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. :doh::p


A homers take on it.

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

The Neil Rackers miss:

Quote:

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.

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.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

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.

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

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.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

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.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

That is a good example. Terrible way to lose a game.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

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.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

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.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

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

Re: The "Non Call"
 

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

Re: The "Non Call"
 

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.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

I agree. Just hope for good judgment.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

sounds like the skillet and the kettle

Re: The "Non Call"
 

LoL... Im not try'n to be an ass or nothing, but i have NO idea were some folks get the rules of football from...

To sum it all up for u all... YES, the ball was knocked loose before he grabbed his facemask, but unless the Cards had recovered & had complete control of the ball prior to it, it would've been 15yd penalty & Packer's ball.

The only way the Card's could've gotten the ball, like i said wuz if they had complete posession of it BEFORE the facemask was grabbed!!!

I can promise u all this much... Had there not been a fumble, the official would've called!!!

That sum's it up... Either way though... Ref's obviously did'nt see it & was focused more on the fumble than anything else. I would hate to be the Packer's & lose that way, but its to NO surprise that official's dictate a team winning or losing!!!

Re: The "Non Call"
 

I called Bob Papa and Randy Cross this morning on Sirius to discuss this - unfortunately my cell phone got cut off before I could finish my point.

There cannot be a roughing the passer penalty on a fumble (so I've read anyway on Schefter's twitter). However, the call SHOULD have been an interception which means RTP is in force.

I guarantee you if that ball had hit the ground before Dansby grabbed it and headed towards the end zone, it would have been overturned as an incomplete pass. Terrible job of officiating.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

I blame making a bunch of sissy rules up that are difficult to enforce, and determine game outcomes. This wouldn't be an issue 10-20 years ago.

Also notice how everytime a receiver misses a catch he looks for a flag? This is going to get worse than soccer or the NBA.

He got smacked,lost the ball, play football.

I could care less who one that game.

Rant done

Re: The "Non Call"
 

With you there completely. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Keep your lip shut and get on with it. O/T - It makes "soccer" games stupid. And the NBA already allow drawing the foul so play to the flag / whistle. :mad:

Re: The "Non Call"
 

Not true... if defensive play puts his hand in the face of the QB or blow to the head while he is in the pocket, I don't care what happens its 'roughing the passer'. If its an INT or fumble by the QB then that team/QB maintains possession 15 yards and a first down.

The ball didn't hit the ground so its really not up for debate weather it applies to the tuck rule or not.

By the letter of the rule the Ref judges the intent of the QB weather he is passing or tucking. If the Ref feels he is neither passing or tucking and the Cardnial player simply knocked the ball out of his hand then its a fumble. Its really another judgment call and based on my viewing of the play even in slow-mo I'd call it a fumble because the intent of thowing the ball isn't there at that moment. The QB's intent was to dodge being hit by evidence of the play.

What some people tend to forget this is a game that leaves a lot to be inturpret. Even some of the rules or left up for the refs judgement. some of the rules aren't so hard fast, black and white.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

I bet you wouldnt feel that way if that happened to us...it was bad officiating..lets hope those damn zebras dont ruin our season..

Re: The "Non Call"
 

Agreed, and something should be done. I wouldn't call a penalty, but I'd inform players that paychecks will be docked for visibly complaining about calls or visibly begging for calls.

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"
 

Re-watch the play. It's obvious Rogers was passing/tucking, as his arm clearly moves forward, stops, and the ball comes out. If the ball had hit the ground it would have been ruled an incomplete pass.
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"
 

Because according to Adam Schefter, the reason that roughing the passer was not called when they hit Rogers was due to the fumble. Can't have RTP on a fumble. You CAN, however, have it on an interception - just ask Vilma and Sharper from the Giants game.
It changes the whole dynamic of that last play.

Re: The "Non Call"
 

you and me both Kemosabe. Not that I think
the Cardinals will be easy, but I had a bad feeling about the Packers matching up with us this year.