View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:19 pm



Reply to topic  [ 427 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
 Lions-Packers TNF 
Author Message
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Lions-Packers TNF
Reignman wrote:
Image

Well I'm sure everyone is already sick to death about this topic, and maybe I'm a little late to chime in, but here's my 2 cents anyway. I originally thought it was a facemask as well, when it happened live. The way the head jerked, yeah it looked pretty obvious, so I completely understand why the refs threw the flag. It turned out to be the wrong call, and I don't know how anyone can still be denying it now. Penalties can't be reviewed so it is what it is. I don't think (on that particular play) the refs had any bias, they just missed the call.

S197 wrote:
Wasn't a facemask, brushing the facemask isn't a penalty you need to pull it. I can see how a ref would miss it in real time but anyone looking at it on replay and thinks that's a penalty doesn't know the rule. I guarantee there will be talk about it and it will be said it was a bad call.
Nailed it! Jordy you could have saved yourself a whole lot of backlash in this thread if you just said this and moved on.

me4get wrote:
That why refs judgement calls are much BS, calling what they think happened, no what actualling happened, Need to review all calls.
I've been saying this for as long as I can remember. Penalties need to be reviewable. They have just as much impact on a game as any other play. PI and personal fouls definitely need to be reviewable. This game had at least 2 very bad PI calls (see below). Refs are human and they have to call this stuff live so it's understandable if this miss some calls, but there's no reason not to make them reviewable knowing they miss some. They can eliminate a lot of these conspiracy theories.

Jordysghost wrote:
Hell the Fail Mary was a million times more egregious than this even if you guys were correct, lol. Just relax man, im not trying to troll you, ill try to come off as less antagonistic from now on.
And here's the difference with the fail mary. Vikings fans, hell every fan everywhere agrees that the Packers got jobbed. Nobody denies the overwhelming evidence smacking them in the face about it. But guess what? Those were replacement refs and they were all fired by the Thursday night game that week when they brought the real officials back. Think about all the bad calls that came before the fail mary that screwed other teams. The league waited until the Packers got screwed before they finally realized they needed to do something.

Jordysghost wrote:
Can I politely inquire to your opinion on the Abbredaris PI no call? Did you think it was a good no call?
I take it you haven't seen the replay? Abbredaris should have been called for PI, not the Lions. Doesn't look like he's playing the ball to me. Clearly looks like he tackled the defender who was the only one playing the ball. He probably prevented a game ending interception and got away with it. Weird how 2 consecutive calls went the Packers way with the game on the line. I still blame the Lions though, for not being able to defend against a friggin 60 yard hail mary.

Image

Image

Jordysghost wrote:
I'd agree, had his thumb not caused the turn of the facemask.
10 people have shoved the actual rule in your face about this already and you still can't admit it was the wrong call. You can actually grab the facemask now as long as you let go. It's call incidental contact, and this play was about as incidental as it gets. Listen to your own words, "his thumb". The video clearly shows it was an open palm. Can't grasp unless your fingers are curled.

TSonn wrote:
Jordy - it's the "grasping" part of the rule. There was no grasp. The defender never closed his hand or his thumb while it was in the facemask. Sure, the helmet moved. Helmets move on every big hit.

Let's try an experiment - can you grasp a can of soda while using your thumb without bending your thumb?
See this Jordy? It can't be made anymore clear to you.

saint33 wrote:
“No player shall grasp AND control, twist, turn, push, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction"

in case you didn't see it the first time. And then this


"If a player grasps an opponent’s facemask, he must immediately release it. If he does not immediately release it and controls his opponent, it is a foul."
More clarity. How is this not sinking in Jordy? Do you understand language? Now apply what everyone has told you here with the video you see. You have some serious denial going on. Don't worry Jordy, they're not going to take the win away from the Packers if you personally admit it was a bad call. Even if every Packers fan everywhere and the Packers organization themselves begged the league to concede their victory to the Lions, it still wouldn't happen.

TSonn wrote:
Oh, here's a good example of what grasping a facemask looks like: http://imgur.com/b7SdNxA
And sadly that one didn't draw a flag. Teddy has received numerous hits to the head, facemasks, late hits, and hits to the knees that haven't been called. The kid has to get knocked out by a blatant elbow to the dome to actually draw a flag. And even on that play the flag came out pretty late.

Jordysghost wrote:
Likewise! :) feels good to beat them after the refs took our win from us last time thanks to non called PIs and tried to do the same again, Ill enjoy this one for sure.
If you want people to believe you, you have to produce your own evidence. Most of us didn't get to watch that game. But you know what I didn't see or hear about? The entire country talking about how the Packers got jobbed in that game, only Packers fans. Unlike this game where the whole country seems to be in agreement that the Lions got jobbed. My brother is a lifelong Packers fan and he even said it was a bad call.

Skoltastic_Voyage wrote:
the was the stupidest #### PI call I ever saw
Going by the timeline, I think you were talking about this call at the time. The 2nd and 21 bomb from their own 10 yard line. It was probably the right call IMO. Defender interfered with the receiver without playing the ball.
Image

Jordysghost wrote:
Skoltastic_Voyage wrote:
They own you that Pi too? Jesus.


Oh please dude, how was that not PI?

Yes I felt there was a large number of uncalled PI against the Lions last matchup, they don't owe us #### but I fail to see how that wasn't PI just there.

Jordysghost wrote:
Funkytown wrote:
It definitely wasn't. Even the announcers were like, "Uuuuh, I didn't see much there." lol. But you're SO sure it was? Come on...


:confused: It looked like a whole lot of pre throw contact to me. The Rodgers one I disagree with.
The 2nd PI later that half looks to be complete BS though. This was 3rd and 11, Detroit up 17-0 with 5:40 remaining in the half. Thankfully the Packers didn't score after either PI.

Image

Image


Disagree with a couple things but I'd rather take this type of discussion to the officiating thread at this juncture, this thread has been like smoking.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:36 am
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17444
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Lions-Packers TNF
Mothman wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
Did you guys pay Favre alot? I can't remember if he came in on some sort of deal, value wise.


They paid him a lot. It was something like $25 million over 2 years.

It was $20 per year if i recal.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:53 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17444
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: Lions-Packers TNF
Lock this one too, Jim.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:53 pm
Profile YIM WWW
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 1372
Post Re: Lions-Packers TNF
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Lock this one too, Jim.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Why? :confused:

Isn't this the point of having and joining a public message board? If you're tired of participating in this topic, then just opt out. It's that simple.

Jordysghost wrote:
Disagree with a couple things but I'd rather take this type of discussion to the officiating thread at this juncture, this thread has been like smoking.
So? It's smoking. It's still on topic. Why do we need to start a whole new topic about it somewhere else when everything that's relevant to it is right here? You want to replay to the points you disagree with, somewhere else? :confused: Yeah that makes sense.

What do you disagree with and why? Tell me how Detroit interfered with Abracadabra (as Fiesta put it) instead of the other way around?

_________________
"Our playoff loss to the Vikings in '87 was probably the most traumatic experience I had in sports." -- Bill Walsh


Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:45 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Posts: 1696
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Post Re: Lions-Packers TNF
I know Jordy has made mention about the bad calls towards GB in the GB/CHI game last week and one thing really bothered me about that game. In the first quarter, Eddie Lacy broke off a 25 yard run for a touchdown but appeared to drop the ball around the goal line (and potentially before endzone). The refs decided to go to replay (since it was a scoring play anyway). NBC then showed a few weird angles of the play (none from the actual goal line), the commentators made some comments about it not looking like it crossed, and they cut to commercial. When we got back from commercial, the ref was making the call on the replay saying the touchdown stood and we moved on.

Ok, not too weird yet.

Later in that game, though, the Bears scored what looked like a touchdown on a 20 yard pass in that same endzone but it got sent to review through replay to determine if the ball crossed the plane of the end zone (sounds familiar). This time, we got numerous goal line camera angles. This allowed the refs and the public to see that the ball didn't cross the plane of the end zone and the touchdown was overturned.

So, why did we not get any of those camera angles for Eddie Lacy's touchdown run? Did they put those cameras in place only after Lacy's play? I doubt it. The plays even originated from a similar location on the field (the 20 and 25 yard line) so the camera set up couldn't have been that different. I'd understand that they wouldn't have the same set up from a 60 yard pass and a 1 yard TD run, that makes sense. This wasn't that case.

Best case scenario is that it was a moment of terrible television production from NBC. Worst case scenario is that the NFL didn't want the public to see what actually happened on the Lacy touchdown and chose not to show it to avoid controversy (to save its own refs and/or to help the Packers). The last suggestion is obviously my Vikings bias coming through, but hey - just show us the dang goal line replay so there's no question!

FWIW, I do believe Lacy did cross the plane of the end zone (based on the really bad replays we got) but the way the league and NBC handled was just super sketchy especially since they showed they had end zone cameras later in the game.


Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:17 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Lions-Packers TNF
TSonn wrote:
I know Jordy has made mention about the bad calls towards GB in the GB/CHI game last week and one thing really bothered me about that game. In the first quarter, Eddie Lacy broke off a 25 yard run for a touchdown but appeared to drop the ball around the goal line (and potentially before endzone). The refs decided to go to replay (since it was a scoring play anyway). NBC then showed a few weird angles of the play (none from the actual goal line), the commentators made some comments about it not looking like it crossed, and they cut to commercial. When we got back from commercial, the ref was making the call on the replay saying the touchdown stood and we moved on.

Ok, not too weird yet.

Later in that game, though, the Bears scored what looked like a touchdown on a 20 yard pass in that same endzone but it got sent to review through replay to determine if the ball crossed the plane of the end zone (sounds familiar). This time, we got numerous goal line camera angles. This allowed the refs and the public to see that the ball didn't cross the plane of the end zone and the touchdown was overturned.

So, why did we not get any of those camera angles for Eddie Lacy's touchdown run? Did they put those cameras in place only after Lacy's play? I doubt it. The plays even originated from a similar location on the field (the 20 and 25 yard line) so the camera set up couldn't have been that different. I'd understand that they wouldn't have the same set up from a 60 yard pass and a 1 yard TD run, that makes sense. This wasn't that case.

Best case scenario is that it was a moment of terrible television production from NBC. Worst case scenario is that the NFL didn't want the public to see what actually happened on the Lacy touchdown and chose not to show it to avoid controversy (to save its own refs and/or to help the Packers). The last suggestion is obviously my Vikings bias coming through, but hey - just show us the dang goal line replay so there's no question!

FWIW, I do believe Lacy did cross the plane of the end zone (based on the really bad replays we got) but the way the league and NBC handled was just super sketchy especially since they showed they had end zone cameras later in the game.


Almost certainly a production issue. I actually got to film a college game in the Georgia dome as NBC was setting up for Sunday night football there the next day. I think they had 7 semi trailers and a bus. We have a 14 foot truck and used every last bit of cable we had to wire the place! In fact, we never would have got the production done without NBC! Those guys were really kind and helpful. Anyway, if they had the angle, they would have used it. Probably just a glitch of some kind.


Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:11 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Posts: 1696
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Post Re: Lions-Packers TNF
fiestavike wrote:
TSonn wrote:
I know Jordy has made mention about the bad calls towards GB in the GB/CHI game last week and one thing really bothered me about that game. In the first quarter, Eddie Lacy broke off a 25 yard run for a touchdown but appeared to drop the ball around the goal line (and potentially before endzone). The refs decided to go to replay (since it was a scoring play anyway). NBC then showed a few weird angles of the play (none from the actual goal line), the commentators made some comments about it not looking like it crossed, and they cut to commercial. When we got back from commercial, the ref was making the call on the replay saying the touchdown stood and we moved on.

Ok, not too weird yet.

Later in that game, though, the Bears scored what looked like a touchdown on a 20 yard pass in that same endzone but it got sent to review through replay to determine if the ball crossed the plane of the end zone (sounds familiar). This time, we got numerous goal line camera angles. This allowed the refs and the public to see that the ball didn't cross the plane of the end zone and the touchdown was overturned.

So, why did we not get any of those camera angles for Eddie Lacy's touchdown run? Did they put those cameras in place only after Lacy's play? I doubt it. The plays even originated from a similar location on the field (the 20 and 25 yard line) so the camera set up couldn't have been that different. I'd understand that they wouldn't have the same set up from a 60 yard pass and a 1 yard TD run, that makes sense. This wasn't that case.

Best case scenario is that it was a moment of terrible television production from NBC. Worst case scenario is that the NFL didn't want the public to see what actually happened on the Lacy touchdown and chose not to show it to avoid controversy (to save its own refs and/or to help the Packers). The last suggestion is obviously my Vikings bias coming through, but hey - just show us the dang goal line replay so there's no question!

FWIW, I do believe Lacy did cross the plane of the end zone (based on the really bad replays we got) but the way the league and NBC handled was just super sketchy especially since they showed they had end zone cameras later in the game.


Almost certainly a production issue. I actually got to film a college game in the Georgia dome as NBC was setting up for Sunday night football there the next day. I think they had 7 semi trailers and a bus. We have a 14 foot truck and used every last bit of cable we had to wire the place! In fact, we never would have got the production done without NBC! Those guys were really kind and helpful. Anyway, if they had the angle, they would have used it. Probably just a glitch of some kind.


Thanks for sharing, Fiesta! It's probably way more likely that it was a production error but my skeptical (and somewhat cynical) Vikings mind always thinks about the other possibility.


Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:53 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 427 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.