Lions-Packers TNF

[Rieux]

I could find articles both praising and condemning the call.

You keep saying this. You keep not doing it. You have yet to cite a single person on the planet who has "praised" this call—or for that matter simply explicitly stated that (s)he thinks it was correct. You have nothing, and yet you have the gall to claim to speak for "the majority."

Now you're backpedaling furiously—oh, it's a "judgment call," huh? Despite the "hook"/"pull"/"yank" that, if it had ever actually happened, would make it indisputably not a judgment call? The self-contradiction is just comical.

Yea I do think it is a bit sad that after every Packers win there is a portion of this board that blames the refs....

"A portion of this board"? I think you mean a huge portion of the NFL-watching public.

And boo-hoo: Fail Mary. Please. Pearson pushed off. Dez caught that ball. But ancient history aside, neither you nor I, as far as I can tell, has yet found a single impartial observer who has stated that the facemask call without which the Packers could not have won the game tonight was correct.

[Rieux]

I haven't heard anyone close to the league call it anything more then questionable, failing Blandinos assertion that it was the correct call.

I would like to see a citation for that claim. Dean Blandino. "It was the correct call." Where has he written or said this? If you cannot find a citation, I would like to request that you stop asserting that Blandino has said that.

ETA (from someone reading a certain Tweet more carefully and honestly than I suspect you are): "Blandino didn’t say the call was right — or wrong. He just said he understands it being made."

[Jordysghost]

You keep saying this. You keep not doing it. You have yet to cite a single person on the planet who has "praised" this call—or for that matter simply explicitly stated that (s)he thinks it was correct. You have nothing, and yet you have the gall to claim to speak for "the majority."

Now you're backpedaling furiously—oh, it's a "judgment call," huh? Despite the "hook"/"pull"/"yank" that, if it had ever actually happened, would make it indisputably not a judgment call? The self-contradiction is just comical.
"A portion of this board"? I think you mean a huge portion of the NFL-watching public.

And boo-hoo: Fail Mary. Please. Pearson pushed off. Dez caught that ball. But ancient history aside, neither you nor I, as far as I can tell, has yet found a single impartial observer who has stated that the facemask call without which the Packers could not have won the game tonight was correct.

It was a judgement call, a correct one at that. Dean Blandino, btw.. Thats one right there. I get that people don't like the call, I really do, but hooking a facebar with your thumb and causing movement is a facemask, its just how it is. Don't project your own personal opinion on others.

Right, 'boo hoo' about the fail mary, but Im supposed to feel sympathy for a call against the Lions, what an impartial thing of you to say.

[Jordysghost]

I would like to see a citation for that claim. Dean Blandino. "It was the correct call." Where has he written or said this? If you cannot find a citation, I would like to request that you stop asserting that Blandino has said that.

Im unable to post links on this device, google it if you must, he said it. That is a fact, he spoke on NFL Network immediately following the game, as did he a couple minutes ago.

[Rieux]

google it if you must, he said it. That is a fact, he spoke on NFL Network immediately following the game, as did he a couple minutes ago.

So you refuse to post a citation. (What device could possibly allow you to conduct endless trolling but not permit you to copy-and-paste a simple URL?)

As I said in my ETA above: Pro Football Talk paid closer attention to what Blandino actually said than you did—"Blandino didn’t say the call was right — or wrong. He just said he understands it being made."

And Gregg Rosenthal, on NFL.com, did the same thing:

Blandino reminded everyone that the call was not reviewable, but emphasized how tough it was for referees to judge the play in real time.

"It's one that's really close. ... When you watch the play live, I was just like everybody else -- you thought: That's a facemask," Blandino said. "And then you see the replay and it's a lot closer than it initially seemed. Again, hand up near the mask, finger caught in that bottom bar and the head does turn."

Translation: It was a very difficult call not to make. It was an understandable call. But Blandino does not say directly that it was the right call, just that it would be made almost every time. Luckily for the Packers, it was made this time.

So—Once. Again. You are lying about Blandino, in much the same way that you are lying (so, so many times now) about the nonexistent "hook" of Rodgers' facemask. In each case, all anyone needs to do to demonstrate the falsity of your assertions is glance at the observable reality that you are misrepresenting. There demonstrably was no "hook," and (according to observers PFT and Rosenthal) there demonstrably was no statement from Blandino that the call was correct.

And you are left with no citation of anyone who agrees with you that the facemask call was correct. At present you're a "majority" of one.

[Jordysghost]

So you refuse to post a citation. (What device could possibly allow you to conduct endless trolling but not permit you to copy-and-paste a simple URL?)

As I said in my ETA above: Pro Football Talk paid closer attention to what Blandino actually said than you did—"Blandino didn’t say the call was right — or wrong. He just said he understands it being made."

And Gregg Rosenthal, on NFL.com, did the same thing: So—Once. Again. You are lying about Blandino, in much the same way that you are lying (so, so many times now) about the nonexistent "hook" of Rodgers' facemask. In each case, all anyone needs to do to demonstrate the falsity of your assertions is glance at the observable reality that you are misrepresenting. There demonstrably was no "hook," and (according to observers PFT and Rosenthal) there demonstrably was no statement from Blandino that the call was correct.

And you are left with no citation of anyone who agrees with you that the facemask call was correct. At present you're a "majority" of one.

Im on a Wii U gamepad, I cannot post links, Blandino explained the call on NFL Network, can somone who can post links back me up here? He said it was questionable and that it would typically be called, but also that taylors thumb hooking the facebar and jarring the facemask constitutes a penalty, however slight.


There was not 'demonstrably' no hook, here you go with you 'Im right your wrong' crap, sigh, Again you should go look at cutups from NFL Network unless they put his words in writing by now, I want ever so bad to prove without any doubt that your accusations are 100% wrong but alas, Ill have to wait till im on a computer. Blandino, thinks, it is a penalty, you should just get used to it now because I absolutely assure you it is the truth and you will see as much.

EDIT: Sorry, i missed it, you posted it right in your post, yes, Blandino in that very post concedes what constitutes a hook.

I guess it depends on if you dont think conceding what constitutes the penalty in the first place and then admitting that it would be called that way most the time is an act of concession that the call was correct, I honestly don't see why one wouldn't.

[Rieux]

There was not 'demonstrably' no hook, here you go with you 'Im right your wrong' crap, sigh,

Yes. Observable reality is often like that. One can claim that, for example, Wisconsin does not exist—but reality says otherwise, and all it takes to verify that (barring something resembling Cartesian skepticism) is to observe the landmass between Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and two of the Great Lakes.

By the same token, one can claim that the Detroit defender's thumb "hooked" Rodgers' facemask in Thursday night's game—but reality says otherwise, and all it takes to verify that is a simple observation of the slow-motion replay. Indisputably, as the replay demonstrates, the defender's thumb "hooks" NOTHING until it makes contact with Rodgers' jersey near his right shoulder. That is observable, verifiable fact. It is not judgment. Demonstrably, no "hook" ever happened. You can deny this, just as one can deny the existence of Wisconsin—and that (the former, alas) is what you are doing. it says quite a bit about you. It changes nothing, however, about what happened to Aaron Rodgers' facemask.

[saint33]

Im on a Wii U gamepad, I cannot post links, Blandino explained the call on NFL Network, can somone who can post links back me up here? He said it was questionable and that it would typically be called, but also that taylors thumb hooking the facebar and jarring the facemask constitutes a penalty, however slight.


There was not 'demonstrably' no hook, here you go with you 'Im right your wrong' crap, sigh, Again you should go look at cutups from NFL Network unless they put his words in writing by now, I want ever so bad to prove without any doubt that your accusations are 100% wrong but alas, Ill have to wait till im on a computer. Blandino, thinks, it is a penalty, you should just get used to it now because I absolutely assure you it is the truth and you will see as much.

EDIT: Sorry, i missed it, you posted it right in your post, yes, Blandino in that very post concedes what constitutes a hook.

I guess it depends on if you dont think conceding what constitutes the penalty in the first place and then admitting that it would be called that way most the time is an act of concession that the call was correct, I honestly don't see why one wouldn't.

Let me break down what Blandino says

"Hand up near the face mask" certainly does not suggest hooking the facemask.

"Finger caught on the bottom bar, head does turn" this is probably where you're getting your assertion that Blandino is saying the finger hooked and caused the head to turn. Maybe that is what he's saying, but to me he's simply explaining why the call was made, and not why it was correct. He does not say finger grasps the facemask, nor does he say it's caught inside the bottom bar, things that would constitute a facemask call. You can see from the replay the finger never enters the facemask, it gets VERY briefly "caught" on the outside of the mask. Nothing more than what I would classify as touching or a graze. And he says the "head does turn". Again he's not saying the finger or hand CAUSED the head to turn, simply that it did turn. Thus why it understandable that the ref would make the call.

Honestly this is as clear cut as any call I've seen in football when looking at the replay. In real time, as I've said before, I can understand the call. Rodgers played it up well and in real time it's hard to really see where the hand lands. When slowed down, you can clearly see the hand never grasps the facemask, and you can clearly see that his finger never "hooks" it either, it's nothing more than a graze. The rules are very clear on this, in fact they were changed a few years ago for this very type of play. Facemasks have to be blatant. It's in the rules that you can indeed grab the facemask, as long as you immediate let go. The Detroit player never comes even close to grabbing the facemask, and Rodgers head moves clearly because the hand is being swiped from the right towards his face, that is just simple reflex.

The call was wrong, period. Understandable given the circumstance. But none the less wrong. Anyways, I'm done with this argument, I've stated my case pretty clearly, take it or leave it.

[Jordysghost]

Yes. Observable reality is often like that. One can claim that, for example, Wisconsin does not exist—but reality says otherwise, and all it takes to verify that (barring something resembling Cartesian skepticism) is to observe the landmass between Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and two of the Great Lakes.

By the same token, one can claim that the Detroit defender's thumb "hooked" Rodgers' facemask in Thursday night's game—but reality says otherwise, and all it takes to verify that is a simple observation of the slow-motion replay. Indisputably, as the replay demonstrates, the defender's thumb "hooks" NOTHING until it makes contact with Rodgers' jersey near his right shoulder. That is observable, verifiable fact. It is not judgment. Demonstrably, no "hook" ever happened. You can deny this, just as one can deny the existence of Wisconsin—and that (the former, alas) is what you are doing. it says quite a bit about you. It changes nothing, however, about what happened to Aaron Rodgers' facemask.

Incorrect, it was a slight penalty that often wouldnt be called, but it was a penalty, a slight grasp of the thumb that assisted his head in turning, this would be considered a facemask and good for 15 yards, me, the ref who threw the flag and Blandino all agree that there was enough contact from hand to facemask to be called, and many others concede that it is a call that is usually made, unlike the the fail mary drive.

I agree, its crazy how many different things people seem to find or dont find on replay.

[Rieux]

Blandino in that very post concedes what constitutes a hook.

No, he does not. What he says is "hand up near the mask, finger caught in that bottom bar and the head does turn."

• "Finger caught in the bottom bar" is not equivalent to "a hook."
• Moreover, "a hook" is not equivalent to a grasp, which is what the rule requires and thus what the defender would need to have done in order to actually commit a facemask penalty.
• And, to top it all off, the replay definitively shows that Blandino is simply wrong: the defender's finger was NOT "caught in that bottom bar." It was never "caught" in anything.

But all of that aside, Rosenthal pointed out the actual limitations to what Blandino said, limitations you simply ignored in your rush to pretend he was declaring the call correct:

It was a very difficult call not to make. It was an understandable call. But Blandino does not say directly that it was the right call, just that it would be made almost every time. Luckily for the Packers, it was made this time.

Pretend whatever you'd like. Unless Blandino said considerably more on NFLN than Rosenthal quotes (and your most recent post suggests that you aren't aware of anything further), he "d[id] not say directly that it was the right call," and you are refuted once again.

[Jordysghost]

No, he does not. What he says is "hand up near the mask, finger caught in that bottom bar and the head does turn."

• "Finger caught in the bottom bar" is not equivalent to "a hook."
• Moreover, "a hook" is not equivalent to a grasp, which is what the rule requires and thus what the defender would need to have done in order to actually commit a facemask penalty.
• And, to top it all off, the replay definitively shows that Blandino is simply wrong: the defender's finger was NOT "caught in that bottom bar." It was never "caught" in anything.

But all of that aside, Rosenthal pointed out the actual limitations to what Blandino said, limitations you simply ignored in your rush to pretend he was declaring the call correct: Pretend whatever you'd like. Unless Blandino said considerably more on NFLN than Rosenthal quotes (and your most recent post suggests that you aren't aware of anything further), he "d[id] not say directly that it was the right call," and you are refuted once again.

I disagree and tire of this back and forth, so Im going to simply offer that we agree to disagree, and add that I, also, found the call to be open to questioning. You can take the last word if you please to, but Im going to make good on my statement to drop it in this thread. (Open to discussing in another place however)

No really I mean it this time. *poof*

[Rieux]

it was a penalty, a slight grasp of the thumb that assisted his head in turning

That is simply a blatant denial of reality. You can say it over and over again—and boy, have you ever done that on this thread tonight—but it doesn't make your description any less dishonest.

[Jordysghost]

That is simply a blatant denial of reality. You can say it over and over again—and boy, have you ever done that on this thread tonight—but it doesn't make your description any less dishonest.

Hell I've seen Vikings fans agree with me even, I don't think they are being 'dishonest' which I genuinely take exception too.

Blandino was dishonest too I guess.

[Funkytown]

[PurpleMustReign]

Can I politely inquire to your opinion on the Abbredaris PI no call? Did you think it was a good no call?

I do because the defender turned around and made a play on the ball.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk