Official Lions studs and duds

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Yes it was, but your post said they've won without Gronk, which they have not done.

I don't think he said that, just that it was their first loss and they lost Gronk that game.

 

[Carl]

I don't think he said that, just that it was their first loss and they lost Gronk that game.

Upon reading his first post, you're right it doesn't say they've won without him. It does talk about him being out though and the Patriots still doing well. They are now 0-2 with him hurt.

 

[sschind]

Actually, I think the rule is defined pretty well. Here is the definition from the NLF rule book:

GRASPING FACEMASK
Article 5
No player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.
Penalty: For twisting, turning, or pulling the mask: Loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may
be disqualified if the action is judged by the official (s) to be of a flagrant nature.
A.R. 12.12
Third-and-10 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who incidentally grasps A1’s
facemask on the tackle, but it is not a twist, turn, or pull.
Ruling:
A’s ball, fourth-and-seven, on A33. No Foul

In real time, I think the refs made the right call as it definitely looked like a facemask. But reviewing it in slow motion I don't think it was, according to the rule as stated above (and confirmed by the example given which says as long as there is no twist, turn or pull then it is not a penalty).

While I'm glad the penalty was called, this is the exact type of play that supports my belief that any play should be able to be reviewed.

Had they not called a penalty should the play been review able from the Packers side. Do you want the coaches to be able to call for a review every play when they see a hold that wasn't called. Even if you take it out of the coaches hands and put it in the booth do you want the booth officials to be able to call the head official and say you missed a hold on that one?

Yes I do understand what I support. I think you don't understand what that means. Evidently you are under the false impression, like many others, that just because more types of plays are reviewable then that would slow the game down since more plays would be reviewed. Expanding the types of plays that can be reviewed does not expand the number of challenges a coach has available. They are still limited to 2 challenges (3 if their first 2 are upheld). They just would be able to challenge more types of plays, not increase the number of challenged plays.

Except inside of two minutes and on scoring plays and on turnovers. If a player scores a TD and the booth officials watch the replay and confirm he did cross the goal line but they notice a hold do they have to call the hold and nullify the TD?

The refs can't call for a review under 2 minutes anyway, it comes from the replay booth. I'm not saying every play should be reviewed, but if there is a play that has a big impact on the game and there is some question about it, then it should be able to be reviewed, including penalties IMO.

So on top of having to make a call at full speed the refs will have to decide whether of not the play will have a big impact on the game. It seems to me that you want to make it so the refs have less of an impact in the game but you are giving them more opportunities to do so

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Like Mondio says I don't think expanding the role of replay will benefit the game. Lets assume the play was reviewable. They watch it and decide it wasn't a facemask after all (still a judgement by the way) game over the Lions win. Except now everyon who was happy before is now pissed and everyone who was pissed is now happy and you still have the same number of people screaming they got it wrong, its just the opposite people. All is good though because YOU think they got it right.

 

[thisisnate]

He said straight up that his mind can't be changed on the matter. Stop trying lol

 

[sschind]

Had the Vikings moved, I would have switched.. Wasn't going to follow them out of MN.

we would have thrown you back.

 

[sschind]

If a play is obviously called incorrectly by the refs, why not? Isn't the point of replay to get the call right?

So who determines if the play is obviously called incorrectly. The reason they are called controversial calls is becaus half the people agree and the other half don't (or at least a large percentage) change the call and all you do is change the people who disagree. You may think that no facemask is the obvious correct call but plenty of others think it was called correctly. There are people who think the fail mary was called correctly and I'm not just talking Seahawks fans and Packer haters.

 

[sschind]

Because that would definitely slow down the game, which I don't want. I think the 2 challenges per team is sufficient, no one has been screaming for more challenges. I just don't want blatant missed calls to cost a team a game, that's all.

You mean you don't want blatant missed calls to cost a team a game as long as they have challenges left. A missed call is a missed call why should the fact that a team is out of challenges be the difference in the game.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Had they not called a penalty should the play been review able from the Packers side. Do you want the coaches to be able to call for a review every play when they see a hold that wasn't called. Even if you take it out of the coaches hands and put it in the booth do you want the booth officials to be able to call the head official and say you missed a hold on that one?



Except inside of two minutes and on scoring plays and on turnovers. If a player scores a TD and the booth officials watch the replay and confirm he did cross the goal line but they notice a hold do they have to call the hold and nullify the TD?



So on top of having to make a call at full speed the refs will have to decide whether of not the play will have a big impact on the game. It seems to me that you want to make it so the refs have less of an impact in the game but you are giving them more opportunities to do so

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Like Mondio says I don't think expanding the role of replay will benefit the game. Lets assume the play was reviewable. They watch it and decide it wasn't a facemask after all (still a judgement by the way) game over the Lions win. Except now everyon who was happy before is now pissed and everyone who was pissed is now happy and you still have the same number of people screaming they got it wrong, its just the opposite people. All is good though because YOU think they got it right.

Hey, it's just my opinion that any play should be able to be reviewed, especially when the game is on the line. It really doesn't matter what you or I think. But I won't be surprised if they expand replay in the future if the number of missed calls go up and cost teams games.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

So who determines if the play is obviously called incorrectly. The reason they are called controversial calls is becaus half the people agree and the other half don't (or at least a large percentage) change the call and all you do is change the people who disagree. You may think that no facemask is the obvious correct call but plenty of others think it was called correctly. There are people who think the fail mary was called correctly and I'm not just talking Seahawks fans and Packer haters.

What part of obvious don't you understand? If a play is controversial (in other words there is no visual evidence to prove one way or the other) then you let the play stand as called. But if there is indisputable (obvious) evidence that a call was ruled incorrectly, what's the harm of correcting it? It's no different than the plays that can be reviewed now, if there is indisputable evidence they called it wrong they overturn it. I know some plays like pass interference are judgement calls, but if there is evidence that the judgement was incorrect why can't it be changed? For example, a receiver and db are running side by side going for a pass and the receiver falls down - the ref thinks that he fell because of contact and throws the flag. But looking at the replay there is 'obvious' evidence that the db didn't touch the receiver and he just tripped on his own, they should be able to overturn it. I agree that there are some things like holding that just can't be reviewed, but other penalties can and should be able to be reviewed.

As far as the Fail Mary, if they were able to review that play it was definitely obvious to everyone that Tate pushed the defender down before he caught the pass - so that would have been offensive pass interference and there is no way you are going to say that wasn't obvious.

 

[Carl]

So who determines if the play is obviously called incorrectly. The reason they are called controversial calls is becaus half the people agree and the other half don't (or at least a large percentage) change the call and all you do is change the people who disagree. You may think that no facemask is the obvious correct call but plenty of others think it was called correctly. There are people who think the fail mary was called correctly and I'm not just talking Seahawks fans and Packer haters.

Anyone who thinks the fail Mary was correct has no idea what he/she is talking about.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

He said straight up that his mind can't be changed on the matter. Stop trying lol

No, I said YOU can't change my mind.

 

[Mondio]

As far as the Fail Mary, if they were able to review that play it was definitely obvious to everyone that Tate pushed the defender down before he caught the pass - so that would have been offensive pass interference and there is no way you are going to say that wasn't obvious.

OR, you don't have replay at all, officials aren't coached and mentally prepared to call on the side of caution, and will call things they don't see, JUST so replay can sort it out later and make sure the "correct" call was made. At no point in the interception did I see the Seahawk guy catch it. Not saying the officials didn't see it differently or wouldn't have, but right now the refs are coached to call a certain way on those plays and let replay sort it out. I'd rather they just have strong wits and keen eyes and the balls to stand by a call. I'm sick of the former officials giving me 3 different excuses a game for why a call was correct in the tv broadcast, when the same thing happened in the 1st half and was called the exact opposite. and the weekly deluge of complaints to the league and their list of reasons why. Just let me enjoy a game. They haven't added anything but more controversy and less consistency with officiating with replay.

Does it have to be obvious at full speed, 1/2 speed, what about if they slow it down to 1/10th speed. What's "obvious"? It was obvious to me he didn't catch it, but we intercepted it from the time it happened thru every replay. So much for that idea. and you can find a penalty on every single play in the NFL. I see so many hands under face masks on the line from both sides that never get mentioned and then suddenly they do. and holding calls, so many guys going thru the line, an arm goes around their neck and they pull them right down, no call, then a hand pushes a shoulder pad and they call holding on the next. It irritates the crap out of me, but in no way do I ever want those to be reviewable penalties again. I'd rather they just keep evaluating officials and doing their work behind the scenes.

 

[Sky King]

No, I said YOU can't change my mind.

Sorry, I don't meant to butt-into this private pie-fight, but isn't Muellenberg the town in Germany where all the citizens are stubborn as mules?

 

[PFanCan]

BTW, how many screens should they run? They should run them at least until the defense stops 'em.

Was away from keyboard this weekend, but your answer would have been exactly my answer. Agreed!

 

[PFanCan]

Its ok..

I have seen fans here blast raptor before and just wanted to make it clear rap isnt a troll

He is worse than a troll. He is a Viking fan.

 

[Half Empty]

Was away from keyboard this weekend, but your answer would have been exactly my answer. Agreed!

And, at least you weren't posting from your phone.

 

[JBlood]

Typing on my phone in grocery line at the time, guess it was confusing.

I dont think it was even in the area of jersey that could be horse collar...that is what I 1st thought then looked into the rule...Hard to find a rule for this..but found this...

So I am pretty sure it couldnt have been a horse collar at all for the spot of the grab and the actual area Rodgers was on the field.



When ball was snapped, it was between the hash marks...Then after the ball was lateraled a few times and he got it back, he was inside the hash marks, and there wasnt a clear pocket for him anymore...

He was a runner outside the box pulled down by inside of jersey = horse collar.

 

[JBlood]

Final point is: lucky win.

 

[PFanCan]

Final point is: lucky win.

Even blind squirrels find nuts.

 

[JBlood]

Even blind squirrels find nuts.

Yeah but they work hard at it

 

[TJV]

Final point is: lucky win.

Yes, just like the Lions win in their first meeting, right? After all, what are the odds of Crosby missing a 52-yard FG in perfect conditions?

And just like the Bears win at Lambeau – how often does a Rodgers led offense fail to score a TD with 7 attempts in the red zone, including four inside the 10? Was that great defense or a couple of crucial dropped passes?

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

OR, you don't have replay at all, officials aren't coached and mentally prepared to call on the side of caution, and will call things they don't see, JUST so replay can sort it out later and make sure the "correct" call was made. At no point in the interception did I see the Seahawk guy catch it. Not saying the officials didn't see it differently or wouldn't have, but right now the refs are coached to call a certain way on those plays and let replay sort it out. I'd rather they just have strong wits and keen eyes and the balls to stand by a call. I'm sick of the former officials giving me 3 different excuses a game for why a call was correct in the tv broadcast, when the same thing happened in the 1st half and was called the exact opposite. and the weekly deluge of complaints to the league and their list of reasons why. Just let me enjoy a game. They haven't added anything but more controversy and less consistency with officiating with replay.

Does it have to be obvious at full speed, 1/2 speed, what about if they slow it down to 1/10th speed. What's "obvious"? It was obvious to me he didn't catch it, but we intercepted it from the time it happened thru every replay. So much for that idea. and you can find a penalty on every single play in the NFL. I see so many hands under face masks on the line from both sides that never get mentioned and then suddenly they do. and holding calls, so many guys going thru the line, an arm goes around their neck and they pull them right down, no call, then a hand pushes a shoulder pad and they call holding on the next. It irritates the crap out of me, but in no way do I ever want those to be reviewable penalties again. I'd rather they just keep evaluating officials and doing their work behind the scenes.

What does the speed have to do with it? If it is obvious at any speed - then wouldn't that make it obvious/indisputable evidence? I am sick and tired of incompetent refs making horrible calls that can't be reviewed.

 

[Mondio]

What does the speed have to do with it? If it is obvious at any speed - then wouldn't that make it obvious/indisputable evidence? I am sick and tired of incompetent refs making horrible calls that can't be reviewed.

how can I explain to you that what is "obvious" to you, is not "obvious" to the next guy and what is "obvious" to them is NOT "obvious" to you. Take a poll today on the fail mary, ask ten thousand people what they thought. If it's not at least 50/50 or more in favor of it being an INT and not a completion for a TD I'd be surprised.

Take a poll on the Dez Bryant non-catch last year, I bet you have a whole lot of controversy and nothing is "obvious" about it.

I think replay is only going to make refs more incompetent. and if speed has nothing to do with it, why do they slow it down for replay?

 

[JBlood]

Yes, just like the Lions win in their first meeting, right? After all, what are the odds of Crosby missing a 52-yard FG in perfect conditions?

And just like the Bears win at Lambeau – how often does a Rodgers led offense fail to score a TD with 7 attempts in the red zone, including four inside the 10? Was that great defense or a couple of crucial dropped passes?

Crosby has made 4 of 5 fg attempts this year and 51.9% of attempts 50+ yds for his carreer. So i'd say there was a 20 to 50% chance of him missing one. Much better than a ~ 1% chance of completing a 60+ yd hail mary. Packers have been about average in red zone td success at ~54%, so unusual not to score a few in 7 tries. The common denominator in all 3 games was terrible offensive play, which I think has little to do with luck. We were lucky to win 1 of them in spite of it.

 

[Half Empty]

Yes, just like the Lions win in their first meeting, right? After all, what are the odds of Crosby missing a 52-yard FG in perfect conditions?Just over 50%

And just like the Bears win at Lambeau – how often does a Rodgers led offense fail to score a TD with 7 attempts in the red zone, including four inside the 10? Was that great defense or a couple of crucial dropped passes?