We Won the Game and I'm Pissed Off

[NINEster]

SF is an NFL darling team. If they're having a good year they will get most calls. Makes the win even sweeter.

Seahawks were definitely the darling team a few years back.

 

[Maulbert]

SF is an NFL darling team. If they're having a good year they will get most calls. Makes the win even sweeter.

Seahawks were definitely the darling team a few years back.

Coward.

 

[scutterhawk]

SF is an NFL darling team. If they're having a good year they will get most calls. Makes the win even sweeter.

Seahawks were definitely the darling team a few years back.

They were, but hey, they got there the old fashioned way, "They Earned It".
Teams with multiple SB wins are always going to be the beneficiaries of favoritism; Not to say that they didn't play good enough to earn the respect and admiration of their fans & the money media.
What's not being taken into account, is that back in the 49rs HAYDAYS, when money was no object, team OWNERS with deep pockets could (and did) hire the best HEAD COACHES, sub Coaches, Scouts, AND PLAYERS, but NOW, Y'all got to admit that it galls ya just a little, that since the Seattle Seahawks were moved into the NFC WEST, the 9rs, & the like, are no longer able to run the unopposed table.

 

[cymatica]

SF is an NFL darling team. If they're having a good year they will get most calls. Makes the win even sweeter.

Seahawks were definitely the darling team a few years back.

Not really. The media was forced to respect them, and that quickly evaporated, they desperately wanted to make 49ers or Rams their darling team.

It's funny, Caroll was hired, no one gave him a chance being a college coach. Then Harbaugh was hired, immediately they were gushing over him. Bruce Arians was supposed to make Arizona a contender again. Kaepernick was the new Rodgers while Wilson was snubbed. Last couple years Seattle was predicted to miss the playoffs and only get 4 wins by some. It took at least a year or 2 after Seattle was getting good around 2012 for the media to jump on the badwagon , everyone thought Denver would blow out Seattle, took a stomping to force the issue.

Seattle was never a darling team, media "analysts" were forced to respect them in order not to look foolish, as soon as a little adversity hit, many jumped off the hype train predicting disaster.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

I’m sorry but you don’t know football if you think having contact means no fumble. What if you are holding the ball, it gets knocked out of your hand and trickles down your body to your foot. The ball is always in contact even though it is at his feet now. That is a fumble. DK clearly lost the ball even though he was touching it.

 

[Uncle Si]

Id think contact and control are very different things..

 

[scutterhawk]

Id think contact and control are very different things..

Maybe so, but the point still remains, it was just as legitimate as REESTABLISHING CONTROL, EVEN WITH ONE HAND, BEFORE reaching across the FREAKING GOAL LINE, as the ball hit the ground in the end zone, it came loose from the grip of BOTH PLAYERS.
Everyone seems to be okay with a player STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS, just so long as he's making a play on the ball.
If so, then why even have the " A Player Must Reestablish" in the Rule book?, and that goes for both Metcalf AND Tartt.

 

[HawkStrong]

Id think contact and control are very different things..

Maybe so, but the point still remains, it was just as legitimate as REESTABLISHING CONTROL, EVEN WITH ONE HAND, BEFORE reaching across the FREAKING GOAL LINE, as the ball hit the ground in the end zone, it came loose from the grip of BOTH PLAYERS.
Everyone seems to be okay with a player STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS, just so long as he's making a play on the ball.
If so, then why even have the " A Player Must Reestablish" in the Rule book?

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

 

[scutterhawk]

Id think contact and control are very different things..

Maybe so, but the point still remains, it was just as legitimate as REESTABLISHING CONTROL, EVEN WITH ONE HAND, BEFORE reaching across the FREAKING GOAL LINE, as the ball hit the ground in the end zone, it came loose from the grip of BOTH PLAYERS.
Everyone seems to be okay with a player STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS, just so long as he's making a play on the ball.
If so, then why even have the " A Player Must Reestablish" in the Rule book?

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

 

[HawkStrong]

Id think contact and control are very different things..

Maybe so, but the point still remains, it was just as legitimate as REESTABLISHING CONTROL, EVEN WITH ONE HAND, BEFORE reaching across the FREAKING GOAL LINE, as the ball hit the ground in the end zone, it came loose from the grip of BOTH PLAYERS.
Everyone seems to be okay with a player STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS, just so long as he's making a play on the ball.
If so, then why even have the " A Player Must Reestablish" in the Rule book?

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

Yep that's what I said LMAO.

Look that would crazy if I believed 're-establish' wasn't in the rule book. Just like I would be crazy to believe you can control a football with your forearm, or that literally quoting the rulebook someone would convince them they are wrong. Just crazy crazy stuff.

 

[scutterhawk]

Maybe so, but the point still remains, it was just as legitimate as REESTABLISHING CONTROL, EVEN WITH ONE HAND, BEFORE reaching across the FREAKING GOAL LINE, as the ball hit the ground in the end zone, it came loose from the grip of BOTH PLAYERS.
Everyone seems to be okay with a player STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS, just so long as he's making a play on the ball.
If so, then why even have the " A Player Must Reestablish" in the Rule book?

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

Yep that's what I said LMAO.

Look that would crazy if I believed 're-establish' wasn't in the rule book. Just like I would be crazy to believe you can control a football with your forearm, or that literally quoting the rulebook someone would convince them they are wrong. Just crazy crazy stuff.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Metcalf DID "RE-ESTABLISH" CONTROL BEFORE GOING OVER THE GOAL LINE....PERIOD!

 

[KiwiHawk]

Id think contact and control are very different things..

Maybe so, but the point still remains, it was just as legitimate as REESTABLISHING CONTROL, EVEN WITH ONE HAND, BEFORE reaching across the FREAKING GOAL LINE, as the ball hit the ground in the end zone, it came loose from the grip of BOTH PLAYERS.
Everyone seems to be okay with a player STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS, just so long as he's making a play on the ball.
If so, then why even have the " A Player Must Reestablish" in the Rule book?

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

No, it's his contention that the play was called correctly on the field. You're creating a straw-man argument, which is a logical fallacy. This can be considered as an attempt to belittle, which makes the person you are discussing something with less likely to respond top you in a positive way. This eventually leads to negative feelings between posters, inhibits discussion, and increases forum toxicity, so should be avoided if your intent is to have a reasoned discussion on a topic.

 

[DJrmb]

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

Yep that's what I said LMAO.

Look that would crazy if I believed 're-establish' wasn't in the rule book. Just like I would be crazy to believe you can control a football with your forearm, or that literally quoting the rulebook someone would convince them they are wrong. Just crazy crazy stuff.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Metcalf DID "RE-ESTABLISH" CONTROL BEFORE GOING OVER THE GOAL LINE....PERIOD!

From what I've seen in the various angles, you are correct. DK did grasp the ball again after letting it go. However, the problem is that he let it go in the first place. The process of losing control means that the defender had sole possession of the ball making it a fumble and recovery by the defense. Then when DK re-establishes his grip on the ball he is the "defender" at that point, because the ball was fumbled and possessed by the opposing team. So simultaneous possession would now be granted to SF, not Seattle.

 

[HawkStrong]

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

Yep that's what I said LMAO.

Look that would crazy if I believed 're-establish' wasn't in the rule book. Just like I would be crazy to believe you can control a football with your forearm, or that literally quoting the rulebook someone would convince them they are wrong. Just crazy crazy stuff.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Metcalf DID "RE-ESTABLISH" CONTROL BEFORE GOING OVER THE GOAL LINE....PERIOD!

No he didn't, because at that point someone else had control. Two people can't have control of the football at the same time, outside of a dual possession catch. Which honestly, it seems like you think that possession on a running play is subject to the same rules as possession on a passing play, which it isn't. I really suggest you read the rulebook, it would clear up a lot of your misconceptions.

Edit: two excellent posts above mine, read them. Listen to reason instead of your emotion.

 

[scutterhawk]

Maybe so, but the point still remains, it was just as legitimate as REESTABLISHING CONTROL, EVEN WITH ONE HAND, BEFORE reaching across the FREAKING GOAL LINE, as the ball hit the ground in the end zone, it came loose from the grip of BOTH PLAYERS.
Everyone seems to be okay with a player STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS, just so long as he's making a play on the ball.
If so, then why even have the " A Player Must Reestablish" in the Rule book?

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

No, it's his contention that the play was called correctly on the field. You're creating a straw-man argument, which is a logical fallacy. This can be considered as an attempt to belittle, which makes the person you are discussing something with less likely to respond top you in a positive way. This eventually leads to negative feelings between posters, inhibits discussion, and increases forum toxicity, so should be avoided if your intent is to have a reasoned discussion on a topic.

Look, even though Tartt (after going out of bounds) got ahold of the ball, Metcalf ALSO regained (re-established) a hold on the ball as it crossed the Goal line did he not?
As far as the "Belittle" gig?, that's a two way street.

 

[HawkStrong]

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

No, it's his contention that the play was called correctly on the field. You're creating a straw-man argument, which is a logical fallacy. This can be considered as an attempt to belittle, which makes the person you are discussing something with less likely to respond top you in a positive way. This eventually leads to negative feelings between posters, inhibits discussion, and increases forum toxicity, so should be avoided if your intent is to have a reasoned discussion on a topic.

Look, even though Tartt (after going out of bounds) got ahold of the ball, Metcalf ALSO regained (re-established) a hold on the ball as it crossed the Goal line did he not?
As far as the "Belittle" gig?, that's a two way street.

Why does that matter? It wasn't illegal for Tartt to be out of bounds. Once Metcalf loses possession, and the defender gains possession, it doesn't matter what DK did or didn't do.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Again, please quote the rulebook on any pertinent rule that would backup literally any of your claims. You won't because you can't, and you can't because you are incorrect. But feel free to capitalize a few more random words, you just might convince someone that way.

You have been proven wrong with textual evidence, video evidence, and still image evidence. You are free to have your opinion, it's just a bad one.

So, it's your contention, that the word "Reestablish" isn't in the Rules book? LOL okay :34853_doh:

No, it's his contention that the play was called correctly on the field. You're creating a straw-man argument, which is a logical fallacy. This can be considered as an attempt to belittle, which makes the person you are discussing something with less likely to respond top you in a positive way. This eventually leads to negative feelings between posters, inhibits discussion, and increases forum toxicity, so should be avoided if your intent is to have a reasoned discussion on a topic.

Look, even though Tartt (after going out of bounds) got ahold of the ball, Metcalf ALSO regained (re-established) a hold on the ball as it crossed the Goal line did he not?

No, because Tartt never lost control of the ball after gaining control of it. Once Tartt gained control, he had possession, so the possession rules apply to him - he has to lose it for someone else to get it.

As far as the "Belittle" gig?, that's a two way street.

And all I am saying is if you want a discussion instead of making the other person want to avoid you, don't use logical fallacies because they don't further discussion; they just piss people off. I never claimed he was being an angel, but if this discussion didn't de-escalate, the mods would shut it down, which is no good for anyone.

 

[DJrmb]

Also, while DK re-grasps the ball, that does not constitute "re-establishing possession". This is because there wasn't time to make a "football move" which is the third part of establishing possession (control, in bounds, and time to make a football move or act). Being that DK grasps it again a split second before it goes over the goal-line and is in the act of falling to the ground, I don't think you could say he made a football move after grasping it, meaning he technically didn't re-establish possession.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

The call that bothered me the most, for some reason, was the penalty for helmet to helmet on Garoppolo after Clowney blew up the play. Even Booger was like WTF was he supposed to do when JimmyG starts going down, then doesn't, putting his head right in the contact zone at the very last possible second.

Yeah this one really pissed me off. This call is a perfect example of a situation where if a sky judge were in play, he should overrule the call. After the sky judge buzzed down, the referee would announce, "the sky judge has ruled that the QB (or ball carrier) ducked into the hit from the defensive player who was in proper strike zone tackling position therefore there is no foul on the play".

 

[HawkStrong]

The call that bothered me the most, for some reason, was the penalty for helmet to helmet on Garoppolo after Clowney blew up the play. Even Booger was like WTF was he supposed to do when JimmyG starts going down, then doesn't, putting his head right in the contact zone at the very last possible second.

Yeah this one really pissed me off. This call is a perfect example of a situation where if a sky judge were in play, he should overrule the call. After the sky judge buzzed down, the referee would announce, "the sky judge has ruled that the QB (or ball carrier) ducked into the hit from the defensive player who was in proper strike zone tackling position therefore there is no foul on the play".

Pretty much every subjective penalty should be like this. Games might be a little longer, but it would get rid of so much BS.