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
Zero2Cool (13m) : if you're on mobile, open the menu and its the "sun" icon
dfosterf (14m) : Can't find the toggle, lol
dfosterf (15m) : I can find that the Microsoft lady rep for Titletown Tech is the philanthropy boss for the entire Microsoft corporation, but. .
Zero2Cool (20m) : There's a toggle for light/dark theme. Super easy.
dfosterf (49m) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
dfosterf (1h) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
dfosterf (1h) : *Friday*
dfosterf (1h) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
dfosterf (1h) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
dfosterf (1h) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
dfosterf (1h) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (1h) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
dfosterf (1h) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
dfosterf (1h) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
packerfanoutwest (1h) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
beast (1h) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
beast (1h) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
beast (1h) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
beast (1h) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
dfosterf (2h) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
dfosterf (2h) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
dfosterf (2h) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
dfosterf (2h) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
beast (8h) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
19m / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.