TNF Raiders vs Chiefs

[freakingeek]

Romo ain't no Gruden. He has good insight but he needs to back off some. Great ending for a TNF game though. 

[oldschool]

3 hours ago, freakingeek said:

Romo ain't no Gruden. He has good insight but he needs to back off some. Great ending for a TNF game though. 

I listened to a florio interview last week and he said he knows other color commentators can do what Romo does having played the game but they don't put it out there. He said it will be interesting to see if others start doing it. I didn't mind Romo at first but he's really becoming annoying. He just needs to dial it back a bit.

[titansfb]

Romo still awesome.

[Stan]

Romo was right on every call. The spot short the ilegal contact call that cost the chiefs a turnover they were all correct. Don’t get the Romo hate. 

[OzTitan]

11 hours ago, No1TitansFan said:

      Call taking Cook TD off the board was correct, DB made contact with Cook while he was in the air with the ball in his hands and Cook made contact with the ground before the ball broke the plain, down by contact.

     I am actually starting to get a little tired of Romo, he questions almost every call made by the refs; and he has some Billy Packard in him, it's easy to call the perfect game from the booth where you can see the whole field.

I suspect you're right, but I still can't understand how a receiver can be down at a point in time where the catch wasn't even considered completed yet. If he lost control of the ball immediately after where they called it down it would have been incomplete.

 

Does the receiver have to have *some* control of the ball for the defender's touch to be considered a tackle? or is just touching the ball and a defender at the same time regardless of possession enough? (and obviously it only matters when the ball ends up being caught).

[OzTitan]

Also, I was wondering at the time whether the Crabtree penalty should have incurred a 10 second run off? It turns out the run off conditions are not simple but a quick read suggests it met those conditions (end of half or game, within the final two minutes, a penalty occurred while the clock was running). This would have happened right after the Cook pass to the 1y line, which was ruled down in the field. Does the clock stop after a review into a TD?

[Huston]

5 hours ago, Stan said:

Romo was right on every call. The spot short the ilegal contact call that cost the chiefs a turnover they were all correct. Don’t get the Romo hate. 

He was wrong over half the time.

[No1TitansFan]

1 hour ago, OzTitan said:

Also, I was wondering at the time whether the Crabtree penalty should have incurred a 10 second run off? It turns out the run off conditions are not simple but a quick read suggests it met those conditions (end of half or game, within the final two minutes, a penalty occurred while the clock was running). This would have happened right after the Cook pass to the 1y line, which was ruled down in the field. Does the clock stop after a review into a TD?

I believe the clock running does not apply to the play since it would have resulted in a score the clock would have been killed at that point. The runoff aspect usually applies to dead ball penalties; the runoff occurs if the clock was running at the time of the penalty, it does not if the clock was stopped prior. Here's a pretty good explanation: 

 

The following situations are subject to a run-10, but only if the game clock is running:

false start or other snap-killing foul

illegal shifts (only when offense has not been set for 1 second)

intentional grounding

illegal forward pass beyond line of scrimmage

backward pass out of bounds

delay of game for spiking ball

intentional fouls that stop the clock 

illegal substitutions

“fourth” or subsequent timeout for injury

replay reversal that changes a stopped clock to a running clock

http://www.footballzebras.com/2017/09/07/10-second-runoff-expands-one-minute/

Edited October 21, 2017 by No1TitansFan

[nine]

2 hours ago, OzTitan said:

I suspect you're right, but I still can't understand how a receiver can be down at a point in time where the catch wasn't even considered completed yet. If he lost control of the ball immediately after where they called it down it would have been incomplete.

 

Does the receiver have to have *some* control of the ball for the defender's touch to be considered a tackle? or is just touching the ball and a defender at the same time regardless of possession enough? (and obviously it only matters when the ball ends up being caught).

 

I've always found this to be a glaring inconsistency in the rules.

 

By rule....if a receiver catches the ball and is touched as he's going to the ground, then he's down.  But at that point in the play, he has not yet established possession of ball.   For that to happen, he must maintain control throughout the process of going to the ground.

 

How can a player be ruled down if he doesn't have possession of the ball?