Article One
By: BayAreaGiant
I always find it interesting when a week-end goes by with a Giants loss and no one seems to blame the officials. It appears that the past week-end was just such an event. Although there were at least two calls that could be construed as going against the Giants (not including the silly challenge by Coughlin which would have only been two yards one way or the other), there were a significant number of non-calls that actually went in the Giants favor. The first was the 2 or 3 (or more) instances where JPP used his taped and padded arm to club the Jets tackle about the head and neck area. This should have been called each time and I would suspect that it well may be in future games once the officials get a chance to look at the tape. Next came the (almost) piling on penalty that could have been called on Moore as once again he was out of control and landed on a runner that was already down right in front of the Back Judge. And finally there was a number of instances where Flowers could be seen holding on for dear life, especially with his left arm, but he was only called once as I remember.
The calls that went against the Giants were "hands to the face" call that was obviously wrong (I thought that it was interesting that the LJ was obviously not sure of the call based on the look on his face but finally decided to go with his initial judgment) and the placing of the ball after the DPI penalty down near the goal line which should have been closer to the 8 or 9 than the 12 yard line where it was actually placed.
The other calls (or non-calls) that raised questions were related to some of the antics of Jets receiver Marshall. It appears that Marshall's swings at Giants DB's were considered to be normal "handfighting" although I do not agree. It will be interesting to see if the NFL office levies a fine for his actions in Sunday's game.
One of the basic tenets of officiating is that you need to be prepared for just about anything on the field at any time. Two examples of this occurred in Sunday's Eagles - Patriots game. The first occurred on a kick-off when the Patriots kicker Gostkowski, after being handed the ball by the back judge (which starts the play clock), immediately pitched the ball back to safety Nate Ebner who (pooch) dropkicked the kickoff. A kickoff may be kicked by a placekick (using a tee is optional) or by a dropkick. The second play occurred when QB Tom Brady acted as if he was changing the play and re-aligning his wide receivers as he walked down the behind his offensive line only to have the ball snapped directly to a deep back who handed off to Amendola on a reverse who then threw a pass to Brady. (Had Brady taken the snap under center he would have been ineligible to receive a pass on the play.) It would be interesting to know whether these trick plays were discussed with the Referee during the pregame discussion or whether the crew just had to adjust on the fly. In any event, they are examples of the strange things that can happen in a game that the officials must be prepared to address.
Finally, there was a situation that occurred in Monday night's game that reminds one that the old adage "the ground cannot cause a fumble" is not totally true. On the ill-advised punt return by LeSean Jackson near the end of the game, it appeared that his hand and wrist hit the ground with the ball in his hand and the contact caused the ball to come free. As a runner is not down until a part of his body other than his hand or foot hits the ground and as the wrist is considered part of the hand, Jackson was not considered to be down by contact and the ground may have caused him to fumble the ball. [It is noted that this play was so close that I believe that replay would have gone with whatever had been ruled on the field as the available views appeared to be inconclusive. However, on the play at least three of the officials threw their bean bags signifying that from their respective viewpoints, it was a fumble. A really tough call made in real time with various bodies flying around.] So in this instance, it could be (correctly) said that the ground did cause a fumble.