sutz":12np0204 said:The Garland block was a chop block. He went for the guy's knees. It was a personal foul, not necessarily late, but it was an illegal block.
Seanhawk":37dfzm49 said:sutz":37dfzm49 said:The Garland block was a chop block. He went for the guy's knees. It was a personal foul, not necessarily late, but it was an illegal block.
It was late. During the replay, you can clearly see the Niner ball carrier on the ground before he attempted the block.
rlkats":15q7r8nh said:Agreed. Damn hawks always are tough
RolandDeschain":1z9l9rxn said:That letter...it's pretty obvious it should have been called. Trying to squeak out of it to avoid another huge officiating controversy is just annoying.
sutz":1lpgvp1b said:The Garland block was a chop block. He went for the guy's knees. It was a personal foul, not necessarily late, but it was an illegal block.
Initiating contact doesn't play into it. The letter is just covering their ass. They should have done the proper review with a break in the play. Contact is allowed on many penalties; per the rule book, for most of them it's about impeding movement. If you impede the player's movement, that makes the penalty for a lot of penalties; and watching the live replay, there's no question about that.NINEster":mkhtp4go said:RolandDeschain":mkhtp4go said:That letter...it's pretty obvious it should have been called. Trying to squeak out of it to avoid another huge officiating controversy is just annoying.
I'll have to rewatch the play, but he called out the Seahawk receiver for initiating contact.
Was he wrong there?
RolandDeschain":3h020fha said:Initiating contact doesn't play into it. The letter is just covering their ass. They should have done the proper review with a break in the play. Contact is allowed on many penalties; per the rule book, for most of them it's about impeding movement. If you impede the player's movement, that makes the penalty for a lot of penalties; and watching the live replay, there's no question about that.NINEster":3h020fha said:RolandDeschain":3h020fha said:That letter...it's pretty obvious it should have been called. Trying to squeak out of it to avoid another huge officiating controversy is just annoying.
I'll have to rewatch the play, but he called out the Seahawk receiver for initiating contact.
Was he wrong there?
RolandDeschain":18cuvo3o said:When your all-world CB has to remind your fan base to be classy after a win, lol:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RSherman_25/status/1211549300125159430[/tweet]
knownone":2g82b6o7 said:I don't mind the no call on the pass interference. I do think it was worthy of an actual stoppage in play though. There is no way those guys could have made a clear distinction on that play in under 40 seconds, and the ref in the broadcast immediately saying it should be reviewed is even more telling. The explanation sounds like a group of guys covering their butts for not acting quickly enough..
As for the Niners... I still don't know what to make of them. They probably should have won this game by double digits, and yet they somehow barely won by an inch. Their defense was unstoppable in the first half, only to give up damn near 300 yards in the second half.
I thought the Seahawks played a good game considering all of the injuries and the lack of continuity that they caused early on. If we can get Diggs and Brown back healthy and survive the Eagles, I don't fear the Niners in a rubber match.
Al Riveron is a blind shit bag if he really believes the pap he wrote there.NINEster":10n11mhc said:RolandDeschain":10n11mhc said:That letter...it's pretty obvious it should have been called. Trying to squeak out of it to avoid another huge officiating controversy is just annoying.
I'll have to rewatch the play, but he called out the Seahawk receiver for initiating contact.
Was he wrong there?
RolandDeschain":3qiio3ls said:Initiating contact doesn't play into it. The letter is just covering their ass. They should have done the proper review with a break in the play. Contact is allowed on many penalties; per the rule book, for most of them it's about impeding movement. If you impede the player's movement, that makes the penalty for a lot of penalties; and watching the live replay, there's no question about that.NINEster":3qiio3ls said:RolandDeschain":3qiio3ls said:That letter...it's pretty obvious it should have been called. Trying to squeak out of it to avoid another huge officiating controversy is just annoying.
I'll have to rewatch the play, but he called out the Seahawk receiver for initiating contact.
Was he wrong there?
5_Golden_Rings":1r6hrrdp said:RolandDeschain":1r6hrrdp said:Initiating contact doesn't play into it. The letter is just covering their ass. They should have done the proper review with a break in the play. Contact is allowed on many penalties; per the rule book, for most of them it's about impeding movement. If you impede the player's movement, that makes the penalty for a lot of penalties; and watching the live replay, there's no question about that.NINEster":1r6hrrdp said:RolandDeschain":1r6hrrdp said:That letter...it's pretty obvious it should have been called. Trying to squeak out of it to avoid another huge officiating controversy is just annoying.
I'll have to rewatch the play, but he called out the Seahawk receiver for initiating contact.
Was he wrong there?
Hollister grabbed him and tried to throw him. Both players had their hands on each other. You either call it off setting or leave it. Since both players had their hands on each other (Hollister inside), leaving the call as stands is correct.
NINEster":34tcoz02 said:BTW, in 30+ years of watching football, I've never heard of needing both legs beyond the line of scrimmage for it to be a penalty for a passer....one behind is enough.
Ehh??