Roughing the kicker - no call game changer (1 Viewer)

[daChamps]

Listen, that play was obviously a roughing the kicker penalty and it would be called 1000 times out of 50 for every other known team in the universe. He hit Morestead's knee dead-on and when I saw it, I just assumed it would result in torn ligaments.

The blocker was almost directly in front of Morestead and shoved the defender out and to the left, the defender under hos own power plowed through our kicker with the official STANDING right there looking RIGHT AT IT!!

With the emphasis the NFL has placed on protecting defenseless players, it's inexcusable that this call wasn't made. It's just another example of us getting the short end of the officiating stick.

You bring up a good point. Morestead was about as defenseless as you could get when he got hit. I was sure he was out and we'd be hearing from Payton "he's got a leg".

 

[Bayouman007]

Someone show a video please. I thought the call should have easily been a 15 yardr

 

[fahad]

I am very thankful that our punter "Morestead" did not get injured on that play.. crazy none call.

 

[efil4stnias]

I am very thankful that our punter "Morestead" did not get injured on that play.. crazy none call.

he did.

Thats why Garret handled the onside kick and one other KO.

 

[Poppy]

officiating as whole this year in the NFL, was terribly inconsistent this year, and that's putting in mildly

Yeah, you're right here. SO many games i watched this year had terrible officiating. It's not all the refs fault though. The rules make it very difficult for the refs. especially the glancing blows to the head of QB's. I can't stand that a ref has to call that a personal foul.

 

[MsMSSaintsFan]

I thought it should have been 15, too, and replayed it at least 5 times. But even 5 would have given us 1st down and momentum. No flag was a travesty!

 

[play action]

I thought ed hercules hercules,er I mean coleman coleman was a thing of the past,until I saw that non call. thats when I knew the twelfth man was a zebra. morestad wasn't acting,the guy wasn't blocked into the punter,the ref made a wink wink smirk smirk "mistake",a 15yards firstdown keep the football kind of mistake. I'd like to see the opposition get called for more of the ten yard infractions as well,blocking in the back, not so obvious judgement stuff. anyway,its time for the draft \free agency guru's to get busy,cause there's fuel for the fire for a long time to come after this one.

 

[msl]

I am very thankful that our punter "Morestead" did not get injured on that play.. crazy none call.

he definitely tweaked something, was limping and although he did punt again didnt handle another kickoff. The guy had disengaged from the block which actually was actually pushing him to the side and had a few more steps before crashing into his leg. The rule is there for the safety of the kickers and Morstead was put in a very dangerous position

 

[saintingeorgia]

I believe the refs are looking for the calls that are going to make the NFL money, the ones that will draw a fine. A lot of calls have not been called this year, on both sides of the ball, and not just our team either. And if someone can, please review the end of the Lynch run. I was told today that one of our players was blocked in the back. I don't remember seeing this as I was screaming at the team to catch him and not looking for fouls. But I do remember seeing 2 of our players, when they thought Lynch was gonna go out of bounds, stop and watch instead of trying to help tackle.

 

[mid-city fan]

Would love to get mid-city fan's interpretation of the call, but I agree that looked every bit a penalty. Should have been 15 yards, but at the very least running into. The guy who made the hit was engaged in a block, but he was making an attempt to block the punt when he went through Morestead. Seems cut and dry to me.

I have not had a chance to look at a replay yet (I'm downloading a torrent now...). But, here is my interpretation from what I remember...

ROUGHING THE KICKER NON-CALL

First...for those of you who might be interested...here is the actual rule...

(NFL Rule 12-2-6) No defensive player may run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless such contact:

(a) is incidental to and after he has touched the kick in flight;
(b) is caused by the kicker’s own motions;
(c) occurs during a quick kick;
(d) occurs during a kick or after a run behind the line;
(e) occurs after the kicker recovers a loose ball on the ground; or
(f) is caused because a defender is blocked into the kicker.
​

Penalty: For running into the kicker: Loss of five yards from the previous spot, no automatic first down. (This is not a personal foul). For roughing the kicker or holder, loss of 15 yards from the previous spot.

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
(1) Avoiding the kicker is a primary responsibility of defensive players if they do not touch the kick.
(2) Any contact with the kicker by a single defensive player who has not touched the kick is running into the kicker.
(3) Any unnecessary roughness committed by defensive players is roughing the kicker. Severity of contact and potential for injury are to be considered.
(4) When two defensive players are making a bona fide attempt to block a kick from scrimmage (punt, drop kick, and/or placekick) and one of them runs into the kicker after the kick has left the kicker’s foot at the same instant the second player blocks the kick, the foul for running into the kicker shall not be enforced, unless in the judgment of the Referee, the player running into the kicker was clearly the direct cause of the kick being blocked.
(5) If in the judgment of the Referee any of the above action is unnecessary roughness, the penalty for roughing the kicker shall be enforced from the previous spot as a foul during a kick.​

The key part of this situation, of course, is part (f) that is underlined above. As I remember it, the Seattle player was given a shove in the back by the Saints player as the Seahawk went around the block. Was it enough of a shover to warrant the "blocked into" ruling? I don't know. It didn't look like it to me, but I wasn't standing a few feet from the players watching it in real-time.

This is a case where it is not a question of a rules interpretation. It's simply a matter of judgment. Who had the best view of the play to make the judgment? Obviously...the official on the field did. It was unfortunate that he didn't see it our way, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time questioning his ruling...becasue if he truly believed that the shove in the back of the Seahawk player constituted being blocked into the punter, then he is not supposed to call anything.

THE INCOMPLETE PASS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A FUMBLE

Again...once I get the video downloaded I will try to put together a video. However, I believe this was a close call...but a bad call that (unfortunately) was not reviewable. Here is a spot where the ruling on the field has a large influence over what you can and cannot do with replay.

There has been much discussion (especially this year) about what exactly is a "catch" and what isn't -- especially the interpretation of what happens when the receiver is contacted by the defender while attempting to gain possession of a pass. All the rules about the "process" of the catch, and a player "going to the ground" and all that....all those rules come into play if there is contact by the defender BEFORE or at the SAME TIME the receiver gets two feet down with control of the ball. If a receiver jumps off the ground to go after a pass, and there is contact before he gets both feet down again, then he is automatically considered to be a player going to the ground, and he must maintain possession throughout the process of the catch. If he does not maintain possession, and the ball touches the ground when it is out of his possession, then the ruling should be incomplete pass. The rule also says...

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession.

Here's the thing...looking at slow-motion replay, it looks like the receiver gets control, gets two feet down, and then he is hit a beat later...and the ball goes flying. I think this was a completion/fumble. Had it been ruled that way...and the Saints recovered...and it was challenged by Seattle...I think the call of completion fumble would have stood...because there was no defender contact until AFTER control and two feet down.

However, when you look at the play in real time...it looks pretty close to a bang-bang play. Remember, if the loss of possession and the two-feet down are simultanious...then the ruling should not be complete pass. And, if there is any doubt, then it should be ruled no possession.

WHY DIDN'T WE CHALLENGE THE CALL?

Now...some have suggested that the Saints players should have run over and grabbed the ball...so that a review, with a ruling of completed pass and fumble, could have awarded the ball to the Saitns even though they played "through the whistle." Unfortunately...this is not true in this case.

There are certainly some cases where you can play "through the whistle" for a recovery, and replay can award you the ball (but no advance). However, this isn't one of them. Here are the cases where this can occur...

1. If the ruling is runner down by contact and the ball comes out, and is obviously recovered by a member of the defense in the action immediately after the whistle blows...or...
2. If the ruling on the field is incomplete pass, but replay indicates the passer fumbled, and a clear recover is made by a member if the defense in teh action immediately following the whistle (the rule that come in last year because of the Hochuli error). NOTE: This rule only applies to rulings where the PASSER might have fumbled...not the receiver.

Those are the only two instances where replay can be used to award the ball to the defense even though the whistle blew. Once the ball was ruled incomplete, that killed the play. There was nothing to gain for the Saints to challenge, so the Officials would not have allowed Peyton to challenge.

In actuality, SEATTLE could have challenged the play. If the Referee had ruled that it was a completed pass, he would not have been able to award the ball to the Saints...even if replay showed a catch/fumble and a subsequent recovery by the Saints. The ball would have been given to Seattle at the spot of the reception...because the whistle killed the play.

 

[Sarcastic]

I thought ed hercules hercules,er I mean coleman coleman was a thing of the past,until I saw that non call. thats when I knew the twelfth man was a zebra. morestad wasn't acting,the guy wasn't blocked into the punter,the ref made a wink wink smirk smirk "mistake",a 15yards firstdown keep the football kind of mistake. I'd like to see the opposition get called for more of the ten yard infractions as well,blocking in the back, not so obvious judgement stuff. anyway,its time for the draft \free agency guru's to get busy,cause there's fuel for the fire for a long time to come after this one.

Maybe you can explain to me what nobody has been able to yet this year.

How does the NFL benefit by the Saints being knocked out of the playoffs, or losing any game this year for that matter?

Why is there a conspiracy to keep the Saints down? I just don't see the motive.

 

[1badsailor]

passing the ball 60 times was the game changer. we need an offensive assistant to speak up about running the ball more often. our runs are poorly executed like they dont even practice them

 

[Scorpius the Allfather]

Coach Payton even wanted to challenge this... but no Saints player picked up the ball after it came free. When there's even the slightest question whether its a fumble or incompletion... someone on D has to pick up the ball... even if it's just to hand it to an official... so the coach can challenge and the refs could rule upon replay that there was a fumble and clear recovery by the D for the turnover

I was screaming pick the ball up for that very reason.

 

[mid-city fan]

I was screaming pick the ball up for that very reason.

There are only two very specific situations where demonstrating possession after the whistle can get a team awarded possession (but no advance) if the play is overturned by replay...

1. If a runner is declared down-by-contact on the field of play and the ball comes loose after the ruling, and an opponent clearly demonstrates possession in the action immediately following the whistle...or...
2. If a pass is ruled incomplete when it leaves the passers hand, but is later overturned to a fumble BY THE PASSER (not a receiver), and an opponent clearly demonstrates possession in the action immediately following the whistle.

Even if a Saints player had picked up the ball, Peyton could not have gained anything by challenging that play. If the ball had been ruled a catch/fumble, Seattle would have been awarded the ball at the spot of the fumble.

 

[SaintMike]

Please people, stop crying about a blown call. The Vikings cried all last off season about the high-low hit we put on Farve. A interception resulted which stopped a good drive they had going. To be honest, it was a foul and they should have gotten a 15 yard flag and a first down. Most fans laughed at the way Vikings fans carried on all off season about how they should have won that game and the Saints were given that Superbowl. We lost, got out played and out hit. Move on....