OT: Super Bowl Sunday

Thing1 said:
I agree w/ some commentators who said that it was holding, but also a good no-call.

If Kaep had made a better throw, there would be more of a gripe. But you don't reward a bad throw & a bad play w/ a Superbowl win. It would have been much more controversial as a call than as a no-call.
Click to expand...


I will never understand the bold. Ever. If it was holding (and it was), it should have been called. You can't have a good no-call on an actual penalty. If it had been called, there are few people outside of Maryland that would have argued against it.
 
Dungheap said:
I will never understand the bold. Ever. If it was holding (and it was), it should have been called. You can't have a good no-call on an actual penalty. If it had been called, there are few people outside of Maryland that would have argued against it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's basically as old as the NFL. It's not that refs won't call anything at the end of championship games - but it has to be egregious, and for something that clearly would have changed the outcome if the penalty hadn't occurred. The NFL doesn't want referees deciding games that are that big, and most fans don't, either.

Even beyond that though, last night's crew was pretty consistent - there were no-calls all over the place, on both sides. They kind of let the teams play, which I tend to prefer.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, that's basically as old as the NFL. It's not that refs won't call anything at the end of championship games - but it has to be egregious, and for something that clearly would have changed the outcome if the penalty hadn't occurred. The NFL doesn't want referees deciding games that are that big, and most fans don't, either.

Even beyond that though, last night's crew was pretty consistent - there were no-calls all over the place, on both sides. They kind of let the teams play, which I tend to prefer.
Click to expand...

Whether it's as old as the NFL is beside the point. There is no legitimate argument for a "good no-call" on an actual penalty. If it's a penalty in the first minute of a Week 1 game, it's a penalty in the last minute of the Super Bowl and should be called accordingly.
 
Dungheap said:
Whether it's as old as the NFL is beside the point. There is no legitimate argument for a "good no-call" on an actual penalty. If it's a penalty in the first minute of a Week 1 game, it's a penalty in the last minute of the Super Bowl and should be called accordingly.
Click to expand...

Ron Winter's crew calls them like that, which is why we don't see him in championship games much anymore, and why most of the playoff games he has done have been flag festivals, and somewhat maddening to watch.
 
Then they started talking about Newtown because I guess some kids from Newtown were singing or in a band at the superbowl? And they all were talking about how they choked up over it. Can you imagine if SF worked here??? He would have went freaking sideways! how dare they step on the graves of those dead kids! I am actually laughing just thinking of how different normal people are from the people on this board.
 
Thing1 said:
Ron Winter's crew calls them like that, which is why we don't see him in championship games much anymore, and why most of the playoff games he has done have been flag festivals, and somewhat maddening to watch.
Click to expand...

You said yourself that you agreed that it was holding. I don't understand why you think it shouldn't have been called. How is it maddening for actual penalties to be called? I don't get it.
 
Dungheap said:
You said yourself that you agreed that it was holding. I don't understand why you think it shouldn't have been called. How is it maddening for actual penalties to be called? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, officiating is out of hand in general. Way too many rules protecting receivers & giving big gains or significant plays to offenses for what used to be incidental contact. This is because the NFL wants scoring.

2nd, I think in circumstances like last night's, it was a bad play, and a bad throw. They had their 4th down chance & blew it. I think it's completely acceptable for a ref to look at that, and determine that the foul that occurred did not change the outcome of the play a bit, and hang onto his flag. Very few people want officials to decide Superbowls. Most people want the players to decide the outcome.

If an official like Ron Winter was working the Giants/Patriots in '07, he would have called "in the grasp" against Eli on the helmet catch play, and denied NFL fans one of the most exciting Superbowls in history. Would it have been the "right" call? Sure - but most would say let 'em play. Let the players make the plays that decide the games.
 
Dungheap said:
You said yourself that you agreed that it was holding. I don't understand why you think it shouldn't have been called. How is it maddening for actual penalties to be called? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Because they don't care if there is cheating in the Playoffs... Seriously, that holding call should have been called, it was blatant.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, for starters, officiating is out of hand in general. Way too many rules protecting receivers & giving big gains or significant plays to offenses for what used to be incidental contact. This is because the NFL wants scoring.

2nd, I think in circumstances like last night's, it was a bad play, and a bad throw. They had their 4th down chance & blew it. I think it's completely acceptable for a ref to look at that, and determine that the foul that occurred did not change the outcome of the play a bit, and hang onto his flag. Very few people want officials to decide Superbowls. Most people want the players to decide the outcome.

If an official like Ron Winter was working the Giants/Patriots in '07, he would have called "in the grasp" against Eli on the helmet catch play, and denied NFL fans one of the most exciting Superbowls in history. Would it have been the "right" call? Sure - but most would say let 'em play. Let the players make the plays that decide the games.
Click to expand...


Look, I want the players to mke the plays that decide the games, but the players should make those plays within the agreed upon rules of the game. We all seem to agree it was a penalty. Let's assume a different scenario where it's 4th and 2 from the 5 yard line and a defensive player jumps offside but has no impact on the play whatsoever. Should that penalty not be called as well?

Sure, the game could be a hell of a lot more exciting if we let players violate the rules, but then it isn't football anymore. It's something else entirely.
 
Dungheap said:
Look, I want the players to mke the plays that decide the games, but the players should make those plays within the agreed upon rules of the game. We all seem to agree it was a penalty. Let's assume a different scenario where it's 4th and 2 from the 5 yard line and a defensive player jumps offside but has no impact on the play whatsoever. Should that penalty not be called as well?

Sure, the game could be a hell of a lot more exciting if we let players violate the rules, but then it isn't football anymore. It's something else entirely.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. I guess it's a personal preference. I definitely prefer the crews that throw the least # of flags. Some things have to be called, but some crews take the rulebook too extremes.

They say that offensive holding can be called on almost every play according to the official definition, and I don't really doubt that - but I'm glad they don't call it every play, or even on most plays.
 
I agree with Thing1. It was a bad play and even without contact SF would not have made the play. Most of the contact came before either player was looking for the ball and they were both competing to gain position. It was a good no call.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap2000000135753/Were-the-49ers-robbed-on-fourth-down
 
Dungheap said:
Whether it's as old as the NFL is beside the point. There is no legitimate argument for a "good no-call" on an actual penalty. If it's a penalty in the first minute of a Week 1 game, it's a penalty in the last minute of the Super Bowl and should be called accordingly.
Click to expand...

And when I umpired youth Baseball and Softball, this is exactly what we were taught.
consistancy - consistancy - consistancy
 
There was also a "contact with the kicker" that could have very well have been ruled differently, seeing as how he was "chopped blocked".
 
SuperstringTheory said:
I agree with Thing1. It was a bad play and even without contact SF would not have made the play. Most of the contact came before either player was looking for the ball and they were both competing to gain position. It was a good no call.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap2000000135753/Were-the-49ers-robbed-on-fourth-down
Click to expand...


You're looking at the wrong rule. It was holding, not pass interference.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
There was also a "contact with the kicker" that could have very well have been ruled differently, seeing as how he was "chopped blocked".
Click to expand...

that was not a 'chop block'... it was roughing the kicker. A chop block occurs when one lineman is engaged with a defender and another lineman cuts the same defender low. (below the knees)
 
Ravensfan915 said:
Steelers rule, baby!
Click to expand...

The Ravens won and still had a charter member on their team. Picking up their second ring is not bad for a franchise that came into existence as recently as 1996. Imagine how many rings the Packers would have if the Super Bowl had existed prior to the 1966 season.
 
Threedee said:
The Ravens won and still had a charter member on their team. Picking up their second ring is not bad for a franchise that came into existence as recently as 1996. Imagine how many rings the Packers would have if the Super Bowl had existed prior to the 1966 season.
Click to expand...

Is that netball or rounders you are playing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top