Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

PostGame Thread (SEA vs. GB)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
I Am Rodgers


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 7125
Location: New Jersey
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:


4. Rules are rules. I disagree with this particular PF, i think it should be GBs ball 15 yards back rather than SEAs ball 15 yards up. It was a shot at Wilson's legs though, IMO, and we got flagged for getting Rodgers in a very similar, ticky tacky manner.


Just going to comment on this one because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Rodgers was in the pocket, Wilson was not. Rodgers had released the ball when Wagner (I think it was him) was 3 steps away. Walden was diving at Wilson when he Wilson still had the ball.
_________________


stallyns wrote:
Good thing for talky-talk Harbaugh he has an outstanding citizen/player like Aldon Smith on his team and not a classless hooligan like Clay Matthews.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Don049293


Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 127
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
Don049293 wrote:
nishray wrote:
Seattle fan here. Hope this isn't too soon - I remember how I felt after SBXL, rightly or wrongly. Sucks we had to have a controversial win against you guys, the Packers are one of my favorite teams besides my Hawks.

I hate the fact that this officiating nonsense is overshadowing how well Seattle played Monday. The defense held up really well in particular.

The endzone play is obviously what stands out first and foremost. The play was a lot closer than a lot of people are admitting. Everybody has seen the picture of Tate basically hugging Jennings and assumed thats all there was to see.

Take a look at this if you don't believe me: http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?vcid=23823733&freewheel=91052&sitesection=kcpq

Heres a more complete breakdown as well : http://lifexinxrewind.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/why-the-seahawks-packers-finish-was-not-an-interception-and-why-it-would-have-been-called-the-same-by-any-referee-crew/

The Rice PI was the wrong call, I'll admit. The call was for a jersey grab that Shields had somewhat early in the route. I thought it should have been called a defensive hold rather than a PI.

To be honest, we got shafted on a fair few calls of our own. In particular, there was a bogus PI call on Chancellor on a critical third down during the GB touchdown drive. It looked like half of McCarthy's halftime adjustments were telling offensive linemen to grab whatever part of Irvin and Clemons they could get and it felt like they got away with it.

Anyhow, my point is only that this game wasn't exactly lopsided in GB's favor. It was a close contest marred by a lot of bad calls in both directions. Obviously that last call will be the one that gets all the media outcry and attention. I'm sure the Packers will bounce back and smoke the North despite this game. Hopefully the Hawks make it to the playoffs and we can play again with real refs this time.



1 The Pi on shields was not for a For Pi but holding or it would of been a holding penalty instead. which we admit was a BAD call

2. The PI on Chancellor on Finley was closer than you are making out. Watch it in slow motion. Those are hard to judge in live motion. And the equaled out because earlier Finley dropped a ball when the defender was draped all over his arms. When the officials were calling it complete and then changed the call before Seattle was telling them to challenge. So 1 out of 2 is even.

3. The body slam on Jennings ?????? Tell me how a guy still stays in the game on that ?????????? And to stay on top of him and continue it ???

Another bad call

4. The INT that was taken Away. Walden personal foul. When he dives at the legs or Knees. The QB is running and is way out of the Pocket. And the most important Part he still has the ball in his hand. The knees and legs are protected on the QB but Only when they are in the Pocket

5. And the last call to end the game Someone has to explain to me. How a person can catch the ball at the peak over anyone else and hold both hand on the ball and arrive with it on his chest. And still considered both people have it. When rice only has 2 hands on it for a small period of time

( and every ref who is NOT EMPLOYED with the NFL now says its an interception And have way more experience then all the refs on the field totaled up )


and then to blow the PI on the last play to push Shields

So how does this even the Flags back and Forth ???????

When in the second half it was so lopsided


1. I think we agree then? Not exactly sure what your disagreeing with me on.

2. Close, but still completely incorrect and very costly to the Seahawks. If we are arguing officiating mistakes, it has to be brought up.

3. The body slam was bogus. Terrible idea by Browner, let his aggression get the better of him. He apologized to Jennings I believe, claimed he thought Rodgers was out of the pocket or something. Still incredibly stupid and deserved 15 yards.

4. Rules are rules. I disagree with this particular PF, i think it should be GBs ball 15 yards back rather than SEAs ball 15 yards up. It was a shot at Wilson's legs though, IMO, and we got flagged for getting Rodgers in a very similar, ticky tacky manner.

5. http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle-seahawks/2012/9/26/3414220/seahawks-nfl-packers-golden-tate that should address the PI. Nobody calls PI on hail marys. It simply is not done. I agree though, clear push off. And I already posted all the arguments I have on the catch itself: the problem is that if it is at all debatable, it has to be called a TD, not a pick. TBH, it was poor fundamentals by Jennings. Swat that ball, don't let it get tangled up because stuff like this happens. Pete Prisco actually just tweeted that he thinks it might have been a catch as well: for some of you that tout national names as having importance.



1. we agree on Bull Call

4. You seem to miss the obvious Rogers was in the Pocket ( BIG Difference and an Auto call and right call ) And Rogers had already got rid out the ball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
^^^^ i read the writeup, which is predicated almost entirely on the coincidental fact that tate is on the ground with two feet which he believe determines possession. This is incorrect and a misinterpretation of the rulebook.

What about the fact that when a receiver catches the ball, if he is going to the ground (which tate undoubtedly is) he must maintain possession all the way to the ground. Which he does not as he takes his hand off the ball.

The other view provided is nice but shows me the same thing. Tate didn't have two hands on the ball, and only did after jennings grabbed the ball.

The simultaneous catch rule does not refer to possession, it refers to control. Control which can be lost, but the simultaneous part does not apply if one person had control first. Which jennings did. Incontrovertibly.


I disagree, it is not about control: the rule is named "the simultaneous catch", when I watch that first Q13 link in my post, it looks like its a catch being fought over between Tate and Jennings. It certainly looks closer to being caught by Jennings than Tate, but close enough to be simultaneous. Once again, its really close and really opinion based, I don't expect to change anybody's mind, only to reassure Packers fans that there is a reason why some Hawks fans believe that was a TD catch.


Yes, there is a reason why hawks fans believe it was a TD catch, lack of knowledge. That isn't meant as a slight, but control is part of the simultaneous rule, not possession or "catch" as you are referring to it as. Tate never controlled it, or if he ever did, he did so only after jennings had control. Meaning that the simultaneous part does NOT apply so the tie does NOT go to the offense. Words emphasized with caps for clarity only, not meaning to shout.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SplashDive


Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 4119
Location: Eagan, Minnesota
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
^^^^ i read the writeup, which is predicated almost entirely on the coincidental fact that tate is on the ground with two feet which he believe determines possession. This is incorrect and a misinterpretation of the rulebook.

What about the fact that when a receiver catches the ball, if he is going to the ground (which tate undoubtedly is) he must maintain possession all the way to the ground. Which he does not as he takes his hand off the ball.

The other view provided is nice but shows me the same thing. Tate didn't have two hands on the ball, and only did after jennings grabbed the ball.

The simultaneous catch rule does not refer to possession, it refers to control. Control which can be lost, but the simultaneous part does not apply if one person had control first. Which jennings did. Incontrovertibly.


I disagree, it is not about control: the rule is named "the simultaneous catch", when I watch that first Q13 link in my post, it looks like its a catch being fought over between Tate and Jennings. It certainly looks closer to being caught by Jennings than Tate, but close enough to be simultaneous. Once again, its really close and really opinion based, I don't expect to change anybody's mind, only to reassure Packers fans that there is a reason why some Hawks fans believe that was a TD catch.


Find a credible source outside of Seattle that thinks that was a simultaneous catch. Good luck BTW. Like I said before sports science shows just how simultaneous the catch was. When your own player is apologizing to Packer fans after the game know it is bull.
_________________

Props to Jamison. for the sick sig!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SplashDive


Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 4119
Location: Eagan, Minnesota
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double post.
_________________

Props to Jamison. for the sick sig!!


Last edited by SplashDive on Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Don049293


Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 127
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I Am Rodgers wrote:
nishray wrote:


4. Rules are rules. I disagree with this particular PF, i think it should be GBs ball 15 yards back rather than SEAs ball 15 yards up. It was a shot at Wilson's legs though, IMO, and we got flagged for getting Rodgers in a very similar, ticky tacky manner.


Just going to comment on this one because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Rodgers was in the pocket, Wilson was not. Rodgers had released the ball when Wagner (I think it was him) was 3 steps away. Walden was diving at Wilson when he Wilson still had the ball.



Thank You Point cleared
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nishray


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 567
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don049293 wrote:
I Am Rodgers wrote:
nishray wrote:


4. Rules are rules. I disagree with this particular PF, i think it should be GBs ball 15 yards back rather than SEAs ball 15 yards up. It was a shot at Wilson's legs though, IMO, and we got flagged for getting Rodgers in a very similar, ticky tacky manner.


Just going to comment on this one because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Rodgers was in the pocket, Wilson was not. Rodgers had released the ball when Wagner (I think it was him) was 3 steps away. Walden was diving at Wilson when he Wilson still had the ball.



Thank You Point cleared


True, Rodgers was in the pocket. Still, Wagner's hit (from what I remember, I will check the replay and eat my crow if required) was not exactly below the legs. It is illegal to hit a quarterback at the knees in any situation, if I am not mistaken. Anyhow, the semantics of it are irrelevant. I think that the whole situation is ridiculous. the 15 yards should be assessed after the play is over, not as an option like that: I'm on your side in that sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nishray


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 567
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SplashDive wrote:
nishray wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
^^^^ i read the writeup, which is predicated almost entirely on the coincidental fact that tate is on the ground with two feet which he believe determines possession. This is incorrect and a misinterpretation of the rulebook.

What about the fact that when a receiver catches the ball, if he is going to the ground (which tate undoubtedly is) he must maintain possession all the way to the ground. Which he does not as he takes his hand off the ball.

The other view provided is nice but shows me the same thing. Tate didn't have two hands on the ball, and only did after jennings grabbed the ball.

The simultaneous catch rule does not refer to possession, it refers to control. Control which can be lost, but the simultaneous part does not apply if one person had control first. Which jennings did. Incontrovertibly.


I disagree, it is not about control: the rule is named "the simultaneous catch", when I watch that first Q13 link in my post, it looks like its a catch being fought over between Tate and Jennings. It certainly looks closer to being caught by Jennings than Tate, but close enough to be simultaneous. Once again, its really close and really opinion based, I don't expect to change anybody's mind, only to reassure Packers fans that there is a reason why some Hawks fans believe that was a TD catch.


Find a credible source outside of Seattle that thinks that was a simultaneous catch. Good luck BTW. Like I said before sports science shows just how simultaneous the catch was. When your own player is apologizing to Packer fans after the game know it is bull.


I hate Pete Prisco and it pains me to quote him on anything, the guy rarely ever says anything that is even remotely positive about the Seahawks. All the same, he tweeted this:

"Pete Prisco ‏@PriscoCBS
Maybe the call was right. Looks like Jennings is the one doing the pulling. http://bit.ly/SmgQBw "

FWIW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brettizzle


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 4152
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
Don049293 wrote:
I Am Rodgers wrote:
nishray wrote:


4. Rules are rules. I disagree with this particular PF, i think it should be GBs ball 15 yards back rather than SEAs ball 15 yards up. It was a shot at Wilson's legs though, IMO, and we got flagged for getting Rodgers in a very similar, ticky tacky manner.


Just going to comment on this one because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Rodgers was in the pocket, Wilson was not. Rodgers had released the ball when Wagner (I think it was him) was 3 steps away. Walden was diving at Wilson when he Wilson still had the ball.



Thank You Point cleared


True, Rodgers was in the pocket. Still, Wagner's hit (from what I remember, I will check the replay and eat my crow if required) was not exactly below the legs. It is illegal to hit a quarterback at the knees in any situation, if I am not mistaken. Anyhow, the semantics of it are irrelevant. I think that the whole situation is ridiculous. the 15 yards should be assessed after the play is over, not as an option like that: I'm on your side in that sense.


You are mistaken;

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."


"It's a player that's down and then he does that second act where he's getting up and intentionally rolling into the quarterback, or where he's getting up and he lunges at his legs," Fisher said. "We've got a lot of shots where guys have gone down, crawled, and swiped. We don't feel like that's potentially as injurious to the quarterback than the hit where the shoulder comes down to the knee or the planted leg."
_________________
El ramster wrote:

Lmao I know PAckers fans ain't talking.
Back to your dungeon.


^^^Footballs Future: Where trolling of Packers fans is encouraged
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nishray


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 567
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As for sports science, that show is a load of bull. I have not even seen the video you are mentioning (link it if you could). Like most shows, they are made to get views and make money. What better way to make money than to basically ride a wave of free publicity? Sports science also claims that Marshawn Lynch is stronger than a F series truck pound for pound because he can drag tires across a football field but the truck couldn't drag an appropriate amount of cement freeway barrier across road.

Point being, they will skew whatever they can to get the most attention possible, and for better or worse, a lot of sympathetic attention goes to anybody who screams about that final catch right now. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of extremely credible sources out there berating the refs and claiming that was not a valid call, but I would love to read an in depth analysis on the play, like the one I posted, rather than just a surface criticism. If any of you have read something like that, please link it to me!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/

Here's the explanation of the rule, including the analysis using the video embedded in the link.

It's expands on what i paraphrased prior, and goes to show that the touching the ground part, etc "calvin johnson rule" has no application here in the simultaneous catch scenario.

Pretty cut and dry.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nishray


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 567
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brettizzle wrote:


You are mistaken;

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."


"It's a player that's down and then he does that second act where he's getting up and intentionally rolling into the quarterback, or where he's getting up and he lunges at his legs," Fisher said. "We've got a lot of shots where guys have gone down, crawled, and swiped. We don't feel like that's potentially as injurious to the quarterback than the hit where the shoulder comes down to the knee or the planted leg."


Not following you: my point was that the hit on Wilson appeared to be a dive into his legs. Thus, it should not matter whether or not he was in the pocket. I don't quite see where in that article of the rulebook that is refuted?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SplashDive


Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 4119
Location: Eagan, Minnesota
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
SplashDive wrote:
nishray wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
^^^^ i read the writeup, which is predicated almost entirely on the coincidental fact that tate is on the ground with two feet which he believe determines possession. This is incorrect and a misinterpretation of the rulebook.

What about the fact that when a receiver catches the ball, if he is going to the ground (which tate undoubtedly is) he must maintain possession all the way to the ground. Which he does not as he takes his hand off the ball.

The other view provided is nice but shows me the same thing. Tate didn't have two hands on the ball, and only did after jennings grabbed the ball.

The simultaneous catch rule does not refer to possession, it refers to control. Control which can be lost, but the simultaneous part does not apply if one person had control first. Which jennings did. Incontrovertibly.


I disagree, it is not about control: the rule is named "the simultaneous catch", when I watch that first Q13 link in my post, it looks like its a catch being fought over between Tate and Jennings. It certainly looks closer to being caught by Jennings than Tate, but close enough to be simultaneous. Once again, its really close and really opinion based, I don't expect to change anybody's mind, only to reassure Packers fans that there is a reason why some Hawks fans believe that was a TD catch.


Find a credible source outside of Seattle that thinks that was a simultaneous catch. Good luck BTW. Like I said before sports science shows just how simultaneous the catch was. When your own player is apologizing to Packer fans after the game know it is bull.


I hate Pete Prisco and it pains me to quote him on anything, the guy rarely ever says anything that is even remotely positive about the Seahawks. All the same, he tweeted this:

"Pete Prisco ‏@PriscoCBS
Maybe the call was right. Looks like Jennings is the one doing the pulling. http://bit.ly/SmgQBw "

FWIW.


That angle shows when they are on the ground and misses the catch. That angle is horrendous. A breakdown of the play shows that Golden Tate didn't have possession of the ball until .52 seconds after Jennings has caught the ball.
_________________

Props to Jamison. for the sick sig!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nishray


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 567
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/26/nfls-rulebook-casebook-confirms-call-was-incorrect/

Here's the explanation of the rule, including the analysis using the video embedded in the link.

It's expands on what i paraphrased prior, and goes to show that the touching the ground part, etc "calvin johnson rule" has no application here in the simultaneous catch scenario.

Pretty cut and dry.


Interesting. I suppose that is one way to look at it. I see the ref's (and the NFLs) argument to simply be that Jennings did not gain control and touch both feet down in the endzone, completing the catch, before Tate gained joint control of the ball and they both touched the ground. Thus, the ruling of a simultaneous catch. No relevance to the Calvin Johnson catch except they were both catches in endzones for game winning TDs that ended up being controversial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
Brettizzle wrote:


You are mistaken;

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."


"It's a player that's down and then he does that second act where he's getting up and intentionally rolling into the quarterback, or where he's getting up and he lunges at his legs," Fisher said. "We've got a lot of shots where guys have gone down, crawled, and swiped. We don't feel like that's potentially as injurious to the quarterback than the hit where the shoulder comes down to the knee or the planted leg."


Not following you: my point was that the hit on Wilson appeared to be a dive into his legs. Thus, it should not matter whether or not he was in the pocket. I don't quite see where in that article of the rulebook that is refuted?


not that you are prohibited from googling anything yourself, but I knew this was the rule before I googled, and I know it is the rule now. Wilson had lost the protection of section 1 (which i include below) as well as section 5 (which is quoted above):

PASSER OUT OF THE POCKET
Cool When the passer goes outside the pocket area and either continues moving with the ball (without
attempting to advance the ball as a runner) or throws while on the run, he loses the protection of the
one-step rule provided for in (1) above, and the protection against a low hit provided for in (5) above,
but he remains covered by all the other special protections afforded to a passer in the pocket
(numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), as well as the regular unnecessary-roughness rules applicable to all player
positions. If the passer stops behind the line and clearly establishes a passing posture, he will then be
covered by all of the special protections for passers.

For reference:
(1) Roughing will be called if, in the Referee’s judgment, a pass rusher clearly should have known that the
ball had already left the passer’s hand before contact was made; pass rushers are responsible for
being aware of the position of the ball in passing situations; the Referee will use the release of the ball
from the passer’s hand as his guideline that the passer is now fully protected; once a pass has been
released by a passer, a rushing defender may make direct contact with the passer only up through
the rusher’s first step after such release (prior to second step hitting the ground); thereafter the rusher
must be making an attempt to avoid contact and must not continue to “drive through” or otherwise
forcibly contact the passer; incidental or inadvertent contact by a player who is easing up or being
blocked into the passer will not be considered significant.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 30 of 32

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group