The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

To show I want to be fare about bad calls in the NFL, here is what I believe. Early in the game Cassle was being pressured and Merlin got to him and Cassle broke free and ran into the end zone. A whistle is blown and it was ruled Cassle was in the grasp. Honestly he did not appear to be in the grasp as compared to Eli Manning was in the Superbowl. This play did change momentum in the game as the next play Merlin picked off Cassle. Only thing is how do you review if a guy is in the grasp, it's more of a judgment call. It was nice for Miami be on the winning end of a bad call for once. What do you say ?

I say everyone stopped when the whistle blew or Cassel would have been slammed into the turf while running around like an idiot.

Could be but do you think it was a bad call or was he in the grasp ?

Merling (I think it was Merling) clearly had his arms wrapped around Cassel's legs, so yes, he was in the grasp.

 
Judgment call & I cannot argue either way.  If it was the wrong call, then they need to talk to the people who made the rule.

Also, Manning was the SB & they tend to let them play to determine the winner on the field. 

What would they have said had the ref not blown it dead & Cassel ended up having his ACL blown out by a hit on his way to the endzone?

I didn't see anyone argue it at the time and I don't see it being talked about anywhere else but here.

I just believe the officiating to be extremely poor this year, and it should be brought up. I can't imagine I am the only person that feels the way I do. I know the game isn't perfect and the refs are human but it has been really bad this year, even calling Miami on penalties they didn't commit.

The problem was not with the call.  Cassel was grabbed and then got away.

The problem is the rule.  When you have special rules for one position, you also give up the ability for the advantages of that position.  Where a RB has the ability to escape a grab, the QB does not.

The rule sucks.  And so do all of these phony "protect the QB" rules.  They have gotten unreasonable.

I agree with Dave and STL - Cassell scored cause the whistle blew and everyone stopped playing but him.  And, whether he was "in the grasp" or not - I've seen that call made in several games.  The rule is dumb.  Besides, they got it back later when they called roughing the passer on Holliday's sack of a jumping Cassel.

If you think this one "in the grasp" whistle cost the Patriots the game today, you're delusional.

 


My god The bars would be open all night in bean Town by emergency order of the Governor if that happened..........  ::) >:D

Let's get the rule straight... The old "in the grasp" rule was ditched years ago. The new on actually has two requirements:

1) The quarterback has to be grasped by a defender.
2) Another defender has to be bearing down on him.

This was covered in an "Ask the Ref" with Jerry Markbreit article a few years ago:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-060117markbreit,0,2905795.story

(Markbreit was the highest-rated NFL ref in the 80s and 90s, still the only ref to get 4 Super Bowls and current "head trainer" of NFL referees. His answers in the Ask the Ref column are annoyingly "pro-the-referee", but the rule explanations are without parallel).

This might be the only instance of the NFL changing a rule AGAINST quarterback safety ;)

Personally, I think the new rule is good. The officiating of it, not always.

In the spirit of the game the whistle might have been a bit early, but the official's attention to protecting QBs was made obvious with the roughing the passer penalty they flagged.

I was thinking of the same thing last night.

I watched the game again and the Patriots clearly got screwed. As I pointed out, the rule dictates that a player must be both grasped by a defender AND have another defender bearing down on him in order for the refs to make the call. In this case, Merling had a piece of Cassel's leg, but there wasn't really another defender bearing down... Porter was clearly the guy the refs thought was bearing down, but he was in the process of being tackled, was moving more sideways than forward towards Cassel and wound up falling.

The reason I think this was a BAD call and not just a judgment call that could be argued is that Porter, even had he broken completely free and charged Cassel, could not have hit with any appreciable power. The rule is there to PROTECT quarterbacks, but Cassel was never in need of protection from Porter. His position and speed (zero) meant that he was absolutely no threat in terms of causing injury.

I really think this is a case of "good rule, bad call".

And, no, Cassel almost certainly wouldn't have gained more than a few yards. Pretty much all the players had stopped playing even before he started running forward.

One thing I find frustrating is that the CBS crew was clueless about the rule. They discuss it a bit and it's clear that they are completely ignorant about the second condition (another defender bearing down) in order for the rule to apply. When so-called experts mangle the rules that way, it makes it seem like the rule is bad, instead of "just" the call.