![]() |
Re: The "Non Call"
Quote:
It also irritates me to see a defender tackle someone for a 5 yard gain and start beating his chest or flappin his gums like he stuffed a guy 8 yards behind the LOS. Maybe the new CBA can include some 5 yard "Idiotic Behaviour" penalties. |
Re: The "Non Call"
I didnt see the facemask at the last play, but I did see a referee "Hat Trick" on the last Fitzgerald TD.
1. Holding, offensive lineman on top of Warner. 2. Offensive pass interference on Fitzgerald. (push off) 3. Wacky "roughing the passer" call. Bottom line, the Packers gotta show up in the 1st quarter. But I agree they got some bad breaks from the officiating. |
Re: The "Non Call"
I just understand how you could miss something so blatant that helped GB lose that game. Terrible officiating and it wasn't a judgment call. It was exactly what it was... a face mask penalty that was clearly missed. I do have to say this... I'm glad they missed the call as I did not want to face Green Bay.
|
Re: The "Non Call"
I hope the NFL gets on the refs about it because if they do not then it will happen in the dome.
|
Re: The "Non Call"
They should have made the call. Plain and simple
|
Re: The "Non Call"
Quote:
The point of the tuck rule is to take away the official's need to judge intent. The tuck rule does not "go away" because the ball does not touch the ground. From Wikipedia (yes I know it's not the NFL rule book but it's a pretty accurate description): "Ordinarily, if the drops or loses the football while he is bringing the ball forward in a , and the ball touches the ground, it is considered an . If the quarterback drops or loses the football at any other time, it is considered a , as if any other player had dropped it. The tuck rule is an exception to this rule. It applies if the quarterback brings his arm forward in a passing motion, but then changes his mind and tries to keep hold of the football rather than making a pass. In this situation, if the quarterback loses the ball while stopping his passing motion or bringing the ball back to his body, it is still considered a forward pass (and thus an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground).[1] Mike Pereira, the NFL's director of officiating, notes that the design of the rule obviates the need to consider the quarterback's intent.[2], though this seems to be incorrect, since the rule states that "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass", thus meaning that the referee must judge whether the forward movement of the arm was intentional on the part of the player or not. However, the rule does mean the referee need not judge whether the player was intending to check his throw." |
Re: The "Non Call"
Why is everyone caught up in the tuck rule on this... its a freakin INT!!! nothing to do with a fumble. Get over it game is over.
I don't blame the ref's for missing the call they were eyeing the ball to make the right call on that situation developing. The only way they could make that call is if they had 28 refs on the field at once one designated for each player the OL and the DL as well as line of scrimmage, play clock, game clock. Until that happens the game is over Cards win and rightfully so. |
Re: The "Non Call"
Quote:
It changes the whole dynamic of that last play. |
Re: The "Non Call"
Quote:
the Cardinals will be easy, but I had a bad feeling about the Packers matching up with us this year. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 AM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com