The "Non Call"

exile · 01-11-2010, 01:45 PM

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.

YouTube- Aaron Rodgers nearly gets his facemask ripped off on National TV and Nobody Notices

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.

Euphoria · 01-11-2010, 03:04 PM

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.

exile · 01-11-2010, 03:10 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.

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.

cargojon · 01-11-2010, 03:23 PM

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

neugey · 01-11-2010, 03:41 PM

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.

Budsdrinker · 01-11-2010, 03:42 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, 03:49 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, 03:50 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, 03:54 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, 03:59 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.

01-11-2010, 03:04 PM	#2
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 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.

01-11-2010, 03:10 PM	#3
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	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. 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.
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	Last edited by exile; 01-11-2010 at 03:13 PM..

01-11-2010, 03:23 PM	#4
cargojon 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 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 576

01-11-2010, 03:41 PM	#5
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,697 Blog Entries: 13	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.

01-11-2010, 03:42 PM	#6
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.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-11-2010, 03:49 PM	#7
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, 03:50 PM	#8
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 03:55 PM..

01-11-2010, 03:54 PM	#9
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, 03:59 PM	#10
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.

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 02:35 PM	1