Block in the back on Mauti (1 Viewer)

[UFCSaint]

Mauti was called for an illegal block in the back on one of the kick returns. I watched this play twice (granted it was at normal speed) and to me it looked like his head was in front of the defender. At normal speed and first glance it did look like a typical blindside block in the back. But just wondering if anyone has watched it at a slower speed to see if it really was an illegal block.

 

[FLIPPY]

Yep, Remember the play, Mauti was clearly blocking the guy from the side.. It was a BS call... Officiating this year has been terrible...

 

[Pop Rouge]

I would use a word worse than "terrible". Maybe "atrocious", "despicable", etc. And I'm referring to it league-wide, not just Saints game. Raven's player clearly shows the referee he's reporting as eligible; ref had to see a huge man looking at him wiping his hands down his jersey reporting as eligible. Player is thrown the pass and flagged for not reporting as eligible and can't be on end of the line without being covered by an eligible receiver. Just astoundingly incompetent.

 

[zknotts61]

The officiating has been noticeably worse this season. I've noticed those "ticky tack" penalties are getting called almost every time. We are getting to the point to where the officials are deciding the outcome more and more often and that is unacceptable. The NFL seems to want more and more control over who wins and loses. What are we averaging, 15-20 accepted penalties a game? Come on, now... They've gotten to where if it's close, they throw the flag.

It's almost as if the NFL forced the officials hands on this too. Putting a lot of pressure to get the call correct and if they don't enough times, then they are subject to demotion or perhaps termination.

This is why every play should be reviewable. Most coaches won't challenge a hold or a false start, but these spot of the foul and 15 yard penalties should be reviewed if there is any question.

 

[BoNcHiE]

As I said in another thread, if the NFL wants to fix it's product (and everyone, even the media, admit it's sub-par right now) one thing that needs to be done is to stop calling so many penalties on returns unless they are blatant and could of changed the outcome.

It's gotta stupid at this point. Nearly every good return is brought back by some tick-tacky block in the back on the other side of the field that didn't even effect the play.

 

[CajunSaint08]

Mauti was called for an illegal block in the back on one of the kick returns. I watched this play twice (granted it was at normal speed) and to me it looked like his head was in front of the defender. At normal speed and first glance it did look like a typical blindside block in the back. But just wondering if anyone has watched it at a slower speed to see if it really was an illegal block.

Not only that play, but on the first drive where Colston caught a 12 yard pass for a first that was negated due to penalty...two men in motion and did not come set prior to the snap....was a major missed call by the refs. I have replayed that play at least a dozen times and could not find two players in motion let alone not coming set prior to the snap. Theses penalties are so bogus.

And as for Watson's non-catch. If the NFL would just use common sense in making rules, these refs would make so much better calls. Watson not only caught the ball, placed two feet in bounds, placed both knees in bounds, and still had the sense to try and stretch for the first down marker, upon witch the ball touched the out of bounds marker and came loose. If that wasn't a catch, then nothing is.

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

Why in the world is it that every single punt return has a block in the back penalty, why?

 

[saintsfan342000]

Punts have really just become an exercise for officials announcing block in the back penalties. What fraction of the time is it called? 50% or more? I'm guessing, but it's ******* ridiculous.

 

[St.Fury]

Not only that play, but on the first drive where Colston caught a 12 yard pass for a first that was negated due to penalty...two men in motion and did not come set prior to the snap....was a major missed call by the refs. I have replayed that play at least a dozen times and could not find two players in motion let alone not coming set prior to the snap. Theses penalties are so bogus.

And as for Watson's non-catch. If the NFL would just use common sense in making rules, these refs would make so much better calls. Watson not only caught the ball, placed two feet in bounds, placed both knees in bounds, and still had the sense to try and stretch for the first down marker, upon witch the ball touched the out of bounds marker and came loose. If that wasn't a catch, then nothing is.

2 feet down, then two knees down before reaching THEN losing the ball out of bounds.

Lets Common Sense here:
For a reception to be "in bounds" the receiving player must get two feet down in bounds.

For a player to be considered "down" he needs to have a knee, elbow, arm, or button touch the ground (and touched by another opposing player).
In other words, one knee, arm, or button is equal to two feet.

So, if Watson had two feet AND Two knees touch in bounds, by my math, that's equivalent to 6 feet.

The definition of a catch is 2 feet down and maintain control. OR more than two feet down.

This should've been a catch and fumble OOB at the least. Although, I think he also touched OOB before losing control. So that's just a completeion.

 

[Quiet Storm]

I agree with everything that's being said in here.

That was not a block in the block..I remember the play and thought it better be on Mauti cause he hit from the side..

The Watson play was a catch..2 feet down, made a football move, then 2 knees down, then he stretched for the first down and lost the ball when he hit out of bounds. This play is called the Dez Bryant rule. (which I thought was a catch as well)

 

[HouseCall]

I don't even pay attention to punt returns anymore. I just glance at where the returner is situated and subtract 10 yards for our starting field position.