OT: Super Bowl Sunday

[Bonestorm]

The Ravens won and still had a charter member on their team. Picking up their second ring is not bad for a franchise that came into existence as recently as 1996. Imagine how many rings the Packers would have if the Super Bowl had existed prior to the 1966 season.

Well, it wasn't really an expansion team. I mean, they had a full team and staff from Cleveland and are only considered an expansion team because Modell fucked Cleveland and then entered into a settlement to allow Cleveland to keep the Browns "franchise."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Interesting, I was curious what others thought of that call. I'm too biased to try and view it objectively. Wasn't a good throw by Kaep anyway but I really wished they had called holding.

I'm sure you would have. It was a good non-call. Somebody needs to get Jim Harbaugh a pacifier and a new pair of panties and tell him to get over it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I will never understand the bold. Ever. If it was holding (and it was), it should have been called. You can't have a good no-call on an actual penalty. If it had been called, there are few people outside of Maryland that would have argued against it.

It wasn't holding. The contact occurred within the first 5 yards of the line of scrimmage and was thus permitted. It was a good non-call. If anything it would have been more accurate to call it offensive pass interference since the reciever did push off of the defender but since the ball wasn't really catchable.....it was a good non-call.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Whether it's as old as the NFL is beside the point. There is no legitimate argument for a "good no-call" on an actual penalty. If it's a penalty in the first minute of a Week 1 game, it's a penalty in the last minute of the Super Bowl and should be called accordingly.

True but it wasn't a penalty and therefore it was a good non-call.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Because they don't care if there is cheating in the Playoffs... Seriously, that holding call should have been called, it was blatant.

Offensive or defensive? Phhlllbbbtt...ya'll are forgetting about the 5 yard rule. It was legitimate contact and holding could have been called either way if the official wanted to split hairs.


To all the San Fran fans. Quite your damned crying and put a new pair of panties on! You got beat by a better team.

 

[Damocles]

It wasn't holding. The contact occurred within the first 5 yards of the line of scrimmage and was thus permitted. It was a good non-call. If anything it would have been more accurate to call it offensive pass interference since the reciever did push off of the defender but since the ball wasn't really catchable.....it was a good non-call.

They started 5 yards from the goal, all contact after crossing the goal line was very clearly not allowed. That was holding, very easy for even a novice to call.

 

[Bonestorm]

It wasn't holding. The contact occurred within the first 5 yards of the line of scrimmage and was thus permitted. It was a good non-call. If anything it would have been more accurate to call it offensive pass interference since the reciever did push off of the defender but since the ball wasn't really catchable.....it was a good non-call.

It was holding. It was not illegal contact and it was not pass interference.

Just because the contact occured within the first 5 yeard does not mean that the contact was permitted. There is permissible contact within the first 5 yards, but permissible contact does not include holding.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I believe the contact was below the knees.

SF is right. You're confusing penalties. The controversy on that kick is was it running into the kicker or roughing the kicker, since the kickers leg was still in the air when he was hit you could make a good argument that it was roughing the kicker which is a more serious penalty.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They started 5 yards from the goal, all contact after crossing the goal line was very clearly not allowed. That was holding, very easy for even a novice to call.

It was incidental contact and you could make just as good an argument that it was offensive passinterference. This is just a bunch of crybabying. SF had four chances to punch it in and couldn't get the job done. Whaaaa...cry me a river.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It was holding. It was not illegal contact and it was not pass interference.

Just because the contact occured within the first 5 yeard does not mean that the contact was permitted. There is permissible contact within the first 5 yards, but permissible contact does not include holding.

It doesn't include the offensive reciever pushing off the defender either and that is offensive pass interference. It was a good non-call and this is just a bunch of sore loser cry babying by Niner fans. Whaaaa my vagina hurts! Whaaa!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well, it wasn't really an expansion team. I mean, they had a full team and staff from Cleveland and are only considered an expansion team because Modell fucked Cleveland and then entered into a settlement to allow Cleveland to keep the Browns "franchise."

Which is a good reason why I dislike the Blackbirds to this day.....as a Bengals fan I'm not to particularly fond of either one of those two team......for pretty obvious reasons.

 

[Damocles]

It was incidental contact and you could make just as good an argument that it was offensive passinterference. This is just a bunch of crybabying. SF had four chances to punch it in and couldn't get the job done. Whaaaa...cry me a river.

Bull, he grabbed the Jersey and pulled, that is holding and not "incidental". Obvious cheating should not be allowed just because it is a playoff game, in fact it should be called even more vigorously.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Bull, he grabbed the Jersey and pulled, that is holding and not "incidental". Obvious cheating should not be allowed just because it is a playoff game, in fact it should be called even more vigorously.

A foul is not the same as "cheating." As I said before, most acknowledge that offensive holding could technically be called on almost every play.

Officiating is not an exact science, and there has long been an unwritten rule that flags are only thrown at the end of championship games only on egregious violations, where the outcome of the play was clearly affected by the foul in question. The WR was not catching that ball with or without the foul in question - and there was contact from both players. The refs absolutely did the right thing by not rewarding a bad play w/ bad execution by essentially giving the 49ers the win.

 

[Damocles]

A foul is not the same as "cheating." As I said before, most acknowledge that offensive holding could technically be called on almost every play.

Officiating is not an exact science, and there has long been an unwritten rule that flags are only thrown at the end of championship games only on egregious violations, where the outcome of the play was clearly affected by the foul in question. The WR was not catching that ball with or without the foul in question - and there was contact from both players. The refs absolutely did the right thing by not rewarding a bad play w/ bad execution by essentially giving the 49ers the win.

One could argue that through inaction they decided the game in favor of the Ravens. The idea that a foul magically doesn't become a foul when it is near the end of a playoff game only ensures that the Refs will be deciding the outcome of a game rather than simply calling the game as they should.

And yes, a foul can be cheating. Holding the player back (holding) is one way of doing that. Just as slapping a ball down with your hands in Soccer would be cheating if it is done purposefully.

 

[Damocles]

A foul is not the same as "cheating." As I said before, most acknowledge that offensive holding could technically be called on almost every play.

Officiating is not an exact science, and there has long been an unwritten rule that flags are only thrown at the end of championship games only on egregious violations, where the outcome of the play was clearly affected by the foul in question. The WR was not catching that ball with or without the foul in question - and there was contact from both players. The refs absolutely did the right thing by not rewarding a bad play w/ bad execution by essentially giving the 49ers the win.

First this "he wasn't catching that ball" thing is a bit presumptuous. He was within a foot of it when it came down even with the holding, he could easily have gotten under that ball if dude wasn't holding his Jersey.

One could argue that through inaction they decided the game in favor of the Ravens. The idea that a foul magically doesn't become a foul when it is near the end of a playoff game only ensures that the Refs will be deciding the outcome of a game rather than simply calling the game as they should.

And yes, a foul can be cheating. Holding the player back (holding) is one way of doing that. Just as slapping a ball down with your hands in Soccer would be cheating if it is done purposefully.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

First this "he wasn't catching that ball" thing is a bit presumptuous. He was within a foot of it when it came down even with the holding, he could easily have gotten under that ball if dude wasn't holding his Jersey.

One could argue that through inaction they decided the game in favor of the Ravens. The idea that a foul magically doesn't become a foul when it is near the end of a playoff game only ensures that the Refs will be deciding the outcome of a game rather than simply calling the game as they should.

And yes, a foul can be cheating. Holding the player back (holding) is one way of doing that. Just as slapping a ball down with your hands in Soccer would be cheating if it is done purposefully.

It's not an invalid argument you're making, but I would wager - strongly - that the vast majority of football fans would not take your "stict constructionist" approach. They'd rather have the helmet catch and a miracle win than Eli "in the grasp," and an anticlimactic end to that SB, and they'd rather have the 49ers get 4 legit shots to win the SB and fail to execute (which is exactly what happened), then a ref throwing a flag, giving them a 1st & goal on the 2.5 yard line w/ 2 minutes left, and say "you just won the game with that poorly called & executed play - congrats."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Bull, he grabbed the Jersey and pulled, that is holding and not "incidental". Obvious cheating should not be allowed just because it is a playoff game, in fact it should be called even more vigorously.

Sorry but it was offensive pass interference. The reciever blantatly pushed off on the DB who didn't grab him until he the reciever had pushed him. The ball wasn't catchable to a good call by the Refs not to call offensive pass interference.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's not an invalid argument you're making, but I would wager - strongly - that the vast majority of football fans would not take your "stict constructionist" approach. They'd rather have the helmet catch and a miracle win than Eli "in the grasp," and an anticlimactic end to that SB, and they'd rather have the 49ers get 4 legit shots to win the SB and fail to execute (which is exactly what happened), then a ref throwing a flag, giving them a 1st & goal on the 2.5 yard line w/ 2 minutes left, and say "you just won the game with that poorly called & executed play - congrats."

Exactly and the SF crybabies just need to change their panties and deal with it!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It wasn't holding. The contact occurred within the first 5 yards of the line of scrimmage and was thus permitted. It was a good non-call. If anything it would have been more accurate to call it offensive pass interference since the reciever did push off of the defender but since the ball wasn't really catchable.....it was a good non-call.

Wrong as usual. The within 5 yards doesn't matter for a holding call, that is only for pass interference. Smith blatantly held Crabtree. Watch the video...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1514765-did-jimmy-smith-hold-michael-crabtree-on-4th-and-ballgame

That occurred long before Crabtree tried to separate himself from Smith.

 

[Damocles]

Wrong as usual. The within 5 yards doesn't matter for a holding call, that is only for pass interference. Smith blatantly held Crabtree. Watch the video...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1514765-did-jimmy-smith-hold-michael-crabtree-on-4th-and-ballgame

That occurred long before Crabtree tried to separate himself from Smith.

For some reason Mott is emotionally invested in this and cannot look at it with any perspective. It was blatant, obvious, and changed the end of the game. Saying it shouldn't be called because "most fans" wouldn't like a poorly executed offensive play to "give" them the game (Thing1) is also a bit wrong. It was a poorly executed Defensive play that the player had to grab the other player and break the rules in order to "Defend" against what would have otherwise been a winning TD.

It should have been called. And I actually wanted the Ravens to win the thing. It isn't like I love them or something, but if I were emotionally involved I'd be on Mott's side....