Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
hardrocker950
7 years ago

On what are you basing the assumption that it was a conscious decision to not throw a flag on that play as opposed to the referee in question not seeing the contact?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



If he didn't see that, he should find a new job.
Porforis
7 years ago

If he didn't see that, he should find a new job.

Originally Posted by: hardrocker950 



Funny, only one of the six people I was watching with thought anything happened beyond a solid hit to the shoulder in real-time. On replay? Sure. Was the ref in a position where seeing that was possible, with bodies flying about and such? Or is this just a generic "Not good enough, do better" comment in a thread that otherwise seems to be devolving into "The refs stole the game!" thread? I suppose we've blamed everyone else in the book, might as well blame the refs for everything too.
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago
There is contact with the head of a QB on well over 1/2 the QB sacks in the league that by rule could be called and never are. I wouldn't expect the hit on hundley to be flagged nor would I want them to be. Hundley ducked into the contract. Its different than a play where a QB is hit in the head facemask while upright and throwing.

As for PI calls, the inconsistency and slant towards offense makes me sick. There was a call against Martinez that was declined but is an example. The TE releases straight up field and makes contact into Martinez, only to then stop and make his cut. Martinez gets flagged, when it should be offensive PI against the TE. PLays like the Non-call with Adams should not be called as well as the PI that was called against House in the end zone should not be called. The receivers are just as guilty of initiating the contact and getting their hands on the defenders so they can use their arms to push and gain separation which is also illegal. As long as both the receiver and defender are both using their hands and in position to go for the ball, let them play. None of those calls would have made a difference in the game though.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
TheKanataThrilla
7 years ago

There is contact with the head of a QB on well over 1/2 the QB sacks in the league that by rule could be called and never are. I wouldn't expect the hit on hundley to be flagged nor would I want them to be. Hundley ducked into the contract. Its different than a play where a QB is hit in the head facemask while upright and throwing.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 


I managed to get home from the Grey Cup to see the final 2 minutes of the game. Regarding the head hit, I totally agree with PFWT, I blame the contact more on Hundley and did not think it was worthy of a flag. My only issue is that it seems the flag for type of hit depends on the QB being hit. It might have been a flag against Rodgers for instance.


warhawk
7 years ago

I managed to get home from the Grey Cup to see the final 2 minutes of the game. Regarding the head hit, I totally agree with PFWT, I blame the contact more on Hundley and did not think it was worthy of a flag. My only issue is that it seems the flag for type of hit depends on the QB being hit. It might have been a flag against Rodgers for instance.


Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla 


I guess I just look at it a different way. What I saw was that the contact was caused by TJ leading with his helmet, therefore, the contact was initially helmet to helmet, Also, I don't see in the rules where it has to be intentional and I don't think it was but if your going to lead with your helmet and happen to make contact with the QB's helmet it should be a penalty.
I see an unintentional slap to the helmet called all the time where a defensive lineman is trying to get an arm up to bat a ball. I guess because it's easy to see. I don't see where that enters into the spirit of the rule regarding player safety but it's considered a penalty. All I can say if THAT'S a penalty this damn sure should have been also.


"The train is leaving the station."
Zero2Cool
7 years ago

I managed to get home from the Grey Cup to see the final 2 minutes of the game. Regarding the head hit, I totally agree with PFWT, I blame the contact more on Hundley and did not think it was worthy of a flag. My only issue is that it seems the flag for type of hit depends on the QB being hit. It might have been a flag against Rodgers for instance.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla 



Helmet to Helmet has been called quite a bit even if the ball-carrier ducks. I believe the Davante Adams hit that he was concussed he put his head down too.

I was shocked the play wasn't flagged. You could hear the helmets collide. I don't know if it SHOULD have been because there's too damn many rules. I just thought a QB would pull that flag every time.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago

I guess I just look at it a different way. What I saw was that the contact was caused by TJ leading with his helmet, therefore, the contact was initially helmet to helmet, Also, I don't see in the rules where it has to be intentional and I don't think it was but if your going to lead with your helmet and happen to make contact with the QB's helmet it should be a penalty.
I see an unintentional slap to the helmet called all the time where a defensive lineman is trying to get an arm up to bat a ball. I guess because it's easy to see. I don't see where that enters into the spirit of the rule regarding player safety but it's considered a penalty. All I can say if THAT'S a penalty this damn sure should have been also.

Originally Posted by: warhawk 



Usually when the slap to the QB helmet it is because the QB is upright usually throwing which is where they are really trying to protect them. Looking at the helmet contact by Watt. You cant hit a QB high, you can't hit them low, all a defender can do is going for the midsection which is what Watt was doing. I can see why people would want this called as it is really no different than a WR who tucks before contact resulting in helmet contact even though it is clear the defender was trying not hit high. Watt wasn't hitting high, he had his head to the side. Hundley ducked into the contact. If we flag these also just take the defense off the field.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Nonstopdrivel
7 years ago
In the heat of the moment, it looked to me like Hundley was starting to tuck the ball and make a dash for it. As a runner, he would have therefore forfeited any protection from head-to-head contact. (Though I'm not sure if that happens the moment a quarterback initiates a run or only after he leaves the pocket.) On replay, I wasn't as sure that that was actually Hundley's intent, but maybe in real time that's how the official saw it too? Or more probably, he just didn't see the helmet-to-helmet contact.

I do find it interesting that every aspect of a challenged play is reviewable -- except for the de novo imposition or reversal of penalties. If a spot challenge can add or take away a score, it should probably be able to at least reverse egregiously erroneous personal fouls, especially spot fouls that create significant yardage swings. I understand the objection that an infraction could be found on any play, but some penalties have the potential for huge impacts on the outcomes of games and should have to withstand scrutiny. It's unfortunate that the criteria for these penalties often prove to be so subjective (though, in fairness, they're rarely as nebulous as fans seem to think they are).

What if there were an official in New York whose sole job was to review calls that fall under the currently unreviewable category of judgment call?
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
7 years ago

In the heat of the moment, it looked to me like Hundley was starting to tuck the ball and make a dash for it. As a running, he would have therefore forfeited any protection from head-to-head contact. (Though I'm not sure if that happens the moment a quarterback initiates a run or only after he leaves the pocket.) On replay, I wasn't as sure that that was actually Hundley's intent, but maybe in real time that's how the official saw it too? Or more probably, he just didn't see the blow.

I do find it interesting that every aspect of a challenged play is reviewable -- except for the de novo imposition or reversal of penalties. If a spot challenge can add or take away a score, it should probably be able to at least reverse egregiously erroneous personal fouls, especially spot fouls that create significant yardage swings. I understand the objection that an infraction could be found on any play, but some penalties have the potential for huge impacts on the outcomes of games and should have to withstand scrutiny. It's unfortunate that the criteria for these penalties often prove to be so subjective (though, in fairness, they're rarely as nebulous as fans seem to think they are).

What if there were an official in New York whose sole job was to review calls that fall under the currently unreviewable category of judgment call?

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



The "guy in New York" exists, because they need a centralized authority who is aware of who is "supposed" to win each game.

Generally I think the games are real, but the officials tend to boost the team that is behind, in order to maximize ratings with the tv audience. But the playoffs? Would YOU leave a billion dollars to chance?
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Nonstopdrivel
7 years ago
If you have even a sneaking suspicion the games are fixed, why do you still watch them? Where's the fun in a sport that's subject to even the whiff of tampering? If that's what we're reduced to, you might as well take up watching rugby. Which, come to think of it, isn't such a bad idea after all.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (30m) : Kanata, seek help! lol
beast (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status
Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha
TheKanataThrilla (3h) : That was terrible.
TheKanataThrilla (3h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.
beast (3h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent
beast (3h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime
beast (3h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing
Zero2Cool (4h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is
Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true
beast (5h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management
wpr (7h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (15h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (21h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (23h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
30m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

49m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

51m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.