Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Bryan wrote:Impetus seemed to come into play last night...or not...

Impetus was in play. Since the Lions fumble is the reason the ball entered the end zone, the impetus is on them. That is why the Seahawks get the touchback instead of being assessed a safety, even if the penalty was called. However, if the Seahawks batted the loose ball in the field of play, the Seahawks would have been charged with impetus, and if the ball is dead in the end zone, it is a safety.

I thought it was "illegally batting" the ball when the defender PUNCHED it out of Megatron's grasp.

If it is illegal to punch or bat the ball with your fist, elbow or forearm how is it players get away with doing so if the act results in a fumble?

65 toss power trap wrote:

Bryan wrote:Impetus seemed to come into play last night...or not...

Impetus was in play. Since the Lions fumble is the reason the ball entered the end zone, the impetus is on them. That is why the Seahawks get the touchback instead of being assessed a safety, even if the penalty was called. However, if the Seahawks batted the loose ball in the field of play, the Seahawks would have been charged with impetus, and if the ball is dead in the end zone, it is a safety.

So if Seattle would have been given possession of the ball even if the line judge had called an illegal batting penalty, then what was the controversy all about? There is no way the Lions could have possibly been "robbed" of a potential victory if they weren't going to retain possession after the penalty on Seattle.

JuggernautJ wrote:I thought it was "illegally batting" the ball when the defender PUNCHED it out of Megatron's grasp.

If it is illegal to punch or bat the ball with your fist, elbow or forearm how is it players get away with doing so if the act results in a fumble?

It's only illegal to bat a loose ball.

Bryan wrote:

65 toss power trap wrote:

Bryan wrote:Impetus seemed to come into play last night...or not...

Impetus was in play. Since the Lions fumble is the reason the ball entered the end zone, the impetus is on them. That is why the Seahawks get the touchback instead of being assessed a safety, even if the penalty was called. However, if the Seahawks batted the loose ball in the field of play, the Seahawks would have been charged with impetus, and if the ball is dead in the end zone, it is a safety.

So if Seattle would have been given possession of the ball even if the line judge had called an illegal batting penalty, then what was the controversy all about? There is no way the Lions could have possibly been "robbed" of a potential victory if they weren't going to retain possession after the penalty on Seattle.

No, if the infraction had been called, the ball would have gone back to the Lions at the spot of the fumble and the Seahawks would have been penalized half the distance to the goal from that spot.

Bryan wrote:

65 toss power trap wrote:

Bryan wrote:Impetus seemed to come into play last night...or not...

Impetus was in play. Since the Lions fumble is the reason the ball entered the end zone, the impetus is on them. That is why the Seahawks get the touchback instead of being assessed a safety, even if the penalty was called. However, if the Seahawks batted the loose ball in the field of play, the Seahawks would have been charged with impetus, and if the ball is dead in the end zone, it is a safety.

So if Seattle would have been given possession of the ball even if the line judge had called an illegal batting penalty, then what was the controversy all about? There is no way the Lions could have possibly been "robbed" of a potential victory if they weren't going to retain possession after the penalty on Seattle.

Oops. I made that a little unclear. I meant that the result of the play would be a touchback, not a safety, even if the penalty being called ... THEN, the penalty would nullify the play. What I was getting at was that you couldn't decline the penalty and get a safety.

Reaser wrote:

JWL wrote:What is bad is tackling a guy too hard being a 15-yard penalty.

but he's just a little guy . . .

Ridiculous. Couldn't have been more annoyed by that. The thought I had at the time was; "if something this soft happened in any sport other than football I'd just turn off all 4 screens and stop watching." - but it's football so ... still was frustrating to see that be a 'penalty'.

When considering those sorts of penalties, the ones where it would cause some fans to say, "Just make it flag football already!", the penalty called on Buster Skrine in yesterday's Jets-Raiders game may have been the worst one ever. The penalty called on Bruce Irvin earlier in the game was also egregious but at least you could sort of understand the official's thinking. Matt Forte did get spun around as he was taken to the ground.

Against this backdrop, am I alone in thinking this is the most boring start to the season ever. I think that - finally - practices without pads and no-starter pre season games have eroded the regular season. There is lots of bad football being played.

JWL wrote:When considering those sorts of penalties, the ones where it would cause some fans to say, "Just make it flag football already!", the penalty called on Buster Skrine in yesterday's Jets-Raiders game may have been the worst one ever. The penalty called on Bruce Irvin earlier in the game was also egregious but at least you could sort of understand the official's thinking. Matt Forte did get spun around as he was taken to the ground.

It's in the running for worst ever. Bounces off guy running with the football (clearly runner at that point) then tackles him = 15 yards for hitting defenseless receiver . . .

The Irvin one was also horrible! The only positive from that was seeing how pissed off Del Rio was.

NWebster wrote:Against this backdrop, am I alone in thinking this is the most boring start to the season ever. I think that - finally - practices without pads and no-starter pre season games have eroded the regular season. There is lots of bad football being played.

Agreed. Though disagree that this is 'new' this season. I've been saying/seeing it for a while now.