Injuries

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Pass interference has to be one of the most difficult calls to make.
It can be a total judgement call and I will admit, the refs were at least inconsistent on both sides, calling a PI on a long throw to Davante, when I think there was mutual contact. I love long completions, but I think way to many times a defender gets nailed for putting his hands on the receiver, which the receivers seem to also do quite frequently and get away with it. I also think Receivers are getting better and better at being able to milk that call from a ref.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,058
Reaction score
825
This one seems to be eating at you?

As with many calls, it is a fast wham bam and over. While I understand how a ref can blink or have a bad angle and get the call wrong, for those reasons and others, these are the ones a booth official would get correct. After that game last night, I am more convinced than I ever was, there needs to be a ref in the booth.

Its only eating me because some players truly do spear or lead with their head in a dirty hit or even malicious (Burfict type). If Savage did this exact hit I'd hate to see folks labeling him such - and I also despise fan hypocrisy to the highest level. Play deserved a foul 100% but folks gotta pump the brakes on how they're discussing for sure.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,058
Reaction score
825
I guess you just cannot lose.

Nor can those that are saying it is dirty...however I've not seen an argument either by description or in footage that defends it being dirty, leading with his head or spearing.

Contact through the hit occurred with Davante's head, flag immediately should have been thrown - it is beyond that which I begin to not agree with many.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,046
Reaction score
1,542
Saw Jones, Scantling, Barnes and Sullivan were injured/limping last night. Any details out yet? What about Jenkins for the Steeler game? What is the initial injury situation on the Steelers looking like?

The Packers will announce an official injury report on Wednesday. You need to be patient until then.

Can't wait to hear the NFL explain that blown no-call as they level a fine on the guy who speared Davante.

The NFL didn't care talking about not throwing a flag on the play but rather concentrated on the concussion protocol having been followed:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!


Pass interference has to be one of the most difficult calls to make.

I agree, but there's no argument to be made the one on Stokes shown in the video above should have been called.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,266
Reaction score
855
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Before the ball arrived, Stokes put his hand on the WR who subsequently fell down. That is a fact. Contact before the ball arrives generally leads to a PI flag being thrown unless the contact is virtually simultaneous. We can argue all day about whether or not the contact rose to the level of PI, but to say there is no argument is turning a blind eye to the contact initiated by Stokes before the ball arrived. It is clear and undeniable contact.

I agree with those that believe the flag shouldn't have been thrown, but I understand why it was. Coupled with all of the other bad calls Sunday night, it makes it seem more egregious.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Before the ball arrived, Stokes put his hand on the WR who subsequently fell down. That is a fact. Contact before the ball arrives generally leads to a PI flag being thrown unless the contact is virtually simultaneous. We can argue all day about whether or not the contact rose to the level of PI, but to say there is no argument is turning a blind eye to the contact initiated by Stokes before the ball arrived. It is clear and undeniable contact.

I agree with those that believe the flag shouldn't have been thrown, but I understand why it was. Coupled with all of the other bad calls Sunday night, it makes it seem more egregious.
Like I said, the PI calls were bad, but probably equally bad on both sides, so they wash out. I had a bigger problem with the no call on the Adams hit to the head, "completion" to Sanu, the roughing the Passer on JA, not calling intentional grounding and the poor spotting if the ball after each play. The last issue is one that also probably balances out in the end, but if the refs don't know where to spot the ball after a play, get someone upstairs to simply say after each play "spot ball on ....".
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,046
Reaction score
1,542
Before the ball arrived, Stokes put his hand on the WR who subsequently fell down. That is a fact. Contact before the ball arrives generally leads to a PI flag being thrown unless the contact is virtually simultaneous. We can argue all day about whether or not the contact rose to the level of PI, but to say there is no argument is turning a blind eye to the contact initiated by Stokes before the ball arrived. It is clear and undeniable contact.

I agree with those that believe the flag shouldn't have been thrown, but I understand why it was. Coupled with all of the other bad calls Sunday night, it makes it seem more egregious.

I'm sorry but if the contact by Stokes warrants throwing a flag for pass interference they need to stop playing football.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
1,036
Its only eating me because some players truly do spear or lead with their head in a dirty hit or even malicious (Burfict type). If Savage did this exact hit I'd hate to see folks labeling him such - and I also despise fan hypocrisy to the highest level. Play deserved a foul 100% but folks gotta pump the brakes on how they're discussing for sure.
No you are not alone. That Adam’s hit was egregious and should’ve involved an ejection at minimum. Several inches this way or that could’ve ended a players season or career.
Had it been his leading shoulder or arm that’s not nearly as severe. Even then it’s hitting a defenseless receiver. That’s a poorly coached player that still will not make attempts at fixing his issue.

I’m convinced that player will continue to do it again until he ends his career or someone else’s. That will be 100% a shared responsibility of the NFL for allowing it to go unpunished (sweeping it under the rug).
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
I'm sorry but if the contact by Stokes warrants throwing a flag for pass interference they need to stop playing football.
Agreed, but I also think one that they called against SF (pass was to Davante) wasn't correct either. WR's are getting really good at learning how to either draw the penalty and/or fake it. Refs are way too quick with that flag IMO. I never liked the pro rule anyway, marking the ball at the spot of the foul automatically assumes the ball would have been caught. Too stiff of a penalty.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
1,036
Before the ball arrived, Stokes put his hand on the WR who subsequently fell down.

I agree with those that believe the flag shouldn't have been thrown, but I understand why it was. Coupled with all of the other bad calls Sunday night, it makes it seem more egregious.
I agree with the first part. He touched his shoulder in what appears to gauge his distance. That could easily be to make sure he stays close enough but doesn’t interfere with the receiver.
We both know of hundreds of cases in every game where defenders touch receivers (past 5 yards) and there are no fouls called.

Show us the official rule stating that touching is not allowed past 5 yards.
 
Last edited:

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,058
Reaction score
825
No you are not alone. That Adam’s hit was egregious and should’ve involved an ejection at minimum. Several inches this way or that could’ve ended a players season or career.
Had it been his leading shoulder or arm that’s not nearly as severe. Even then it’s hitting a defenseless receiver. That’s a poorly coached player that still will not make attempts at fixing his issue.

I’m convinced that player will continue to do it again until he ends his career or someone else’s. That will be 100% a shared responsibility of the NFL for allowing it to go unpunished (sweeping it under the rug).

It was his left shoulder which contacted first though.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
300
Like I said, the PI calls were bad, but probably equally bad on both sides, so they wash out. I had a bigger problem with the no call on the Adams hit to the head, "completion" to Sanu, the roughing the Passer on JA, not calling intentional grounding and the poor spotting if the ball after each play. The last issue is one that also probably balances out in the end, but if the refs don't know where to spot the ball after a play, get someone upstairs to simply say after each play "spot ball on ....".
I agree. I'm not really concerned about that aspect of it. But there was no reason for him to put his hand on the guy. He's a rookie. Known for guarding maybe too close in college. He isn't getting any benefits of doubts. Good lesson for him...I hope.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,266
Reaction score
855
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I'm sorry but if the contact by Stokes warrants throwing a flag for pass interference they need to stop playing football.
I generally agree with you, but the rule is clear that one of the reasons an official will throw a flag for PI is "(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving"

The moment Stokes puts his hand on the WR, right or wrong he opened up the possibility of getting the flag. The official should adequately judge if the contact restricted the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,266
Reaction score
855
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I agree with the first part. He touched his shoulder in what appears to gauge his distance. That could easily be to make sure he stays close enough but doesn’t interfere with the receiver.
We both know of hundreds of cases in every game where defenders touch receivers (past 5 yards) and there are no fouls called.

Show us the official rule stating that touching is not allowed past 5 yards.
The rule is shoving. I posted it above. The moment you extend your arm and make contact, you are inviting a referee to make a judgement call on whether it is incidental contact or a shove that restricted the WRs opportunity to make the catch. The fact that the WR immediately fell down upon contact makes the flag even more likely.

We all agree that it probably shouldn't have been called.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
1,036
The rule is shoving. I posted it above. The moment you extend your arm and make contact, you are inviting a referee to make a judgement call on whether it is incidental contact or a shove that restricted the WRs opportunity to make the catch. The fact that the WR immediately fell down upon contact makes the flag even more likely.

We all agree that it probably shouldn't have been called.
I gotcha you’re just playing devils advocate. I do understand sometimes they make a call in real-time because it looks like they were “shoved” and obviously were human snd make mistakes. But yeah this was a mistake.
The good news is it does did not ultimately cost us the game.

Hopefully King will be in injury status with a very minor illness rest of the season (saying that jokingly).
Stokes looks incredible and what a difference he makes. Take out the weak link at DB it just changes the backfield dynamic.
 

Poppa San

Levelheaded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
10,661
Reaction score
1,205
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
Take King out of the game plan and the opponent will immediately game plan to attack the rookie. I'm not sure he's ready to diagnose some of the routes that will be thrown at him. Leave the opponent guessing will minimize that.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,046
Reaction score
1,542
I never liked the pro rule anyway, marking the ball at the spot of the foul automatically assumes the ball would have been caught. Too stiff of a penalty.

I don't want defensive backs to tackle receivers on a deep pass before the ball arrives when in a bad position to prevent a completion and instead only being penalized 15 yards.

I agree with the first part. He touched his shoulder in what appears to gauge his distance. That could easily be to make sure he stays close enough but doesn’t interfere with the receiver.
We both know of hundreds of cases in every game where defenders touch receivers (past 5 yards) and there are no fouls called.

Show us the official rule stating that touching is not allowed past 5 yards.

Here's the pass interference rule out of the league's rule book for this season. The bold parts are the important ones when talking about the flag thrown on Stokes.

Taking a look at those two points there's absolutely no way that Stokes creating separation by shoving or restricted the receiver in any way to catch the ball.

Therefore the penalty should be considered BS.

PROHIBITED ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR.
Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:
a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch;
(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball;
(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass;
(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;
(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving; or
(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating separation.
Note: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

PERMISSIBLE ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR.
Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:
(a) Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.
(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.
(d) Laying a hand on an opponent that does not restrict him in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(e) Contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball.


I agree. I'm not really concerned about that aspect of it. But there was no reason for him to put his hand on the guy. He's a rookie. Known for guarding maybe too close in college. He isn't getting any benefits of doubts. Good lesson for him...I hope.

Stokes didn't do anything that should have been considered a foul.

I generally agree with you, but the rule is clear that one of the reasons an official will throw a flag for PI is "(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving"

The moment Stokes puts his hand on the WR, right or wrong he opened up the possibility of getting the flag. The official should adequately judge if the contact restricted the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.

You forgot to mention the part that reads "thus creating separation". He definitely didn't do that.

The rule is shoving. I posted it above. The moment you extend your arm and make contact, you are inviting a referee to make a judgement call on whether it is incidental contact or a shove that restricted the WRs opportunity to make the catch. The fact that the WR immediately fell down upon contact makes the flag even more likely.

Stokes did absolutely nothing to restrict the receiver from catching the ball.

Hopefully King will be in injury status with a very minor illness rest of the season (saying that jokingly).
Stokes looks incredible and what a difference he makes. Take out the weak link at DB it just changes the backfield dynamic.

Once again, King is most likely an upgrade over Sullivan in the slot.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
I don't want defensive backs to tackle receivers on a deep pass before the ball arrives when in a bad position to prevent a completion and instead only being penalized 15 yards.
Not sure if you follow college football, but that is the rule that they use and I have never seen or heard people complaining about what you are describing.

To be consistent, the NFL rule in the case of offensive pass interference should award the ball to the defense at the spot of the ball, no?
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
13,001
Reaction score
1,467
Besides swapping Stokes for king, we were getting pressure consistently. It wasn’t unrelenting domination but it was a pretty consistent squeeze for most plays. We also did pretty well against the run.

I really liked what I saw from Stokes, don’t get me wrong. He should be the starter outside from here in out. But I think our D was better more so because of what was happening up front that behind.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Take King out of the game plan and the opponent will immediately game plan to attack the rookie. I'm not sure he's ready to diagnose some of the routes that will be thrown at him. Leave the opponent guessing will minimize that.
As opposed to what they have been doing....attacking King?

What you are proposing won't really matter, especially to a good QB. The OC and the QB are going to notice who is playing and probably attack the weakest link or at least try. I think Stokes held up pretty good against San Fran and can see a case for him getting the start. I know a lot of people are screaming for King to be cut, but what does that get you? His salary was already locked in and I doubt even if another team picks him up, that the Packers will be relieved of much cap. Keep him for depth and spot duty, he isn't great, but they could do a lot worse.

I also agree with other posters that are pointing to the fact that getting pressure on the QB is a key component in how well the DB's hold up. Give the QB all day and he is eventually going to find an open receiver.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,266
Reaction score
855
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Stokes is going to get picked on, but I think that he is ready for it. He gives us a better chance on the outside. I am not in favor of cutting King because, besides Sherman who may or may not be serviceable, there are no better prospects sitting out there twiddling their thumbs. A good DB coach and DC should be able to find a role for King. He isn't cutting it as a starter, but the kid still has talent so they need to find a way to better utilize what is there.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
158
Location
Madison, WI
Not sure if you follow college football, but that is the rule that they use and I have never seen or heard people complaining about what you are describing.

Because in the college games, the skill gap exists. And receivers are more likely to be wide open due to blown coverages 30 yards downfield.

There is tighter coverage and more opportunity for this to happen in the pro game.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Because in the college games, the skill gap exists. And receivers are more likely to be wide open due to blown coverages 30 yards downfield.

There is tighter coverage and more opportunity for this to happen in the pro game.
If the receiver is wide open, how do you interfere with them?

The skill gap? The skill gap isn't that much different, since some of the receivers are just as less skilled as some of the DB's in college.

Sounds more like excuses. When was the last time you were watching a college game and the defender intentionally just took down the receiver knowing it would only cost 15 yards and a first down? Currently, in the NFL PI in the endzone results in the ball being spotted at the 1 (college it is the 2), in either case, I don't see defenders intentionally committing PI at either level thinking its better than surrendering the TD.
 
Top