theuntouchable Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I legitimately don't think this is one of the plays that drew a flag? That is the exact play we’ve been discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theuntouchable Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: Yep, typo on the phone. That's not a facemask, nor is it hands to the face. Contact to the facemask is allowed. So they can make contact to the face mask and push their head back? That’s allowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, BofaDeez54927 said: Are we really arguing possession in a scrum? But-what-about doesn't really work in last night's game no matter how hard y'all stretch to get there. I mean, both were questionable calls. Both were gonna stand upon review based on the piles of bodies. Both significantly affected winning percentage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinSting Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Missed this game. Sounds like...controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, theuntouchable said: So they can make contact to the face mask and push their head back? That’s allowed? Watch it in real time. That's a quarter of a second. Not sustained contact. He's not leaning into Flowers pushing him back by that contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL-TwoWinsAway Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I legitimately don't think this is one of the plays that drew a flag? It is. It's the beginning of the last penalty on Flowers. Source: https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2019/10/14/20915062/lions-vs-packers-a-story-of-horrible-officiating There's a video on that site that shows the beginning and end of that play. Bakhtiari actually commits "illegal hands to the face" at the beginning, before Flowers commits "illegal hands to the upper body". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said: It is. It's the beginning of the last penalty on Flowers. Source: https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2019/10/14/20915062/lions-vs-packers-a-story-of-horrible-officiating There's a video on that site that shows the beginning and end of that play. Bakhtiari actually commits "illegal hands to the face" at the beginning, before Flowers commits "illegal hands to the upper body". There isn't sustained contact. That's one of the requirements for illegal hands to the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 This is too much. Grabbing a guys pads is now a penalty, but hitting a guy directly in the face is not. I just wonder what the excuse will be when/if the NFL admits the error. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson_Neat Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: I mean, both were questionable calls. Both were gonna stand upon review based on the piles of bodies. Both significantly affected winning percentage? I mean, both got a second look and we're upheld because there is no visual evidence to back your claims up. Did all of those drive-extending penalties get a second look? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL-TwoWinsAway Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: There isn't sustained contact. That's one of the requirements for illegal hands to the face. Hold on. You mean to tell me that grabbing and pushing a players FACE doesn't constitute "illegal hands to the face", but grabbing their pads and/or shoulder does? Not only that, wouldn't that make it a clear and obvious facemask penalty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson_Neat Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Matts4313 said: This is too much. Grabbing a guys pads is now a penalty, but hitting a guy directly in the face is not. I just wonder what the excuse will be when/if the NFL admits the error. It was just a little swipe...that gets called all the time, especially on DBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theuntouchable Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: There isn't sustained contact. That's one of the requirements for illegal hands to the face. Watch it again dude. If you’re going to say that Flowers should actually be a penalty, there’s no way you can deny that as a penalty. You very clearly see his head get pushed directly back because of the contact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theuntouchable Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: This is too much. Grabbing a guys pads is now a penalty, but hitting a guy directly in the face is not. I just wonder what the excuse will be when/if the NFL admits the error. I’m gonna be sick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said: There isn't sustained contact. That's one of the requirements for illegal hands to the face. tbh I wouldnt have called that either. But that was much closer to a penalty than anything Flowers did. Im curious, did you ever play football and/or have you ever put on pads? Because the neck portion is a V. Even if you grabbed them and pulled them up slightly, at most your knuckle might *barely* graze the collarbone/bottom of the neck. Def not forceable impact 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketchup Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, BofaDeez54927 said: I mean, both got a second look and we're upheld because there is no visual evidence to back your claims up. Did all of those drive-extending penalties get a second look? The goal line TD you could never actually see the ball on replay cross the plain. One ref said TD the other said turnover on downs. The call on the field would have stood either way it was called. Benefit Detroit. The scrum is something that would never get overturned. They called it Detroit ball because they wrestled it away in a scrum. Benefit Detroit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.