Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

The "Non Call"

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; This is hilarious and the only thing being talked about on Cardinals and Packers boards. This is the most joyful debate since the Patriots "tuck rule" call. Wow, I would be one mad dude if I was a Packers fan. ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2010, 12:45 PM   #1
Cake or Death?
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,437
The "Non Call"

This is hilarious and the only thing being talked about on Cardinals and Packers boards. This is the most joyful debate since the Patriots "tuck rule" call.

Wow, I would be one mad dude if I was a Packers fan. Yeah they played bad but this is blatantly obvious and could have kept their chances of going for that trip to the Big Easy alive.


A homers take on it.

azcentral.com blogs - Kent Somers - KentSomers - Packers fans feel cheated

The Neil Rackers miss:

A little more information has emerged on Neil Rackers' 34-yard missed field goal at the end of regulation. Turns out, a Cardinals player, most likely Larry Fitzgerald, called a timeout with 14 seconds remaining. That was earlier than coaches and other players expected. Coach Ken Whisenhunt wanted to run the clock down before taking a timeout, or spike the ball to stop the clock.
So the Cardinals briefly talked over the situation during the timeout, considering whether to attempt another a play. At the time,Rackers was warming up by kicking into the net. The field goal team took the field, and players had to yell at Rackers to get out there. That messed with his pre-kick routine, or at least probably made him feeling rushed.

One thing I learned from drinking. You should always go Christmas caroling with a group. Oh, and always in mid-December.
exile is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:04 PM   #2
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 6,345
Blog Entries: 5
Re: The "Non Call"

Even if it was called they still lose! The fumble occured just before the penalty and its not a penalty that stops play. Worse case for the Cards is that they get the ball there and backed up 15 yards... and all of a sudden they are going to stop the Cards... come on.
Euphoria is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:10 PM   #3
Cake or Death?
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,437
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post
Even if it was called they still lose! The fumble occured just before the penalty and its not a penalty that stops play. Worse case for the Cards is that they get the ball there and backed up 15 yards... and all of a sudden they are going to stop the Cards... come on.
Well if it is called a facemask the call negates the fumble as long as it doesn't occur after the recovery. GB ball +15 yards.

If it is called hands to the face then AZ keeps the ball -5 yards (I think) at the recovery spot.

But I think you can definitely see Rodgers' head turn by the defender.

Last edited by exile; 01-11-2010 at 02:13 PM..
exile is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:23 PM   #4
500th Post
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 576
Re: The "Non Call"

What I think is so funny is that Cards fans whined terribly last year about the non-review of Warners fumble that ended the game in the Super Bowl, funnily enough you don't hear them complaining about this one. LMAO
cargojon is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:41 PM   #5
Hu Dat!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,845
Blog Entries: 4
Re: The "Non Call"

I thought the ball came lose before the face mask occurred. So how do you take away a sudden-death game-winning play, and penalize a team when the game is now over? Under those circumstances, I don't think you can enforce the personal foul.
neugey is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:42 PM   #6
A Cajun Transforming TX
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 2,265
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post
Even if it was called they still lose! The fumble occured just before the penalty and its not a penalty that stops play. Worse case for the Cards is that they get the ball there and backed up 15 yards... and all of a sudden they are going to stop the Cards... come on.
Euph, I gotta disagree with you on this one. First off it should have been ruled under the Brady tuck rule so technically it was an interception since it never hit the ground but it also should have been roughing the passer just like the Vilma call on Eli that negated a pick 6 from Sharper. But the play Rodgers should be mad at is missing the first pass in OT to a wide open Jennings.
Budsdrinker is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:49 PM   #7
Cake or Death?
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,437
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker View Post
but it also should have been roughing the passer just like the Vilma call on Eli that negated a pick 6 from Sharper.
That is a good example. Terrible way to lose a game.
exile is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:50 PM   #8
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 6,345
Blog Entries: 5
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker View Post
Euph, I gotta disagree with you on this one. First off it should have been ruled under the Brady tuck rule so technically it was an interception since it never hit the ground but it also should have been roughing the passer just like the Vilma call on Eli that negated a pick 6 from Sharper. But the play Rodgers should be mad at is missing the first pass in OT to a wide open Jennings.
I agree if its roughing the passer then its Packers ball but the debate is if its facemask... in which case its still AZ ball and yes you do enforce a personal foul if it happens during game play.

It then becomes a judgement call by the ref weather its roughing the passer or face mask. I think you call it facemask despite a blow to the head to the QB which is usually a roughing the passer because the clearly the Card was going for the ball and hit the ball first.

My only real opinion is that its a play off game and every play is important. GB came out to such a bad start they deserve to lose the game. No matter how they lost they should have never let it come down to just one play, so its their fault.

E U P H O R I A

Last edited by Euphoria; 01-11-2010 at 02:55 PM..
Euphoria is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:54 PM   #9
Cake or Death?
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,437
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post
I agree if its roughing the passer then its Packers ball but the debate is if its facemask... in which case its still AZ ball and yes you do enforce a personal foul if it happens during game play.
Anytime a defensive player strikes a QB in the head it is considered "rouging the passer" by definition. And grabbing the facemask is considered hitting the QB in the head/face. If a call was going to made on this play it had to have been roughing.
exile is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:59 PM   #10
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 6,345
Blog Entries: 5
Re: The "Non Call"

Originally Posted by exile View Post
Anytime a defensive player strikes a QB in the head it is considered "rouging the passer" by definition. And grabbing the facemask is considered hitting the QB in the head/face. If a call was going to made on this play it had to have been roughing.

Its still a judgement call. Just like any other penalty. Its up to the ref to call it or not.
Euphoria is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/saints/23597-non-call.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News | SportSpyder This thread Refback 01-11-2010 01:35 PM 1


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts