FrantikRam Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 20 hours ago, theuntouchable said: Well, first I think we need to establish what you’re attempting to claim here. you’re claiming that all 4 of their 2nd half drives were ended by a bad call? the field goal after the Stafford hit is the only semi-legitimate claim as there was contact to his head on the hit. That being said, the Lions absolutely thrashed LA in the redzone so the chances of the outcome being different is slim. The first drive after the half was stopped on a 3rd and 11 throw. The defender has every right to the ball just as the offensive player. That’s a no call 9/10 times. The other drive that does not contain a missed call would be the 3rd down throw to Kupp in the end zone with a field goal right after. I think you’re trying to say that the slight jersey grab warrants a flag but it does not. On top of that, that’s not at all how they were calling those plays in this game either. This would be an extremely tacky call even with a very strict ref crew. Hell, even on their last drive where Sutton grabs Nacuas jersey Hutch was also held on this play as well. So at worst, it would be 3rd and 14 again with LA converting 33% of their 3rd downs. if you are honestly trying to claim that the play on Kupp in the redzone and the throw to Atwell on 3rd down were DPIs, then I could very easily claim the same exact thing on each of the 2nd half Detroit drives other than the throw to Reynolds that was high. That's where there's not going to be any point in us discussing this. One defender did in fact play the ball - but the other impeded Robinson and basically flailed/jumped in his path. Clear DPI. Just because one defender did play the ball doesn't excuse the other. And for the Stafford roughing the passer....I mean, yes? Go and read what non Rams fans are saying about that one. The third was the jersey grab of Puka at the end. What I didn't mention was that the play before was not holding on Havenstein either, which took us from 4th and 5 to 3rd and 15 - that one I just don't think had as much of an impact, beyond it being a very strange call by the officials. And I doubt you want to get into missed holdings when the other team has Aaron Donald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 58 minutes ago, FrantikRam said: That's where there's not going to be any point in us discussing this. One defender did in fact play the ball - but the other impeded Robinson and basically flailed/jumped in his path. Clear DPI. Just because one defender did play the ball doesn't excuse the other. And for the Stafford roughing the passer....I mean, yes? Go and read what non Rams fans are saying about that one. The third was the jersey grab of Puka at the end. What I didn't mention was that the play before was not holding on Havenstein either, which took us from 4th and 5 to 3rd and 15 - that one I just don't think had as much of an impact, beyond it being a very strange call by the officials. And I doubt you want to get into missed holdings when the other team has Aaron Donald. What it comes down to is why did the NFL assign Craig Wrolstad crew when they knew him and his crew was responsible for the bad ending to the Steelers v Rams game earlier in the season with not spotting the ball correctly that didn’t give the ball back to the Rams. And the same crew was responsible for the worst officiating in Week 18 Rams v Seahawks that ended up costing the Lions a playoff spot. So the NFL needed to avoid having any controversy or at least another poor officiating game with Craig Wrolstad and his crew when it comes to the Rams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theuntouchable Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, FrantikRam said: That's where there's not going to be any point in us discussing this. One defender did in fact play the ball - but the other impeded Robinson and basically flailed/jumped in his path. Clear DPI. Just because one defender did play the ball doesn't excuse the other. And for the Stafford roughing the passer....I mean, yes? Go and read what non Rams fans are saying about that one. The third was the jersey grab of Puka at the end. What I didn't mention was that the play before was not holding on Havenstein either, which took us from 4th and 5 to 3rd and 15 - that one I just don't think had as much of an impact, beyond it being a very strange call by the officials. And I doubt you want to get into missed holdings when the other team has Aaron Donald. Again, the defender has every right to go for it. You literally said it yourself, he “flailed/jumped” in the WRs path ….. he still got there first. That was 100% a hold on Havenstein. Hutch beats him on the rip and Havenstein has his arm wrapped around Hutchs shoulder to his chest. That is an unquestioned hold. You can clearly see Hutchs feet AHEAD of him, which is what makes it a hold. There was a couple other plays like that earlier in the game that didn’t constitute holding because Hutchs feet were even or behind Havenstein. That is the key. I have no problem talking about missed holdings as there was a number of them missed on Hutch. There was also a number of hands to the face penalties that were missed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theuntouchable Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, stl4life07 said: What it comes down to is why did the NFL assign Craig Wrolstad crew when they knew him and his crew was responsible for the bad ending to the Steelers v Rams game earlier in the season with not spotting the ball correctly that didn’t give the ball back to the Rams. And the same crew was responsible for the worst officiating in Week 18 Rams v Seahawks that ended up costing the Lions a playoff spot. So the NFL needed to avoid having any controversy or at least another poor officiating game with Craig Wrolstad and his crew when it comes to the Rams. Probably the same reason they gave the Detroit Vs Dallas game Brad Allen even with his terrible track record against the Lions. They don’t care. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 4 hours ago, El Ramster said: I love Goff and always will but this is the reason the Rams moved on from him. Stafford is just built differently. Even in a loss PFF rated him as the 2nd highest graded QB in Super Wildcard weekend. And I listened to I think it was the "Moving The Sticks" podcast Bucky was saying Stafford is the type of QB that is the protype of what you should look for in the #1 overall pick. Thats why I never got the "Stafford is washed". When he was even relatively healthy did he look washed? He came into last season not healthy. He has the shoulder issue. He came into this season feeling the best he has ever felt so its not a shocker he had a great season and nearly had the Rams in the divisional round. Its up to Les to build a wall to protect Stafford. So far they got the LG and RG right in Avlia and Dodson. Hopefully they can give Dodson a long term deal and if not franchise tag him so he wont leave. Now its getting the LT and C right. In the meanwhile RT with Havenstein will do but he is 32 so maybe you even start to look for his future replacement. But build a wall. That should give Stafford another 3-5 years of high quality play while the Rams can go find their future QB to sit behind him and develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrantikRam Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 22 hours ago, theuntouchable said: Again, the defender has every right to go for it. You literally said it yourself, he “flailed/jumped” in the WRs path ….. he still got there first. That was 100% a hold on Havenstein. Hutch beats him on the rip and Havenstein has his arm wrapped around Hutchs shoulder to his chest. That is an unquestioned hold. You can clearly see Hutchs feet AHEAD of him, which is what makes it a hold. There was a couple other plays like that earlier in the game that didn’t constitute holding because Hutchs feet were even or behind Havenstein. That is the key. I have no problem talking about missed holdings as there was a number of them missed on Hutch. There was also a number of hands to the face penalties that were missed as well. If you think a defender is allowed to impeded a WR because he got there first, not sure what to tell you. That defender wasnt playing the ball - he just impeded Robinson without trying to make a play on the ball. That's PI. Jumping and flailing doesn't equal playing the ball. Again, holdings are missed both ways. The fact that you can't seem to acknowledge that points to a bias that makes continuing this pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theuntouchable Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, FrantikRam said: If you think a defender is allowed to impeded a WR because he got there first, not sure what to tell you. That defender wasnt playing the ball - he just impeded Robinson without trying to make a play on the ball. That's PI. Jumping and flailing doesn't equal playing the ball. Again, holdings are missed both ways. The fact that you can't seem to acknowledge that points to a bias that makes continuing this pointless. Ok, well the refs and several NFL players agree with me that it wasn’t PI. So whatever you need to tell yourself bud. it’s kinda odd that you somehow think I didn’t acknowledge that with what I said. Though it’s not surprising given your current thoughts on this subject. have a good day. 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.