Cheesey
16 years ago

I'm not going to complain about a call like this when we sucked as bad as we did.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



So true.

I stepped away from the game for a few of minutes with the score 10-21, came back and saw we were leading 24-21.... I was ready to slap myself silly to make sure I wasn't dreaming.

"IronMan" wrote:


You're already silly......no need to slap yourself.
UserPostedImage
Formo
16 years ago

Actually, it's been reported several times it was a bad call and should not have been flagged. As has been said many times, if the ball was caught it would have been a legal pass, but since it was not caught it was not?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Of course it wouldn't have been called.. Because it wouldn't have been an intentional grounding call.. which is what the REAL penalty is.

The problem is.. Like I said before.. There is not a single WR, now or past, that would have been able to catch that 'pass'. None. Which would deem said 'pass' as one with no realistic chance of being caught. Which would rule as... Yup. You guessed it.

Intentional grounding.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
16 years ago

It was B.S. period.
Rodgers threw the ball underhand in the area of a receiver.
Thats ALL he had to do in that situation.
Thats NOT an illegal pass OR intentional grounding.
The refs don't even know the rules they are supposed to be inforcing.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Actually the rule for intentional grounding says ball has to land AT or beyond los..

the ball landed at the 8.5 yard line los was the 10

"Formo" wrote:


Not if there is a receiver in the area, which there was.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Just because he's out of pocket, doesn't disqualify the intentional grounding call. Because he was out of the pocket (which could be argued either way), the other prerequisite is the ball has to land at or BEYOND the line of scrimmage, regardless of a receiver having a REALISTIC CHANCE of catching the ball. And, sorry, no receiver, now or ever, would have had any sort of chance of catching that ball. Because the ball came up short of the line of scrimmage, the intentional grounding call is good.

Also, to look at it realistically, I think it's safe to say that Rodgers wasn't attempting any sort of pass. He was simply just trying to get rid of it to avoid a sack/safety. Isn't that, by definition, an 'intentional grounding'?

The call is good. The way they announced it was bad.

"longtimefan" wrote:


Then any pass that falls incomplete that doesn't pass the line of scrimmage should be flagged, right?
If a player is in the area, it's not grounding. Thats the rule. There WAS a player in the area. THEY make up the damn rules and don't even know how to enforce them. Had there NOT been a receiver there, i'd agree with the intentional grounding. But he WAS there. Thats makes a HUGE difference.

"Cheesey" wrote:



http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/intentionalgrounding 
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
dfosterf
16 years ago
OK then, PLAN B EXCUSE:

This just posted on PFT:
Peterson should have been penalized near end of game 

Scroll down to it. Watch the video. This WOULD have changed the game. I shall tag this as excuse 2B :icon_smile:

Posted by Mike Florio on November 11, 2008, 5:17 p.m.

"Apart from the well-documented confusion regarding the illegal forward pass call that gave the Vikings two extra points in a game they won by one, readers continue to raise with us the contention that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson removed his helmet after scoring the decisive touchdown with 2:22 to play, and that the Vikings should have drawn a 15-yard penalty.

So, in an effort to get them to leave us alone fulfill our mission of embracing the issues that PFT Planets wants us to tackle, we decided to give the matter a look-see.

And theyre right.

The rule is clear; per Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1(h), the removal of a helmet during or after the play except when in the bench area constitutes unsportsmanlike conduct.

Even more clear is the fact that Peterson took his helmet off (or, perhaps more accurately given the thing that Peterson was wearing on his head, took it out) promptly after scoring. Heres the video forward to 2:35.





Thus, the Vikings should have been kicking off from their own 15, which would have changed the entire dynamic for the Packers potential game-winning drive.

Bottom line? Minnesotas 28-27 win carries almost as much tarnish as Denvers Week Two win over San Diego."


___________________________________

Here is a shorter and crappier version of what Florio put up. If you want to see the good one, click on the link above.

[youtube]a7RKew_e1k4[/youtube]
Cheesey
16 years ago
I guess rules arn't enforced all the way around fairly.
I guess AP gets the "star" treatment already, and isn't held by the nasty ol' rulebook.
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
16 years ago

I guess rules arn't enforced all the way around fairly.
I guess AP gets the "star" treatment already, and isn't held by the nasty ol' rulebook.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Cheese, as our (for now) "unofficial" elected official, why don't you you take a moment to act as our "counter-parlimentarian" with Formo? HE's the one whippin' out rule-books! (SEE HIS LAST POST IN THIS THREAD :icon_smile: )
Zero2Cool
16 years ago
Oh please, Adrian removed his helmet twice on the field that should have been flagged. Still wouldn't have made a difference.

Adrian Peterson had our number, period. Nothing was going to change that, no excuse, no flag, no nothing. Maybe a broken leg, that's it.

Get over it already. (says the guy who's still pissed about the Titans loss)
UserPostedImage
Packnic
16 years ago
Both of those bogus made and unmade calls hurt us.


but its not gonna change anything at all. we still lost. they won one game out of the last 6... i say let em have this one. we don't want to make our domination too obvious.
blank
Packnic
16 years ago

Oh please, Adrian removed his helmet twice on the field that should have been flagged. Still wouldn't have made a difference.

Adrian Peterson had our number, period. Nothing was going to change that, no excuse, no flag, no nothing. Maybe a broken leg, that's it.

Get over it already. (says the guy who's still pissed about the Titans loss)

"Zero2Cool" wrote:




so you don't think them kicking from their own 15 for our 2 minute drill would have made a difference?
blank
dfosterf
16 years ago
If we had scored a touchdown, gotten ahead, but called for a helmet coming off with a little over 2 minutes to go, kicked from the 15, lost the game to a field goal... Someone would be mad. Mad at our player. Mad at our coaches. It didn't happen, to us or them. I'll go back to the golf analogy. There is a fine line between hero and goat. I don't much give a damn about the "no call". They cleaned our clocks, period. This board would be whistling a little bit different tune about our players, coaches and penalties had they made that call and a different outcome ensued...I'm just sayin' ...
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.
dfosterf (7h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo
Zero2Cool (8h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha
wpr (9h) : Tomorrow is almost here.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?
packerfanoutwest (9h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him
Zero2Cool (11h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : don't care
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
wpr (22-Apr) : now 3
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?
beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
4m / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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