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 ... , 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
SplashDive


Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 3967
Location: Eagan, Minnesota
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
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!


I would if I could find it. Point being it does an excellent job of showing close ups and slow motion where it shows Tate had maybe one hand on the ball when Jennings pulls it into his chest.
_________________

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


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 4155
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
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!


You realize that what you posted was from a blog written by someone who lives in Seattle right? His twitter says how he has a Seattle based band and his picture is the Seattle skyline. He is not credible. He has as much knowledge as anyone around here I can easily put up a picture and circle how Jennings has the ball first and it has nothing to do with feet or anything that he posted. He has no idea what he is talking about, he is just a Seahawks fan posting on his blog.
_________________
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
Brettizzle


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 4155
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
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!


You realize that what you posted was from a blog written by someone who lives in Seattle right? His twitter says how he has a Seattle based band and his picture is the Seattle skyline. He is not credible. He has as much knowledge as anyone around here I can easily put up a picture and circle how Jennings has the ball first and it has nothing to do with feet or anything that he posted. He has no idea what he is talking about, he is just a Seahawks fan posting on his blog.
_________________
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: 565
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
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.


Ah i see your point. I hadn't realized that low hits were allowed on QB's outside of the pocket, I definitely thought at the time that the PF was iffy, but I could see the argument. In that case, without having a replay of the hit itself on hand, I would agree with you. That does suck. It was certainly an impactful play - though I have read elsewhere that it was doubtful that the interception would not have stood on review.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 29891
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
though I have read elsewhere that it was doubtful that the interception would not have stood on review.


on other Seahawk's fans blogs?

Shocker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deathstar


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 487
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I marvel at the mentality of a Seahawks fan on the Packers forum defending this so vehemently.

You're a very special person.
_________________

2012 Adopt-a-Packer: Mike Daniels, #76. Career stats: 35 tackles, 8.5 sacks, 1 TD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 34023
Location: 'Merica
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
I marvel at the mentality of a Seahawks fan on the Packers forum defending this so vehemently.

You're a very special person.


Let's talk about the game, not about the fans. Thank you.
_________________

simonwayne wrote:
This one is over. Mark down the dubya.

Colts 45 - Chiefs 44
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1090
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
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.


you keep referencing feet. Feet DO NOT MATTER. Control matters, if jennings got control before the feet are down, simultaneous catch rules dictate that this is enough to award him the ball. Control in this situation would constitute 2 hands on the ball, ball secure. If you can argue that tate got 2 hands on the ball and controlled the ball FIRST, rather than argue that at some point before feet come down that he had his feet down and 2 hands on it, you may have a more persuasive case. But feet are irrelevant as you can read in the link.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PACKRULE


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 1449
Location: saskatoon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In other news it looks like this game and the officiating was the straw that broke the ref's lockouts back. We get screwed and the reg zebras should be back by tomorrow as per PFT latest update. Oh well it's done on to getting back to .500 all we need to do is start winning baby and who better then that meathead Bree's to smack down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 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.


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.


So how exactly did Tate NOT control the ball? I am curious and I am open-minded. Really interested in what your argument is going to be, can't wait to rebut it.
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
skurey


Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Posts: 823
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shut up all of you seahawk fans. take your win and go back to your forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skurey wrote:
shut up all of you seahawk fans. take your win and go back to your forum.


Fair enough. Sorry you guys feel cheated and, seriously, good luck the rest of the way.

SoS, out!
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
terminal


Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 42
Location: East Green Bay
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:

Ah i see your point. I hadn't realized that low hits were allowed on QB's outside of the pocket, I definitely thought at the time that the PF was iffy, but I could see the argument. In that case, without having a replay of the hit itself on hand, I would agree with you. That does suck. It was certainly an impactful play - though I have read elsewhere that it was doubtful that the interception would not have stood on review.


here's the roughing the passer/interception link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDObaQXqZhA

not sure how anyone could view the int as doubtful. mcmillian gets possession immediately with the one hand, then gets 2 feet in bounds. pretty clean int to me. as for the penalty, what else is walden supposed to do there? before wilson threw the ball he was in the tackling motion. and wilson was out of the pocket, making a tackle/hit on his legs 100% legal.

as for the shields interference penalty, if it was illegal contact/def holding, why didn't the ref throw the flag right when he saw it? he threw the flag as the ball arrived at rice/shields. 1st and 35? no timeouts? this play in itself would have been controversial enough.

the audacity of some seahawks fans to believe that the kam chancellor interference penalty (which, by the way, was the closest out of any of these disputed calls to being correct) vindicates being gifted not only a game winning TD, but almost the entire game winning drive, is ridiculous. you guys are grasping at straws trying to rationalize some of this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tooki


Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 10664
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G3RMANATOR


Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Posts: 2215
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.


indirectly is the word your looking for...
_________________



Thanks to Walter on the sig!^
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 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 31 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