purbeast Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Is that awful touchdown call for the Packers. I am just super happy that it did not come back to haunt us at all and that it had no affect on the outcome of the game. I thought for sure that once they went to review and kept it as a touchdown on the field, that it was just a typical "Redskins" thing to happen to us as usual, and that it would come back to bite us in the butt. Thankfully that did not happen and we steamrolled the Packers. However, I feel that because of the steamrolling, the call is not going to be discussed very much on either the local level or national level. This kind of call is something that I hope would get to the national spotlight so that the NFL knows everyone is questioning that call and so that next time it doesn't get called a touchdown. Everyone knows that if that play happened in the middle of the field on the 50 yard line that call would have been an incomplete pass and moved onto the next down. That was just the icing on the cake for a long drive with some very questionable calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 It looks exactly like a fumble we didn't get in Pittsburgh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said: It looks exactly like a fumble we didn't get in Pittsburgh. This! There has to be consistency, especially when replay is involved. I'd love to know what he did that qualified as a "football move" or maintaining possession. Maybe we'll get the irrelevant memo telling us we were once again screwed by incompetent people and that the league is sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Very awkward call, no doubt. That catch rule is some of the most confounding stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Honestly, according to the semi-nebulous rule it wasn't a terrible call. The hands to the face call on Breeland to extend the drive was worse IMO. Very ticky tack. Who cares,...they won. Shelve the game and move on to Thursday at Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Yeah I was much more frustrated on the ticky tack call on Breeland that extended their drive to even get them in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreek1973 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I agree. And remember to the INT we had in the endzone in the Giants game where it was ruled not an INT? What happened to that call? Even the Breeland hands in the face was a little too ticky tacky for my taste. Another horrid call happened yesterday in the Giants game just before the half, the Bears with a huge first down deep in Giants territory called back by a very iffy holding call. Game changer as the Bear had the chance to go up at least by 10 if not 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 It was a TD, he wasn't going to the ground. They reviewed it and confirmed it, moving on Just now, NoCalMike said: Yeah I was much more frustrated on the ticky tack call on Breeland that extended their drive to even get them in that position. Yah if we're going to complain about calls, THATs the one to complain about. Horrid, horrid call. Receiver ducks his head to waist level and gets tapped on top of the helmet, automatic first down. If I'm a coach I tell all my receivers to duck their heads and charge at the DB's hands on every play. Stupid nfl. stupid, stupid, stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 They really need to overhaul the "hands to the face" rule. Sometimes when you are making a natural football move to defend the WR and the WR is making his move to get off the line, your hand or tip of the finger may happen to barely breathe on the helmet. That should not a flag. They need to reserve the flags for when a DB straight up slaps or shoves his hand into the helmet. Calls like THAT last night can turn a game, especially given the situation. It's 4th down, the Packers are making a questionable move by going for it and on top of all of it, the "penalty" had absolutely no bearing on the play itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purbeast Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, zoony said: It was a TD, he wasn't going to the ground. They reviewed it and confirmed it, moving on Yah if we're going to complain about calls, THATs the one to complain about. Horrid, horrid call. Receiver ducks his head to waist level and gets tapped on top of the helmet, automatic first down. If I'm a coach I tell all my receivers to duck their heads and charge at the DB's hands on every play. Stupid nfl. stupid, stupid, stupid. Just because they reviewed it and confirmed it doesn't mean it was a TD. Remember the fumble in the Browns game where the Browns player came out of the scrum with the ball in his hands, and the female ref said it was Redskins ball while they were in the scrum fighting for a non existent ball? And they reviewed that play and the call still standed? The refs get things wrong all the time, even after review. I'd hope this play gets brought up so next time everyone knows the rules. Even the announcers believed if that play happened in the play of field it wouldn't have been called complete, and I agree. And yes I agree the hands to the face was extremely ticky-tacky. On the replay it looked like he touched his neck but the angle didn't really show it too clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, purbeast said: Just because they reviewed it and confirmed it doesn't mean it was a TD. So the league goes back and take TDs away the next day after perusing online message boards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purbeast Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, zoony said: So the league goes back and take TDs away the next day after perusing online message boards? Not even sure what you are talking about as I didn't state anything like that. I'm simply stating that the refs can (and have) get calls wrong even after they review them, and they can learn from their mistakes instead of making them again the next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, purbeast said: Not even sure what you are talking about as I didn't state anything like that. I'm simply stating that the refs can (and have) get calls wrong even after they review them, and they can learn from their mistakes instead of making them again the next time. relax just bustin. It looked like a TD to me. he caught the ball, came down with two feet, established control... boom play is dead because he is in the endzone. Over. Then, ball gets knocked out. Doesn't matter. Only matters if receiver is going to ground. Reviewed and confirmed. You will see, there won't be any chatter about this call this week. Not because of a conspiracy, but because it was the correct call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, Probos said: Honestly, according to the semi-nebulous rule it wasn't a terrible call. The hands to the face call on Breeland to extend the drive was worse IMO. Very ticky tack. Who cares,...they won. Shelve the game and move on to Thursday at Dallas. Agreed. Touchdowns are different because at some point the play is definitively over. I wasn't too upset about the TD ruling (it also didn't matter much since the facemask was going to give them a fresh set of downs and weren't about to stop Rodgers). The hands to the face on Breeland annoyed me. It was the right call by the letter of the law, but I just hate seeing a flag fly out that early in a 4th-down play. In essence, within less than a second of the ball being snapped, the defense had no chance because the ref awarded the Packers a free play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I thought the call stands as a TD because in the endzone, once a player has the ball secured and his feet come down. The play is dead. You can't then hit it out of his hands. From what I remember seeing, the ball was secured and he had two feet on the grass so it was a TD. Did I miss something or am I interpreting the rule wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purbeast Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, NoCalMike said: I thought the call stands as a TD because in the endzone, once a player has the ball secured and his feet come down. The play is dead. You can't then hit it out of his hands. From what I remember seeing, the ball was secured and he had two feet on the grass so it was a TD. Did I miss something or am I interpreting the rule wrong? If that is the rule, why wasn't this called a touchdown? http://www.nfl.com/videos/washington-redskins/0ap3000000400882/Manning-throws-interception-to-Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I think it was a pretty rough call. If he caught it he did so for less than 1/4 a second. Is that enough to establish control? In slow motion it looks like a passable call, but at game speed... the thing I go most by is that the commentators said pretty definitively that if that catch was in the play of field it would be ruled incomplete and not a catch and fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 18 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said: Very awkward call, no doubt. That catch rule is some of the most confounding stuff It makes no sense that a play doesn't have to maintain control in the endzone the same way someone has to in the rest of the field. It's just a dumb rule, like a catch in the redzone is a different set of criss-cross, hocus pocus rules then anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purbeast Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 16 minutes ago, zoony said: Reviewed and confirmed. You will see, there won't be any chatter about this call this week. Not because of a conspiracy, but because it was the correct call. I agree that there won't be chatter about it this week, and also agree not because of a conspiracy, but I disagree because it was the correct call. It won't be discussed because it had no affect on the outcome of the game. If the Redskins lost by less than a touchdown, I am pretty confident that it would be discussed. But as we know, playing the "if" game in the NFL is pointless after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 NFL definitely has consistency issues, though that's to be expected when you have a (fairly high) degree of subjectivity and numerous officiating crews. It was definitely a TD based on the rules, even if it does seem a bit awkward to have different rules in the endzone and regular field of play. Even more awkward when you have different rules within the endzone itself (catching the ball while falling OOB). Is what it is though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Well I think the difference between the end zone and field of play is that a "catch" in the endzone becomes a dead ball immediately. Sort of like if a RB extends his arm over the goal line for a TD then a half a second later a defender knocks it out of his hand, it doesn't matter because as soon as control is established over the goal line it is a dead ball. In the open field, a catch is not a dead ball until the player is brought to the ground or goes out of bounds. Irregardless of the call itself, I do agree that the NFL is incredibly inconsistent in how they make calls or don't make calls against certain players and/or just in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purbeast Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, skinny21 said: NFL definitely has consistency issues, though that's to be expected when you have a (fairly high) degree of subjectivity and numerous officiating crews. It was definitely a TD based on the rules, even if it does seem a bit awkward to have different rules in the endzone and regular field of play. Even more awkward when you have different rules within the endzone itself (catching the ball while falling OOB). Is what it is though. Why wasn't this a touchdown? http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/15/9740760/odell-beckham-touchdown-catch-giants-patriots-referee-controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 54 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: Yeah I was much more frustrated on the ticky tack call on Breeland that extended their drive to even get them in that position. On that call....did the top of Breeland's index finger graze the WR's chin or something? lol... 10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: Well I think the difference between the end zone and field of play is that a "catch" in the endzone becomes a dead ball immediately. Sort of like if a RB extends his arm over the goal line for a TD then a half a second later a defender knocks it out of his hand, it doesn't matter because as soon as control is established over the goal line it is a dead ball. In the open field, a catch is not a dead ball until the player is brought to the ground or goes out of bounds. I thought that if a player catches the ball in the end zone but loses it when he hits the ground, it was incomplete, even if both feet are down before he goes to the ground?...If so, the ball isn't dead until the receiver shows that he has full control of the ball "throughout the catch" or however they phrase it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 To quote Ryan Kerrigan in the postgame: "I don't know what the hell is or isn't a catch anymore." With that said, I don't think it cost us, because of the Cravens facemask they would have 1st and goal at the 1 anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmuss1 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Breeland call was a joke....NFL needs to look at that rule, hands to the face used to mean I'm trying to take your head off for an advantage. I understand under new player safety initiatives that they don't want to see that, however, an incidental finger to the chin hardly warrants a flag, especially on 4th down!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.