MNF: Lions at Packers

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

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?

Illegal hands to the face requires sustained contact. There was not sustained contact on that play. Therefore it was not illegal hands to the face.

There was like a half second of actual contact to the face. The ref has no way of seeing if it was a grab or a strike with how quick that contact was and considering his vantage point.

At least on the first penalty, there was sustained contact to the neck area. It's not possible to grab the neck hole of the shoulder pads without making contact with the neck area. That contact was sustained. Hence the penalty.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, Ketchup said:

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. 

The ref on the right side did not have a view of the ball crossing the goal line. He said it was not a TD. The ref on the left side did have a view of the ball crossing the goal line. He called it a TD. The play was officiated properly.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Illegal hands to the face requires sustained contact. There was not sustained contact on that play. Therefore it was not illegal hands to the face.

There was like a half second of actual contact to the face. The ref has no way of seeing if it was a grab or a strike with how quick that contact was and considering his vantage point.

At least on the first penalty, there was sustained contact to the neck area. It's not possible to grab the neck hole of the shoulder pads without making contact with the neck area. That contact was sustained. Hence the penalty.

So it was a blatant facemask?

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

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. 

One lasted a half second, the other 2 seconds. Sustained contact is required by the rule. Bakhtiari wasn't trying to drive Flowers by the helmet.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

So it was a blatant facemask?

No, I'm not even sure it actually was a facemask to say nothing of blatant. You're watching a slowed down view at a perfect angle. 

[Matts4313]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Illegal hands to the face requires sustained contact. There was not sustained contact on that play. Therefore it was not illegal hands to the face.

There was like a half second of actual contact to the face. The ref has no way of seeing if it was a grab or a strike with how quick that contact was and considering his vantage point.

At least on the first penalty, there was sustained contact to the neck area. It's not possible to grab the neck hole of the shoulder pads without making contact with the neck area. That contact was sustained. Hence the penalty.

So no, youve never put on shoulder pads. Clearly you dont understand the design. 

There is no way to be grabbing the pads *and* put forceable impact on the neck. Its not humanly possible. So once again, physics says you are wrong. 

[Ketchup]

4 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

The ref on the right side did not have a view of the ball crossing the goal line. He said it was not a TD. The ref on the left side did have a view of the ball crossing the goal line. He called it a TD. The play was officiated properly.

I’m amazed you know exactly what the refs could and could not see on the field. Convenient. 

[theuntouchable]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

One lasted a half second, the other 2 seconds. Sustained contact is required by the rule. Bakhtiari wasn't trying to drive Flowers by the helmet.

If a persons head moves because of the contact, that is sustained. 

[Jameson_Neat]

4 minutes ago, Ketchup said:

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. 

So you're stretching a bit to say bad calls went both ways,yes? 

They aren't bad calls just because they go the other teams way. You have no evidence it was the wrong call in either instance.

Are we going to talk about FGs now?

 

[theuntouchable]

Just now, Ketchup said:

I’m amazed you know exactly what the refs could and could not see on the field. Convenient. 

Well, considering the ref that had a view of the play called it a TD I think that is pretty and concise evidence of the fact. 

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

So no, youve never put on shoulder pads. Clearly you dont understand the design. 

There is no way to be grabbing the pads *and* put forceable impact on the neck. Its not humanly possible. So once again, physics says you are wrong. 

Only 8 years as an offensive lineman. There absolutely is. You can see it in this play.

[Matts4313]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

No, I'm not even sure it actually was a facemask to say nothing of blatant. You're watching a slowed down view at a perfect angle. 

So because we have a really good view that means the penalty didnt happen. 

Incredible logic. 

[Jameson_Neat]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

So because we have a really good view that means the penalty didnt happen. 

Incredible logic. 

Ouch.

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Only 8 years as an offensive lineman. There absolutely is. You can see it in this play.

[AlexGreen#20]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

So because we have a really good view that means the penalty didnt happen. 

Incredible logic. 

No, it means the contact looks way worse than it was in real time