SharkHawk wrote: Twisted wrote:
NWCheeseHead wrote:Eh, honestly me and a buddy of mine, that's a Bears fan, were talking about Jaffrey and those PI calls. For one; prior to the reffs going off on him there was a play where he was all over Sam Shield's face mask even pushing him down to the turf as the ball was being thrown his way and there was no call at all. Except for the last PI (4th I think it was) they were all warranted though the last two were a bit nit-picky.
Moreover Jaffrey has had issues with loosing his cool on the field both in college and the pro's to the point that Da Bears have had to take him aside and tell him that he needs to play smarter when he's in.
Sorry about replying about a week late, but I recently joined and was just scrolling through the forums. Oh, and before I launch a spat about week 3 I'd just like to say that I personally never blamed the Seahawks for winning. Stuff happens. It was more on the Packers for letting the game come to the point where that play decided the game, imo.
um we all saw that play, it wasn't even warranted, I've seen it called but I don't think anything like that should ever be called, once a receiver makes a move towards your body its fair play
apparently the NFL only changed the rules so officials could have leverage where they see fit
go back to the old school rules, no contact PERIOD for either side, those rules just muddy the rules just like the head shots and the rest, clean up the rules you clean up the game
but then theres always the officials that just happens to miss the contact, just like the old days
why the league was trying to get performance based scheduling, but those monday night dolts ruined all that, I suppose they have an inside line on which team is going to win?
I'm sorry, but I don't see how having a "history of losing his cool" should have any impact on 3 horrendous calls and one criminal non-call. It was a poorly officiated game. So if he did lose his cool and push a guy, then he should have gotten a 15 yarder, not a make up call and reversal of a TD. That to me just seems silly. Going by that logic, then the Packers fans have zero reason to gripe about anything, because there was a phantom PI on Kam Chancellor that led to your TD that gave you the lead in the first place. Otherwise it was victory formation, game over, Seahawks win. So the refs were doing their job by giving Golden Tate a free push off and the rest of your fans (not you, I see where you are on the Hawks/Packers matchup) say "Well, that was a just result, because there was a phantom PI call on Chancellor that gave us a TD. So it is only right that the Seahawks get a TD in response. Nice move by the refs. They did the right thing, even if we still contend the dual possession was wrong (which it wasn't... 2 feet on the ground, possession with one hand is just as good as two... your guy was in the air and hadn't established possession as you can NOT while in mid-air... and to take it a step further... why didn't he just knock it out of bounds?!!!!).
-Twisted: I totally agree, I honestly think if the NFL is going to allow 'some' contact that they should just outright abolish the Lynn Swann rule entirely. OR if they don't want contact then they need to clarify that, and rid themselves of the current rule because, as you alluded to, it just muddles the play on the field and leaves the fans going "WTF!". The NFL needs to stop trying to have it's cake and eat pie too. And yeah the NFL seasons have had that scripted feel to them, at times, ever since good ol' Goodell took over really.
I don't know how you can say that grabbing a hand-full of face mask and pushing a DB down to the truf doesn't warrant a PI call under the current rules, but as the interpretation of the rules seems to be entirely subjective on the reffs part I guess this is a point to agree to disagree on.
-SharkHawk: I also agree that previous actions shouldn't color one's interpretation of current actions, but none the less it is usually a factor. Just look at how reffs call James Harrison and Suh for example. I'm not trying to make a case saying that they always getting picked on, but that they are given less leeway when it comes to judgement calls. Plus he's a rookie so they generally get less leeway anyways when it comes to those situations. And yeah it was a poorly officiated game on both sides I think.
As for why, "not knock the ball out of bounds?", I remember listening to FoxSports Radio a couple of day's after the game and Amy Van Dyken was interviewing both Shields and Tate separately, by phone, on the program and she asked Shields that very same question. Shields responded by saying that he was thinking about how the Lions won the game against the Titans on that Sunday with Titus Young Jr scoping up a Hail Mary pass that was batted down in the end zone so to try and prevent that situation he went for the INT instead. (Eh, hindsight is 20/20 after all) I can't offer up a better explanation than that really. Personally I think he was being stat hungry in going for the INT, but that has defined the Packers secondary for the last few years really. With the exception of Woodson (current roster) they are all wildly inconsistent, and talk way too much for how poor they play most of the time.