|
Post by Zig on Jan 4, 2015 20:28:16 GMT -5
I vote for the picked up PI flag
Tuck rule was actually the right call. Just because YOU weren't aware of the RULE doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 1:05:23 GMT -5
I vote for the picked up PI flag Tuck rule was actually the right call. Just because YOU weren't aware of the RULE doesn't mean it doesn't exist! I watched Ohio State drop an interception shown clearly on every replay angle only to hear that the replay booth couldn't get the proper video feed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 6:56:25 GMT -5
Tuck Rule...in the PI case the Ref's got together and decided, in concert (SRO), on the proper call...and I'm a Cowboys fan....and, as The Great Tom Landry said, The Game Doesn't stand on one play or call...
|
|
Otis B. Driftwood
VIP Member
I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.
Posts: 7,943
Likes: 2,185
|
Post by Otis B. Driftwood on Jan 5, 2015 11:20:12 GMT -5
I always thought the pass interference call on Benny Barnes in Super Bowl XIII was the worst in the history of the league but that's just me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 11:23:59 GMT -5
That was definitely pass interference. He grabbed the receiver's arm. The ball was in the air but even if it wasn't that should've still been called as def. holding.
What a pitiful "non-call."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 11:46:00 GMT -5
That was definitely pass interference. He grabbed the receiver's arm. The ball was in the air but even if it wasn't that should've still been called as def. holding. What a pitiful "non-call." Where is the rest of that avatar pic? Yum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 12:13:12 GMT -5
That was definitely pass interference. He grabbed the receiver's arm. The ball was in the air but even if it wasn't that should've still been called as def. holding. What a pitiful "non-call." Where is the rest of that avatar pic? Yum. Sorry, but that pic barely passes muster, lol. You can check out more pics of McKayla by checking out her thread: sportschatter.co/thread/238/mckayla-maroney-18-years-growing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 12:18:49 GMT -5
The ref that overturned the call claimed it was "face guarding" (I had to look up what that was - face guarding is essentially blocking the receivers vision - and it's only legal if you DO NOT touch the receiver). Hitchens never got his around and there was clearly contact made. If you watch them from the snap of the ball #59 actually grabbed #87 while the ball was in the air, shortly after it was released. That is at least def. holding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 12:19:11 GMT -5
Ah, ok. Definitely cute but a little too unripe on the vine for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 12:34:45 GMT -5
Ah, ok. Definitely cute but a little too unripe on the vine for me. Well, the reality of the situation only means you get to look but not touch, anyway. But I get what you're saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 13:20:36 GMT -5
Also, I don't have a problem with the Tuck Rule call itself. I have a problem with how inconsistently that call was and still is made. If the NFL had been calling the Tuck Rule consistently leading up to that Patriots/Raiders playoff game, then there would have been much less controversy. It's not made anymore. That fucked up rule was abolished in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Zig on Jan 5, 2015 13:32:31 GMT -5
The ref that overturned the call claimed it was "face guarding" (I had to look up what that was - face guarding is essentially blocking the receivers vision - and it's only legal if you DO NOT touch the receiver). Hitchens never got his around and there was clearly contact made. AFCCG in Indy 2006, Pats got flagged for face guarding. Couple days later they got an apology from the league because there is no "face guarding" rule in the NFL. I'm not still bitter though
|
|
|
Post by Zig on Jan 5, 2015 13:41:05 GMT -5
Also, I don't have a problem with the Tuck Rule call itself. I have a problem with how inconsistently that call was and still is made. If the NFL had been calling the Tuck Rule consistently leading up to that Patriots/Raiders playoff game, then there would have been much less controversy. Well it's a weird rule that most still don't understand. It was only called rarely because it only happened rarely. The QB has to be in the act of bringing the ball back in to his body, ie not trying to throw it anymore...ie: he's "tucking" it back to his body. I can understand not knowing the rule but there's a lot of people that think that rule was made up during that game, for real. Because of 9-11 of course lol It actually went against the Pats earlier that year. I should have added more controversial calls. Immaculate Reception is another one. But in my haste to troll Otis I didnt put enough thought in to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 13:49:22 GMT -5
Also, I don't have a problem with the Tuck Rule call itself. I have a problem with how inconsistently that call was and still is made. If the NFL had been calling the Tuck Rule consistently leading up to that Patriots/Raiders playoff game, then there would have been much less controversy. Well it's a weird rule that most still don't understand. It was only called rarely because it only happened rarely. The QB has to be in the act of bringing the ball back in to his body, ie not trying to throw it anymore...ie: he's "tucking" it back to his body. I can understand not knowing the rule but there's a lot of people that think that rule was made up during that game, for real. Because of 9-11 of course lol It actually went against the Pats earlier that year. I should have added more controversial calls. Immaculate Reception is another one. But in my haste to troll Otis I didnt put enough thought in to it. If trolling Otis was the objective, you could have also mentioned Drew Pearson pushing off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 14:09:53 GMT -5
|
|
Otis B. Driftwood
VIP Member
I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.
Posts: 7,943
Likes: 2,185
|
Post by Otis B. Driftwood on Jan 5, 2015 17:56:53 GMT -5
Well it's a weird rule that most still don't understand. It was only called rarely because it only happened rarely. The QB has to be in the act of bringing the ball back in to his body, ie not trying to throw it anymore...ie: he's "tucking" it back to his body. I can understand not knowing the rule but there's a lot of people that think that rule was made up during that game, for real. Because of 9-11 of course lol It actually went against the Pats earlier that year. I should have added more controversial calls. Immaculate Reception is another one. But in my haste to troll Otis I didnt put enough thought in to it. If trolling Otis was the objective, you could have also mentioned Drew Pearson pushing off. That one doesn't bother me much but it does seem to affect the Canadian dude a little.
|
|
Otis B. Driftwood
VIP Member
I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.
Posts: 7,943
Likes: 2,185
|
Post by Otis B. Driftwood on Jan 5, 2015 18:02:06 GMT -5
As far as that one last night goes...
I just don't think you can pick up the flag on that one. Better if you don't call it at all. There are far less egregious PI calls than that one that get called every week. And far worse that don't.
|
|
|
Post by Canuck eh? on Jan 5, 2015 18:02:11 GMT -5
If trolling Otis was the objective, you could have also mentioned Drew Pearson pushing off. That one doesn't bother me much but it does seem to affect the Canadian dude a little. A little?
|
|
Otis B. Driftwood
VIP Member
I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.
Posts: 7,943
Likes: 2,185
|
Post by Otis B. Driftwood on Jan 5, 2015 18:04:02 GMT -5
And - I would think most Patriot fans would be way more pissed about Ray Hamilton getting called for roughing the passer... but that's just me.
<puts salt up... walks away smiling at memory>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 18:12:02 GMT -5
And - I would think most Patriot fans would be way more pissed about Ray Hamilton getting called for roughing the passer... but that's just me. <puts salt up... walks away smiling at memory> Incident that happened before Pete Rozelle implemented his vendetta against Raiders.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Dragon on Jan 5, 2015 18:38:23 GMT -5
That was definitely pass interference. He grabbed the receiver's arm. The ball was in the air but even if it wasn't that should've still been called as def. holding. What a pitiful "non-call." Or Dez on the field without helmet 15 yards on top of the 1st down
|
|
Otis B. Driftwood
VIP Member
I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.
Posts: 7,943
Likes: 2,185
|
Post by Otis B. Driftwood on Jan 5, 2015 18:44:20 GMT -5
That was definitely pass interference. He grabbed the receiver's arm. The ball was in the air but even if it wasn't that should've still been called as def. holding. What a pitiful "non-call." Or Dez on the field without helmet 15 yards on top of the 1st down Even Cowboy fans agree on that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 22:04:06 GMT -5
That was definitely pass interference. He grabbed the receiver's arm. The ball was in the air but even if it wasn't that should've still been called as def. holding. What a pitiful "non-call." The receiver grabbing the defenders face mask was a pitiful "non-call" too.
|
|
|
Post by Zig on Jan 6, 2015 9:01:51 GMT -5
That was definitely pass interference. He grabbed the receiver's arm. The ball was in the air but even if it wasn't that should've still been called as def. holding. What a pitiful "non-call." The receiver grabbing the defenders face mask was a pitiful "non-call" too. Yeah both guys were pretty much mugging each other. Should have been off setting, do over at the least.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Dragon on Jan 6, 2015 18:07:06 GMT -5
Or Dez on the field without helmet 15 yards on top of the 1st down The refs basically said... we ain't giving Detroit a first down here no matter what. The NFL has stated that on the 4th down play that Romo/Witten converted that their should have been holding called against the Cowboys on the play (for holding Suh)
|
|
|
Post by Zig on Jan 6, 2015 18:16:58 GMT -5
The refs basically said... we ain't giving Detroit a first down here no matter what. The NFL has stated that on the 4th down play that Romo/Witten converted that their should have been holding called against the Cowboys on the play (for holding Suh) yeah it just keeps getting worse.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Dragon on Jan 6, 2015 18:45:49 GMT -5
And you're a Seahawks fan so you won't like that. As long as the call was right I have no problem with it. Of course I think Lance Easley made the right call a few seasons back
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Dragon on Jan 6, 2015 20:25:10 GMT -5
And you're a Seahawks fan so you won't like that. Is that your work shirt from Foot Locker ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 20:40:29 GMT -5
The NFL has stated that on the 4th down play that Romo/Witten converted that their should have been holding called against the Cowboys on the play (for holding Suh) Should have been holding called at least 3 times on Dallas' game winning drive. Including Tyron Smith completing wrapping an arm around Ziggy Ansah on the touchdown throw. I won't go so far as to outright claim the game was rigged. But there's definitely too much bias built into the NFL's officiating. If you're a highly regarded player or unit you can do no wrong. Dallas' offensive line has been so highly acclaimed for so long this season, that I swear officials allow them to get away with more holding penalties. It's beginning to remind me of how often the NFL allows Seattle's defensive backs to mug receivers in the open field. Seattle defensive backs haven't needed to mug any receivers lately. They haven't played against a decent quarterback since week 11 at Kansas City. Did you read where Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor said that Shamey McCoy quit in the fourth quarter of their game against the Seahawks? He was so tired of getting hit that he just was going straight to the turf to avoid contact. A pussy like that deserves to get mugged, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by boxedlunch on Jan 8, 2015 12:56:03 GMT -5
I'm not sure that "bad call" really fits this. VERY badly executed, for sure.
Looking at the play, you can see where it might not get called. It looks like PI, but you can see where it might not get call. The problem is, it did get called. That's when the crew really messed this one.
First of all, the white hat should not have announced the penalty before all was worked out. That's obvious, but I find it hard to blame him if he saw the play. The defender did not turn back and ran right though the receiver. Seeing the flag thrown, he probably thought what everybody else did, that it must have been pretty obvious. When the defender does not turn back and runs through the receiver, it's called almost every time.
What I find curious is what happened between the official who threw the flag and the other official who had the "better view". There are some calls where having the better view is what you go with, such as if a receiver is in-bounds when he catches it. Two official might have seen it different, but you trust who had the better view. Other penalties are called if any official sees it. Illegal motion for instance, will be called if one official sees it, even if an official with a "better view" might not have seen it. Holding is another. You don't see official consulting on holding to see if they agree on it. If one official saw a penalty, they call it. It's similar with Pass Interference, which is why it's surreal that it got changed. Having a "better view" might not mean you saw the play accurately. The official who saw the penalty should have stuck by it because, as replays show, he saw it correctly.
After announcing the flag was picked up, the official was recorded explaining it to Stafford, saying that it was face guarding. Obviously, that was incorrect because there was contact and it was not face guarding, so again you have the officials sticking by something that was incorrect. This is the bizarre aspect of it. If the flag never flies or if they never pick it up you have little to no controversy over it. Instead they did it right up until the play stops and then they blow it. It's easy to see how an official can make a mistake at full speed. It's hard for me to forgive the error when they have time to deal with it, then do everything wrong.
Which is what makes this really strange because it looks awful. The did it right until they have the sideline screaming at them and a player runs on the field to argue, the crowd is booing them. I've heard it said they were intimidated and it's hard to argue they weren't. This is what makes this a huge gaffe on the official's part. Missing the call is understandable, not being up for the moment is another matter all-together.
|
|