one way or another, I'd say it was a touchdown. But that's only after seeing the replay from the far sideline angle. The ref that had to make the call was on the opposite side, and you really couldn't tell from there. He took a guess because he couldn't see, and he was wrong by maybe an inch or less. They have to guess when they can't see. The Patriots 100% should have challenged, because either they get the TD and keep their timeouts, or get 3rd down and spend a timeout. But either way, they don't lose 40 (turned out to be 90) seconds of game clock. Belichick didn't need it to be confirmed from upstairs before throwing his flag. All he needed to know is if it was close enough to challenge. It was, so he should have. Simple strategy that the almighty one didn't think of.

 

Yup... And it was very reminiscent of the Holmes TD a few years ago against the ravens. I thought it was a TD when it happened live and thought for sure they would challenge it. They had enough time to check before the next play. ****, it was their ball. Stupid.

 

I think common sense prevailed among the referees. I believe it's arguable that Troy was fighting for posession for the Steelers, not necessarily trying to get it near the end zone. Even if Patriots recovered after he swatted the ball then they would have lost a HUGE chunk of yardage.

I think the "no intentional forward fumble/swat/roll/poke" rule is to keep the game from turning into soccer. Lol

If there was clear evidence that a player is trying to score that way then call it. Otherwise, let it go.

Botched calls happen. If this was a botched call, then so be it. There was so much offensive and defensive holding going on by the Pats it was ridiculous. Even on the play we're discussing, the Pats O-Lineman was gripping Keisel's arm when he swatted the ball away.

Mulligan

 

For those saying it is a dumb rule, imagine the madness if you were allowed to progress a fumble by punching or tossing it.

Every game that came down to one big play or any team in a desperate situation for that matter would "accidentally on purpose" fumble the football slighty tossing it forward and the next guy would punch it down the field as far as he could allowing the fast WR on your team to scoop it up for the TD since the ball has progressed way down field away from the defense. And on defense, anytime a QB fumbled if you could just punch it or kick it down the field to your endzone it would be total madness out there.

Surely you have to understand why it is illegal. What Troy did was 100% illegal but no flag so doesn't matter now as stated previously.

 

This.

But I do have to say I didn't know the rule and maybe Troy didn't either. So, at the moment it happened (after replay, before replay I, like the officials thought it wasn't on purpose) I thought it was a total heads up play.

Another exciting ending.

 

brady fumbled. the rule say you can't punch fumble (alive ball) forward

 

Rugby anyone ?

 

Since the Defense never had possession, Troy did not punch the ball forward, he did so backward.

What I don't understand is how it could possibly be a touchback? The ball went out the back of the endzone, correctly called a safety. Just a shame Ziggy couldn't get posession inbounds. Why? No particular reason. Wouldn't change the outcome of the game. But it would have increased the margin of victory. Not because they ran up the score (like the Rats did against the Rams, classless pieces of crap), just because they made a great defensive play.

 

There you go. To be a safey the offense has to provide the impetus to the ball going back in the end zone.

 

It wasn't legal, but it was a GREAT play.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands

A player may not bat or punch:

(a) A loose ball (in field of play) toward his opponent’s goal line or in any direction in either end zone.

 

Ok, so it was not legal. Agree
Even if it had been called a penalty, they would have had a 1st & 10 at their 32, with 8 seconds and down by 6...

Some on the media have made this call and the no-call TD from their TE a couple of big issues.
Bottom line is they didn't perform, and we did. It isn't that difficult.

Also, if we are discussing no-calls, what about that almost-tackle their safety put on Brown on a 3rd & goal that wasn't called interference?
Refs missed calls both ways. They weren't an issue.

 

Not if it was accidently batted forwards by a Steeler. Are you saying that if Brady fumbled on the one yard line, and a clumsy Steeler made an honest effort to recover the ball but accidently knocked it through the end zone, that New England would then get the ball on their own 20? For a net gain? I don't think so. It would definitely be a safety in that situation (think blocked punt). I don't think touchback was ever an option. The options were safety or penalty on Polamalu, and what decided that was Polamalu's intent.

 

I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, but that guy is wrong a surprising amount of times.

 

Here's the play that created the rule:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUuOqUIHBZc

 

I read all of your posts and admit, I still do not have a clue. I do not agree completely with Mike Pierara's assessment either. First off as many of you have said we did not have possession. That has got to be a key. I also thought that the rule stated that an offensive player could not advance the ball forward, I am not sure about a defensive player. Also, if it was a touchback on the offensive because of a defensive play, doesn't that mean it is our ball on their 20 yard line? I heard Troy say after the game that he felt he could not recover the fumble cleanly and he felt this is what he needed to do. Maybe it was illegal, but then again if you do not have possession how can you fumble the ball forward?