Does anyone have any footage of the "safety"?

Long-Time Skins Fan · Post by **Long-Time Skins Fan** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:21 pm

I live in Florida now so unfortunately I don't get to see the skins as much as I'd like. I realy would like to see the hit in the endzone if possible. Thanks all

zr0hero · Post by **zr0hero** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:37 pm

Yea, I got the whole game on DVD (not HD though). I'll be converting these games to Divx soon, and uploading them online. Kinda my way of giving back to the community. Besides, there isnt nearly as many NFL rips on the Net as there should be.

I'll be making some clips of good plays this season, and I will try and remember this one.

DieselFan · Post by **DieselFan** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:44 pm

zr0hero wrote:Yea, I got the whole game on DVD (not HD though). I'll be converting these games to Divx soon, and uploading them online. Kinda my way of giving back to the community. Besides, there isnt nearly as many NFL rips on the Net as there should be.

I'll be making some clips of good plays this season, and I will try and remember this one.

awww, heck..who cares about that "any reproduction is prohibited w/o the express written permission of the NFL" nonsense... ;-)

JPM36 · Post by **JPM36** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:43 pm

The call was right. The rule just sucks. It makes no sense. The ball slipped out of his hands because it was wet but it doesn't count as a fumble because he had earlier thought about passing and then realized nobody was open.

That makes a lot of sense.

AZHog · Post by **AZHog** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:46 pm

JPM36 wrote:The call was right. The rule just sucks. It makes no sense. The ball slipped out of his hands because it was wet but it doesn't count as a fumble because he had earlier thought about passing and then realized nobody was open.

That makes a lot of sense.

The rule doesn't suck nearly as bad as the officiating. It was a bogus call -- he touched the ball with his left hand for God's sake!!!

JCaptMorgan12 · Post by **JCaptMorgan12** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:58 pm

That call was bogus, but what about the offensive pass interference call on Patten? That was even more bogus I think. That call was terrible, they both had their hands on each other, and the D-Back never even really turned around to look for the ball...

AZHog · Post by **AZHog** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:01 pm

JCaptMorgan12 wrote:That call was bogus, but what about the offensive pass interference call on Patten? That was even more bogus I think. That call was terrible, they both had their hands on each other, and the D-Back never even really turned around to look for the ball...

The zebra's were out for blood, that's for sure. That being said, we killed ourselves on penalties. Still, figure 7 points for the offense pass interference, 2 points for the safety, and three with the offsides during a 53yd kick -- well that's 12 points. Oh well, there's always next Sunday!

BroncoJoe · Post by **BroncoJoe** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:09 pm

The tuck rule call was appropriate. There were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Let it go, and focus on beating the Chiefs this weekend.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:29 am

BroncoJoe wrote:The tuck rule call was appropriate. There were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Let it go, and focus on beating the Chiefs this weekend.

first of all, there is no such thing as an "appropriate call" on the tuck rule. as a rational human being, the ref should be under a moral imperative to disregard that rule, since there is no possible argument for how it makes any sense at all. enforcing the tuck rule is unjust and indefensible- and what's more, it is a total insult to everything football is supposed to be about.

secondly, you might need to end up getting your head smashed in with a crowbar if you keep hanging around here telling us what to do and how to feel after your team's shameful performance on sunday. it's one thing to "have a few calls go your way", you can't be blamed for that. but don't you realize your team willfully cheated and were rewarded for it? how can any decent human being be pleased with something like that? :hmm:

...oh, that's right- they can't.

guess we'll have to draw our own conclusions about you then, given that set of information.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:45 am

BroncoJoe wrote:The tuck rule call was appropriate. There were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Let it go, and focus on beating the Chiefs this weekend.

I dont know why you're being so cocky. You're team won but we clearly beat you in ways you said we couldn't beat you. I remeber hearing about this great defense and we racked the yards up on yall. A W is what is important but you're team wasn't all that hot. We beat ourselves more than you beat us. Thats why Im not even taking this loss that seriously.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:07 am

BroncoJoe wrote:The tuck rule call was appropriate. There were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Let it go, and focus on beating the Chiefs this weekend.

The tuck rule was appropriate had not had both hands on the ball after the throwing motion.
Like you said there were a lot of bad calls in that game. Might have been a few on your side of the ball but now none of that matters. Your team got the "W" but have you ever heard of a sore winner.

You keep saying move on to the Chiefs, they're in your Conference, in fact right behind you in the division. You should be giving insight instead of gloating.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:27 am

My problem with the tick rule is that it exists period but my problem specifically in this situation is not the application of the tuck rule but of the instant replay rules. Having seen several replays, there simply is not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field, it doesn't rise to the standard of incontrovetible evidence set by the NFL. That ref made up his mind before watching the tape.

hkHog · Post by **hkHog** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:32 pm

How can it be the tuck rule if he threw the ball backwards!

If it goes backwards that's a lateral or a fumble, either way it's a live ball!

He wasn't hit as his arm was mocing forwards! Rather he THREW the ball backwards! That's a fumble, no two ways about it!!!

blchizzleke · Post by **blchizzleke** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:39 pm

BroncoJoe wrote:The tuck rule call was appropriate. There were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Let it go, and focus on beating the Chiefs this weekend.

You know what, a lot of people may not like what he is saying, including me, but he is right. We lossed it's over now. We all knew that we can't win every 3 point game (or 2 point game in this case). Errors will be made by us or the officials that will cost us a couple more close games. But that is the NFL. Right now we are sitting pretty at the top of the NFC East. If we focus on KC now and win, we will be 4-1 and in great position to earn at least a wild card position in the playoffs.

HTTR

JPM36 · Post by **JPM36** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:49 pm

The tuck rule call was correct. The rule itself makes no sense to me and the play was clearly a fumble if you look at it logically, I mean the ball was wet, he lost his grip, and he dropped the ball. But that's the rule. It makes no sense whatsoever but that's the rule.

There were only two glaringly bad calls in that game in my mind. The first was the utterly ridiculous offensive PI call on David Patten that negated a TD. But we ended up scoring on that drive anyways.

The second was the non call on the clear PI on Al Wilson on that pass to Cool

ey. But we ended up scoring on that drive anyways too.

The refs didn't cost us this one. Poor execution in the kicking game and poor tackling on those 2 running plays did.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:50 pm

Plummer's left hand touched the ball - the "tuck" was completed at that point. Fumble, Safety, Skins get the ball on a short field and would have scored at least three more points. The result is -5 for the Skins in the score tally... or plus 5 for the zebras. I don't buy the 'it was a good call', never will either.

hkHog · Post by **hkHog** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:14 pm

[quote="JPM36"]The tuck rule call was correct. The rule itself makes no sense to me and the play was clearly a fumble if you look at it logically, I mean the ball was wet, he lost his grip, and he dropped the ball. But that's the rule. It makes no sense whatsoever but that's the rule.[quote]

I disagree, if you throw the ball backwards it's a backwards lateral. The tuck rule has nothing to do with it. He wasn't touched by a Redskin, he just threw it backwards.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:31 pm

BroncoJoe wrote:The tuck rule call was appropriate. There were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Let it go, and focus on beating the Chiefs this weekend.

Ok, BJ, it was an incomplete BACKWARD pass. That's a fumbled lateral. Still should have been a safety, even with the tuck rule call.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:39 pm

JPM36 wrote:The tuck rule call was correct. The rule itself makes no sense to me and the play was clearly a fumble if you look at it logically, I mean the ball was wet, he lost his grip, and he dropped the ball. But that's the rule. It makes no sense whatsoever but that's the rule.

There were only two glaringly bad calls in that game in my mind. The first was the utterly ridiculous offensive PI call on David Patten that negated a TD. But we ended up scoring on that drive anyways.

The second was the non call on the clear PI on Al Wilson on that pass to ey. But we ended up scoring on that drive anyways too.

The refs didn't cost us this one. Poor execution in the kicking game and poor tackling on those 2 running plays did.

I disagree. Even if you overlook the whole safety/tuck rule issue, and the bad blocks on both those Tatum Bell runs, the second non-call on the obvious interference on Cool

ey would have hastened our scoring drive by at least a full minute, and I think one time out. Anyway, we would have gotten the ball back one last time, and not have had to try the onside kick.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:48 pm

If we didn't have to waste the timeouts on our offense we would have had a shot also. They need to let Brunell make some calls and run a quick offense.

njskinsfan · Post by **njskinsfan** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:53 pm

hkHog wrote:How can it be the tuck rule if he threw the ball backwards!

If it goes backwards that's a lateral or a fumble, either way it's a live ball!

He wasn't hit as his arm was mocing forwards! Rather he THREW the ball backwards! That's a fumble, no two ways about it!!!

I completely agree with you. The same type of play occured in the Carolina-Patriots game and it was ruled a fumble and Carolina recovered it.

If the ball goes backwords it can't be a forward pass. Do the laws of the NFL trump the laws of physics and common sense?

gay4pacman · Post by **gay4pacman** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:36 pm

njskinsfan wrote:
hkHog wrote:How can it be the tuck rule if he threw the ball backwards!

If it goes backwards that's a lateral or a fumble, either way it's a live ball!

He wasn't hit as his arm was mocing forwards! Rather he THREW the ball backwards! That's a fumble, no two ways about it!!!

I completely agree with you. The same type of play occured in the Carolina-Patriots game and it was ruled a fumble and Carolina recovered it.

If the ball goes backwords it can't be a forward pass. Do the laws of the NFL trump the laws of physics and common sense?

I was yelling this arguement the whole game!

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:58 pm

You can download highlights from the game here:
http://www.redskinspit.com/Week%205%20Highlights.zip
There are four videos in this file. The safety is in the one entitled "defense.wmv". Unfortunately, these are only Redskins highlights, so there is no video of Tatum Bell's runs here.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:16 am

gay4pacman wrote:
njskinsfan wrote:
hkHog wrote:How can it be the tuck rule if he threw the ball backwards!

If it goes backwards that's a lateral or a fumble, either way it's a live ball!

He wasn't hit as his arm was mocing forwards! Rather he THREW the ball backwards! That's a fumble, no two ways about it!!!

I completely agree with you. The same type of play occured in the Carolina-Patriots game and it was ruled a fumble and Carolina recovered it.

If the ball goes backwords it can't be a forward pass. Do the laws of the NFL trump the laws of physics and common sense?

I was yelling this arguement the whole game!

i'm with all three of you. how can they expect anyone to accept a rule that is a logical impossibility? you can not have conflicting definitions! a fumble is already defined, a pass is already defined.

the problem as i see it is that every last one of the refs (including hed ref mike pereira, who endorsed the call) is too incredibly idiotic and lacking in any semblence of the most basic modicum of common sense, and as a result are interpreting the rule totally incorrectly. the "Tuck Rule" reads:

When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if a player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

what that rule does NOT say is ANYTHING along the lines of "even if the ball comes out moving backwards, it shall be considered an incomplete pass" or something of that nature. they are all reading that into the rule, it is NOT there.

in fact, if you think about it, the rule is almost certainly meant to apply ONLY to "tucks" in which the ball comes out FORWARD- that's why the rule exists in the first place, to make a decision as to whether or not that is a pass or a fumble (since a fumble can come out forward and still be a live ball, but not a pass that touches the ground).

an immutable law of football is "Backwards Pass That Touches the Ground is a LIVE BALL". nowhere in the Tuck Rule does it specify that this fundamental rule should somehow be reversed.

someone needs to explain this to them and make sure they stop calling it incorrectly.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:23 am

I seen the play on the Nfl network channel It was definately a tuck.But the tuck rule itself is total garbage.