The "Non Call"

Budsdrinker · 01-11-2010, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

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.

exile · 01-11-2010, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker

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.

Euphoria · 01-11-2010, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker

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.

exile · 01-11-2010, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

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.

Euphoria · 01-11-2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by exile

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.

exile · 01-11-2010, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

Its still a judgement call. Just like any other penalty. Its up to the ref to call it or not.

Tru dat. But it was fairly obvious. Which is why the Packerrooters are hating it.

Euphoria · 01-11-2010, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by exile

Tru dat. But it was fairly obvious. Which is why the Packerrooters are hating it.

I totally agree. I can see that being ruled and called in several ways in which case I don't thing the Cards deserve to lose the game as much as the Packers deserved to win the game. So call it a wash and next time GB don't allow that to happen next time. Come out ready to play and not stink up the first quarter.

darstep · 01-11-2010, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

...don't allow that to happen next time. Come out ready to play and not stink up the first quarter.

sounds like the skillet and the kettle

Rugby Saint II · 01-11-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

Its still a judgement call. Just like any other penalty. Its up to the ref to call it or not.

I agree. Just hope for good judgment.

01-11-2010, 02:42 PM	#1
Budsdrinker A Cajun Transforming TX Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Woodlands, Texas Posts: 2,787	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Euphoria 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.

01-11-2010, 02:49 PM	#2
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Budsdrinker 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 Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608

01-11-2010, 02:50 PM	#3
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Budsdrinker 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..

01-11-2010, 02:54 PM	#4
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Euphoria 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 Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608

01-11-2010, 02:59 PM	#5
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by exile 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.

01-11-2010, 03:01 PM	#6
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Euphoria Its still a judgement call. Just like any other penalty. Its up to the ref to call it or not. Tru dat. But it was fairly obvious. Which is why the Packerrooters are hating it.
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608

01-11-2010, 03:06 PM	#7
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by exile Tru dat. But it was fairly obvious. Which is why the Packerrooters are hating it. I totally agree. I can see that being ruled and called in several ways in which case I don't thing the Cards deserve to lose the game as much as the Packers deserved to win the game. So call it a wash and next time GB don't allow that to happen next time. Come out ready to play and not stink up the first quarter.

01-11-2010, 03:28 PM	#8
darstep SaintSince67 Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: PortCity Posts: 2,044	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Euphoria ...don't allow that to happen next time. Come out ready to play and not stink up the first quarter. sounds like the skillet and the kettle

01-11-2010, 03:25 PM	#9
Rugby Saint II Bounty Money $$$ Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 5800 Airline Dr. Metairie, LA. Posts: 24,200	Re: The "Non Call" Originally Posted by Euphoria Its still a judgement call. Just like any other penalty. Its up to the ref to call it or not. I agree. Just hope for good judgment.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://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