Refs couldn’t beat us

[Sgt. Largent]

So you would like me to upload game clips to prove my point? There were NUMEROUS bad and missed calls against the Hawks last night "chief".

I don't disagree that there were numerous bad calls, in fact I stated as much. The ones you listed aren't them.

Player was close to lining up in the neutral zone, but shifted back a bit before the snap. It was close, but more importantly the black line is unofficial, and because the angle is not straight down the LOS it is hard to tell from the TV whether or not he was offsides. Borderline at best.

Clock hits double zeros all the time, happened to Hawks twice in last night's game. These penalties never occur as soon as the clock hits zero, there is always a small delay.

A player standing out of bounds is allowed to touch the ball if it is in possession of another player. Defender re-established himself before he gained possession. Think about if they called that the way you want: any time a player out of bounds touched the ball they would call the play dead. That's a big advantage to the defense, and makes no sense.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. There were more than enough legitimately bad calls or missed calls, you don't need to argue the ticky tacky stuff. Especially when the refs missed some big calls that would have favored the Niners as well.

Iupati also went in motion before the ball was snapped on Carson's goalline TD run, which is why all the Niner defenders barely reacted to the snap.

The refs were terrible, the refs are terrible in EVERY game ALL THE TIME...............this is what happens when you make a dozen new rules every off season cause some owner got butthurt in the playoffs and demands change. More importantly all these new rules are suppose to be parsed out subjectively in real split second time, AND in review.

It's a complete mess, and I don't understand why this trend has continued. It's ruining the sport and making it unwatchable. This is not an enjoyable product to watch anymore with all the stoppages and terrible penalties.

 

[ivotuk]

So you would like me to upload game clips to prove my point? There were NUMEROUS bad and missed calls against the Hawks last night "chief".

.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. l.

You have no point, and I'm not whining. Enjoy the win "chief".

We can cut him some slack, he's a newbie with 67 posts. Throwing out "Chief" is what one would expect from this type of poster.


What I find interesting, is how can a player that is out of bounds, participate in the game? I didn't see him re-establish himself in bounds. Maybe he did. I can't wait to review it and see exactly how that went down. Not sure if we'll get any explanations on those considering all of the 49er Apologists on TV.

 

[HawkStrong]

So you would like me to upload game clips to prove my point? There were NUMEROUS bad and missed calls against the Hawks last night "chief".

.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. l.

You have no point, and I'm not whining. Enjoy the win "chief".

We can cut him some slack, he's a newbie with 67 posts. Throwing out "Chief" is what one would expect from this type of poster.


What I find interesting, is how can a player that is out of bounds, participate in the game? I didn't see him re-establish himself in bounds. Maybe he did. I can't wait to review it and see exactly how that went down. Not sure if we'll get any explanations on those considering all of the 49er Apologists on TV.

This type of poster? How is calling someone chief a big deal?

As long as the defender didn't purposefully go out of bounds to make the play, there is nothing in the rule books about a defender touching the ball while it is in possession of another player. The only time it matters is when the out of bounds player is the first to touch an unpossessed ball. If DK had lost possession while the defender was out of bounds, the play would be dead at that spot. DK unfortunately didn't lose possession until the defender had re-established himself with two feet inbounds.

As pointed out above, it would be a huge advantage to the defense if they could stop the play by touching the ball (in possession of the offense) while out of bounds.

 

[2_0_6]

So you would like me to upload game clips to prove my point? There were NUMEROUS bad and missed calls against the Hawks last night "chief".

.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. l.

You have no point, and I'm not whining. Enjoy the win "chief".

We can cut him some slack, he's a newbie with 67 posts. Throwing out "Chief" is what one would expect from this type of poster.


What I find interesting, is how can a player that is out of bounds, participate in the game? I didn't see him re-establish himself in bounds. Maybe he did. I can't wait to review it and see exactly how that went down. Not sure if we'll get any explanations on those considering all of the 49er Apologists on TV.

I know that a player has to reestablish himself in bounds before he can get a ball, but his hand never left the ball at all through the end of the play after going out of bounds. I was confused and still am about this. If this was indeed a legit play, they should really look at changing this rule.

 

[HawkStrong]

.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. l.

You have no point, and I'm not whining. Enjoy the win "chief".

We can cut him some slack, he's a newbie with 67 posts. Throwing out "Chief" is what one would expect from this type of poster.


What I find interesting, is how can a player that is out of bounds, participate in the game? I didn't see him re-establish himself in bounds. Maybe he did. I can't wait to review it and see exactly how that went down. Not sure if we'll get any explanations on those considering all of the 49er Apologists on TV.

I know that a player has to reestablish himself in bounds before he can get a ball, but his hand never left the ball at all through the end of the play after going out of bounds. I was confused and still am about this. If this was indeed a legit play, they should really look at changing this rule.

His hand doesn't leave the ball, but he clearly loses possession.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

Smelled like XL all f**king night to me. Lost me on the overturned pick at the start - and definitely lost me when they stopped the play clock for the 9ers so they could get adjusted. Awful.

 

[scutterhawk]

.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. l.

You have no point, and I'm not whining. Enjoy the win "chief".

We can cut him some slack, he's a newbie with 67 posts. Throwing out "Chief" is what one would expect from this type of poster.


What I find interesting, is how can a player that is out of bounds, participate in the game? I didn't see him re-establish himself in bounds. Maybe he did. I can't wait to review it and see exactly how that went down. Not sure if we'll get any explanations on those considering all of the 49er Apologists on TV.

This type of poster? How is calling someone chief a big deal?

As long as the defender didn't purposefully go out of bounds to make the play, there is nothing in the rule books about a defender touching the ball while it is in possession of another player. The only time it matters is when the out of bounds player is the first to touch an unpossessed ball. If DK had lost possession while the defender was out of bounds, the play would be dead at that spot. DK unfortunately didn't lose possession until the defender had re-established himself with two feet inbounds.

As pointed out above, it would be a huge advantage to the defense if they could stop the play by touching the ball (in possession of the offense) while out of bounds.

Because, DJ still had ONE hand on the ball when the tip of the ball broke the plane for the >Touchdown<, only to be stripped AFTER crossing the line + a Player has to RE-ESTABLISH after going out of bounds, and he DID NOT

 

[DomeHawk]

Homer refs, they love the applause.

 

[DomeHawk]

This type of poster? How is calling someone chief a big deal?

It's a racist term.

 

[scutterhawk]

You have no point, and I'm not whining. Enjoy the win "chief".

We can cut him some slack, he's a newbie with 67 posts. Throwing out "Chief" is what one would expect from this type of poster.


What I find interesting, is how can a player that is out of bounds, participate in the game? I didn't see him re-establish himself in bounds. Maybe he did. I can't wait to review it and see exactly how that went down. Not sure if we'll get any explanations on those considering all of the 49er Apologists on TV.

I know that a player has to reestablish himself in bounds before he can get a ball, but his hand never left the ball at all through the end of the play after going out of bounds. I was confused and still am about this. If this was indeed a legit play, they should really look at changing this rule.

His hand doesn't leave the ball, but he clearly loses possession.

after the ball broke the plane, BOTH players lost possession, so it goes to the Defender??...No way in hell :177692:

 

[Hawkpower]

So you would like me to upload game clips to prove my point? There were NUMEROUS bad and missed calls against the Hawks last night "chief".

I don't disagree that there were numerous bad calls, in fact I stated as much. The ones you listed aren't them.

Player was close to lining up in the neutral zone, but shifted back a bit before the snap. It was close, but more importantly the black line is unofficial, and because the angle is not straight down the LOS it is hard to tell from the TV whether or not he was offsides. Borderline at best.

Clock hits double zeros all the time, happened to Hawks twice in last night's game. These penalties never occur as soon as the clock hits zero, there is always a small delay.

A player standing out of bounds is allowed to touch the ball if it is in possession of another player. Defender re-established himself before he gained possession. Think about if they called that the way you want: any time a player out of bounds touched the ball they would call the play dead. That's a big advantage to the defense, and makes no sense.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. There were more than enough legitimately bad calls or missed calls, you don't need to argue the ticky tacky stuff. Especially when the refs missed some big calls that would have favored the Niners as well.

In regards to the delay of game (a play in which they scored 2 points btw) when should a violation occur?

Are you saying it is subjective? Does the ref get to count to 4-mississippi after it goes down to 00? Cause if you look at the screenshot, it is AT 00, and the ball hasnt moved at all. Not even in motion to be snapped yet.

Just wondering what the rule book says, if, as you insinuate, there is a grace period.....

 

[HawkStrong]

We can cut him some slack, he's a newbie with 67 posts. Throwing out "Chief" is what one would expect from this type of poster.


What I find interesting, is how can a player that is out of bounds, participate in the game? I didn't see him re-establish himself in bounds. Maybe he did. I can't wait to review it and see exactly how that went down. Not sure if we'll get any explanations on those considering all of the 49er Apologists on TV.

I know that a player has to reestablish himself in bounds before he can get a ball, but his hand never left the ball at all through the end of the play after going out of bounds. I was confused and still am about this. If this was indeed a legit play, they should really look at changing this rule.

His hand doesn't leave the ball, but he clearly loses possession.

after the ball broke the plane, BOTH players lost possession, so it goes to the Defender??...No way in hell :177692:

This actually went in the Hawks favor. Defender recovered in the endzone, which would have been a touchback. They ruled he had momentum and was downed in the endzone before he lost possession which resulted in the ball at the 2 yard line.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

I was already upset before the missed facemask on the Niner defensive TD. It was a few plays earlier that Russ runs up the middle and gives himself up, then gets hit late. That's an automatic call from what I have seen this year, yet nothing.

 

[HawkStrong]

So you would like me to upload game clips to prove my point? There were NUMEROUS bad and missed calls against the Hawks last night "chief".

I don't disagree that there were numerous bad calls, in fact I stated as much. The ones you listed aren't them.

Player was close to lining up in the neutral zone, but shifted back a bit before the snap. It was close, but more importantly the black line is unofficial, and because the angle is not straight down the LOS it is hard to tell from the TV whether or not he was offsides. Borderline at best.

Clock hits double zeros all the time, happened to Hawks twice in last night's game. These penalties never occur as soon as the clock hits zero, there is always a small delay.

A player standing out of bounds is allowed to touch the ball if it is in possession of another player. Defender re-established himself before he gained possession. Think about if they called that the way you want: any time a player out of bounds touched the ball they would call the play dead. That's a big advantage to the defense, and makes no sense.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. There were more than enough legitimately bad calls or missed calls, you don't need to argue the ticky tacky stuff. Especially when the refs missed some big calls that would have favored the Niners as well.

In regards to the delay of game (a play in which they scored 2 points btw) when should a violation occur?

Are you saying it is subjective? Does the ref get to count to 4-mississippi after it goes down to 00? Cause if you look at the screenshot, it is AT 00, and the ball hasnt moved at all. Not even in motion to be snapped yet.

Just wondering what the rule book says, if, as you insinuate, there is a grace period.....

It is more of a physical limitations of the refs to be able to watch everything all at once.

Here is a good explanation: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -built-in/

 

[Hollandhawk]

I know that a player has to reestablish himself in bounds before he can get a ball, but his hand never left the ball at all through the end of the play after going out of bounds. I was confused and still am about this. If this was indeed a legit play, they should really look at changing this rule.

His hand doesn't leave the ball, but he clearly loses possession.

after the ball broke the plane, BOTH players lost possession, so it goes to the Defender??...No way in hell :177692:

This actually went in the Hawks favor. Defender recovered in the endzone, which would have been a touchback. They ruled he had momentum and was downed in the endzone before he lost possession which resulted in the ball at the 2 yard line.

Wut? There doesn’t seem to be a moment where neither player has possession, so if the niner “recovered” it in the end zone it would’ve already been a touchdown by Metcalf. So I don’t see how that went in the hawks favor.

 

[Hawkpower]

So you would like me to upload game clips to prove my point? There were NUMEROUS bad and missed calls against the Hawks last night "chief".

I don't disagree that there were numerous bad calls, in fact I stated as much. The ones you listed aren't them.

Player was close to lining up in the neutral zone, but shifted back a bit before the snap. It was close, but more importantly the black line is unofficial, and because the angle is not straight down the LOS it is hard to tell from the TV whether or not he was offsides. Borderline at best.

Clock hits double zeros all the time, happened to Hawks twice in last night's game. These penalties never occur as soon as the clock hits zero, there is always a small delay.

A player standing out of bounds is allowed to touch the ball if it is in possession of another player. Defender re-established himself before he gained possession. Think about if they called that the way you want: any time a player out of bounds touched the ball they would call the play dead. That's a big advantage to the defense, and makes no sense.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. There were more than enough legitimately bad calls or missed calls, you don't need to argue the ticky tacky stuff. Especially when the refs missed some big calls that would have favored the Niners as well.

In regards to the delay of game (a play in which they scored 2 points btw) when should a violation occur?

Are you saying it is subjective? Does the ref get to count to 4-mississippi after it goes down to 00? Cause if you look at the screenshot, it is AT 00, and the ball hasnt moved at all. Not even in motion to be snapped yet.

Just wondering what the rule book says, if, as you insinuate, there is a grace period.....

It is more of a physical limitations of the refs to be able to watch everything all at once.

Here is a good explanation: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -built-in/

So it can be tough to call. Ok. Find a way to fix it then. 00 is 00

It's still a rule and it was still a missed call that led to 49er points. And two points were pretty big in last nights game, no?

 

[HawkStrong]

His hand doesn't leave the ball, but he clearly loses possession.

after the ball broke the plane, BOTH players lost possession, so it goes to the Defender??...No way in hell :177692:

This actually went in the Hawks favor. Defender recovered in the endzone, which would have been a touchback. They ruled he had momentum and was downed in the endzone before he lost possession which resulted in the ball at the 2 yard line.

Wut? There doesn’t seem to be a moment where neither player has possession, so if the niner “recovered” it in the end zone it would’ve already been a touchdown by Metcalf. So I don’t see how that went in the hawks favor.

Defender clearly rips the ball from Metcalf, and has two hands on it in full control. Metcalf's hand is still on the ball but really only because it is pinned against between the ball and the defender. It's a close call, but there was one camera angle that seems to show DK lose the ball. At that point SF getting the ball at the 2 yard line is better than them getting the touchback.

You can argue whether or not DK fumbled, or if he still had possession when he broke the plane, it isn't definitive. That's not what I am saying went in Hawks favor, it clearly didn't. Just that once it was ruled a fumble, we got the better of the two options on field position.

 

[HawkStrong]

I don't disagree that there were numerous bad calls, in fact I stated as much. The ones you listed aren't them.

Player was close to lining up in the neutral zone, but shifted back a bit before the snap. It was close, but more importantly the black line is unofficial, and because the angle is not straight down the LOS it is hard to tell from the TV whether or not he was offsides. Borderline at best.

Clock hits double zeros all the time, happened to Hawks twice in last night's game. These penalties never occur as soon as the clock hits zero, there is always a small delay.

A player standing out of bounds is allowed to touch the ball if it is in possession of another player. Defender re-established himself before he gained possession. Think about if they called that the way you want: any time a player out of bounds touched the ball they would call the play dead. That's a big advantage to the defense, and makes no sense.

The point being, don't be a whiny fan. There were more than enough legitimately bad calls or missed calls, you don't need to argue the ticky tacky stuff. Especially when the refs missed some big calls that would have favored the Niners as well.

In regards to the delay of game (a play in which they scored 2 points btw) when should a violation occur?

Are you saying it is subjective? Does the ref get to count to 4-mississippi after it goes down to 00? Cause if you look at the screenshot, it is AT 00, and the ball hasnt moved at all. Not even in motion to be snapped yet.

Just wondering what the rule book says, if, as you insinuate, there is a grace period.....

It is more of a physical limitations of the refs to be able to watch everything all at once.

Here is a good explanation: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -built-in/

So it can be tough to call. Ok. Find a way to fix it then. 00 is 00

It's still a rule and it was still a missed call that led to 49er points. And two points were pretty big in last nights game, no?

It happens literally every game. Hawks did it twice last night. There are probably ways around it, but it isn't (and never will be) a real point of contention.

 

[Hollandhawk]

after the ball broke the plane, BOTH players lost possession, so it goes to the Defender??...No way in hell :177692:

This actually went in the Hawks favor. Defender recovered in the endzone, which would have been a touchback. They ruled he had momentum and was downed in the endzone before he lost possession which resulted in the ball at the 2 yard line.

Wut? There doesn’t seem to be a moment where neither player has possession, so if the niner “recovered” it in the end zone it would’ve already been a touchdown by Metcalf. So I don’t see how that went in the hawks favor.

Defender clearly rips the ball from Metcalf, and has two hands on it in full control. Metcalf's hand is still on the ball but really only because it is pinned against between the ball and the defender. It's a close call, but there was one camera angle that seems to show DK lose the ball. At that point SF getting the ball at the 2 yard line is better than them getting the touchback.

You can argue whether or not DK fumbled, or if he still had possession when he broke the plane, it isn't definitive. That's not what I am saying went in Hawks favor, it clearly didn't. Just that once it was ruled a fumble, we got the better of the two options on field position.

My point is you can’t rule it a touchback because that would mean possession didn’t change until the ball was in the end zone. The niner strips the ball and has immediate posession. At that point there are two possible rulings. Ball at the 2 or a safety if you rule San Fran moved the fumble backwards into the end zone on purpose. I think the spot at the two yard line was the right call though.

 

[HawkStrong]

This actually went in the Hawks favor. Defender recovered in the endzone, which would have been a touchback. They ruled he had momentum and was downed in the endzone before he lost possession which resulted in the ball at the 2 yard line.

Wut? There doesn’t seem to be a moment where neither player has possession, so if the niner “recovered” it in the end zone it would’ve already been a touchdown by Metcalf. So I don’t see how that went in the hawks favor.

Defender clearly rips the ball from Metcalf, and has two hands on it in full control. Metcalf's hand is still on the ball but really only because it is pinned against between the ball and the defender. It's a close call, but there was one camera angle that seems to show DK lose the ball. At that point SF getting the ball at the 2 yard line is better than them getting the touchback.

You can argue whether or not DK fumbled, or if he still had possession when he broke the plane, it isn't definitive. That's not what I am saying went in Hawks favor, it clearly didn't. Just that once it was ruled a fumble, we got the better of the two options on field position.

My point is you can’t rule it a touchback because that would mean possession didn’t change until the ball was in the end zone. The niner strips the ball and has immediate posession. At that point there are two possible rulings. Ball at the 2 or a safety if you rule San Fran moved the fumble backwards into the end zone on purpose. I think the spot at the two yard line was the right call though.

I understand your point, I agree and said as much. Read the post I was responding to, they were the ones referencing the both offensive and defensive player losing possession of the ball on the endzone. My point was, we benefitted from this not being the case since it was ruled that DK lost the ball.

I see reading it back how you can infer that I meant I believed that to be an option, but if you read my response over, you can clearly see that I was talking about what would have happened in that scenario. I then clarified about what the actual ruling on the field was (which I believe to be correct).