In yesterday's game...how was the call at the end of the game...the interception...any different from the call earlier in the year where Corey Bradford caught a TD and then subsequently dropped it when it hit the grass? there it was called an incompletion...yesterday it was called an interception. and what the hell is an "illegal touch?" i was at the game, so i didn't hear an explanation from the commentators...the texans went to down the punt...but they didn't down it and the whistle had not blown...and a the raven punt returner touched the ball and the texans ultimately jumped on it. the call was that the punt returner "illegally touched" the football...i've NEVER heard that before...the whistle wasn't blown, so I would presume that if he had picked the ball up he could have run it downfield at that point...instead he touched and fumbled it...the texans jump on it..but it's ravens' ball. huh?? this was at the end of the first half. but it would have given us the ball inside the 10 with a minute or so left to score.
The radio guys said we touched it before the punt returner did. No idea about the interception call though.
ok...so if the punting team touches the ball at all, but is unable to control it, the punt return team can't touch the ball??? can't advance it??
Good question. I was going to say that once the punt team touched it, the ball was dead, but that wouldn't make sense with the slapping the ball out of the end zone type stuff you see.
exactly...and if that were the case, you'd assume that the whistle would have been blown at the moment the texans touched the ball...instead the ball was batted around and never controlled...then the ravens player touched it...then the texans jumped on it...but it was ruled ravens' ball.
if the punt team touches it, the ball is dead where they touch it unless: 1) the ball goes into the end zone; 2) the return team picks it up and advances it. in instance #2, the return team can advance it without fear of a turnover as long as the officials have not blown the play dead. it's another one of the NFL's quirky little rules. as for the interception... i don't see the parallel except that both were bad calls. the debate over bradford's "catch" is whether or not what constitutes a touchdown when advancing the football (ie the ball only has to cross the goal line for it to be a TD) is the same as catching it. yesterday's interception was a ground issue -- did he have control before the ball hit the ground? i didn't think he did, but... it wasn't like the texans were gonna hit on 4th and 10.
hey...you say the texans wouldn't hit on 4th and 10!!! they MIGHT have!!! i think the parallel with the interception and the bradford reception was similar because of the justification of the ruling...the ruling in the bradford issue was that if he had held on to the ball despite hitting the ground it would have been a TD...I thought that was the wrong call at the time...fine...but if they were right, then when the ball popped out of the defender's hands it should have been an incompletion. oh...what the hell...the texans got screwed again!!!
my issue with bradford's catch had nothing to do with the ground; if a RB lunges across the goal line... it's a TD. period. theoretically, the same should apply to a WR: if he demonstrates control and gets both feet down, it should be a TD right then. the ruling in the BUF game was that he didn't demonstrate posession long enough (which, if memory serves, is equal to taking two steps once you're in control...?) to rule it a catch. there's a disconnect there in either how the NFL interprets those rules or those paticular officials' understanding (or lack thereof) of the rules. yesterday was a simple question of whether he had possession prior to the ball hitting the ground. because they ruled it an INT on the field, there was not sufficient evidene to overturn. it was a weak call, but oh well. they wouldn't have hit on 4th-and-10. they've got one reliable receiver and BAL would have blanketed miller.
jajuan dawson is reliable...he has the best hands of any wide out on the team! oh, well...no big deal...i'll get over it...but for the record, i didn't like the call against bradford against Buffalo...and I didn't like the call yesterday afternoon against the Ravens.
by the way...thanks for help on that punt return issue...i didn't know that rule...that is, as you say, quirky!
