HawkGA":2h9mfxyh said:
pacific101":2h9mfxyh said:
I was watching to see someone start this thread. I don't support the idea of reviewing PI calls or non calls at all. Its like Sherm said in a press conference recently, the NFL has made it almost impossible for all the players at his position to achieve historical greatness, and went on to say that a lot of the greats from yesteryear would not fare well at all in today's NFL due to all the rule changes. I'm sure the person who started this thread and a lot of those who supported the idea, did so because they thought it would have turned yesterdays loss to Seattle into a win for the Falcon's, not stopping to think about all the times their CBs interfered with the Seahawks receivers. I suspect had that been the case in this game in particular, that the Hawks would have blown the Falcon's out by considerably more than they did. Go back and watch the game film, when the Falcon's scored it was due to blown coverage by the Hawks, on more than a few occasions when the Hawks failed to convert on 3rd downs which surely would have resulted in more points by field goals or touchdowns, due to pass interference offenses that were not called on the Falcon defenders. The refs have to allow for some defense, or we would have to stop and review every single pass thrown. I think they have decided that unless its grossly obvious they are letting the players fight it out, which we all like until its our team that we feel lost as a result of a missed call by the refs. On this one issue I think the refs are trying to be fair and reasonable for the most part. Now about allowing d line players to take cheap shots on the QBs after they have released the ball, I wouldn't mind seeing that become reviewable, way to many QBs getting injured due to late hits, career ending in many instances.
As the person who started the thread, let me say that I don't support making PI reviewable. The thread title has more to do with knowing that the drumbeat for it would come after yesterday. Sometimes such rulings are "letting them play" and sometimes they are the seed for people to cry for rule changes when the outcome they wanted didn't happen. As a long time Seahawks fan, I knew which one this would be.
My apologies for throwing you under the bus with the rest of the folks who might think they wanted reviewable PI plays.
I came in reading post after yours rather than the initial post and that was the basis for my inclusion of yourself, The old ASSUME sure applies here huh? ASS Out of You and Me, which clearly isn't the case or the intent.
I think that the same folks who might think that they want to be able to review PI plays, would be screaming bloody murder, had they reviewed this play, when they saw the initial hands to the face by Julio to Sherman, which would have killed the play for all intensive purposes, and would have made the play that Sherman put on Julio Moot, whether Julio caught the ball or not, unless Seattle had intercepted it instead of course, then it would have been an interception and anything goes from that point.
As it ended, the play would have been called back to the line of scrimmage with Seahawks declining the penalty against Julio for the hands to face infraction, and instead taking possession of the ball with a first and ten, game over, and more crying Falcon coaches, players and fans, not wanting to accept their loss.
To their credit I'm not a whole bunch different, if I figure my Hawks got robbed by a ref and crap call or the lack of a call that cost them a game in my mind, I'd be jumping up and down mad as hell for a while too, its never an easy thing to watch something that means so much to you take a whooping. I admire in some respects that the Falcon fans did get all riled up about the loss. It did appear initially that Sherman got away with one there. It wasn't until I watched the start of the play again that I concluded that Julio got exactly what he had coming.
