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
dfosterf (21h) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (22h) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (23h) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
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
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

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