Official Arizona vs Pack game day thread

[pbmax]

What are the replay officials allowed to consider? To call it a touchdown, they have to rule that his knee was clearly off the ground. Do they have to actually be able to see the knee, or are they allowed to decide that physics would determine that his knee had to be off the ground given the angle of the rest of his leg?

I want to say that I have heard far more specious arguments about why a call was made or overturned, so yeah, I think they can rule by inference.

But given its the NFL, I can't be sure.

[mraynrand]

What are the replay officials allowed to consider? To call it a touchdown, they have to rule that his knee was clearly off the ground. Do they have to actually be able to see the knee, or are they allowed to decide that physics would determine that his knee had to be off the ground given the angle of the rest of his leg?

It's probably asking too much of officials to expect them to be competent in both applied physics and geometry.

[Rutnstrut]

Proof you weren't watching. Mulligan played a lot and was quite effective blocking. Its the one offseason development I think that follows McGinn's bigger/tougher reporting.

Also that FB who is not Kuhn (Amosa?) played a ton in the 2nd half.

I have no idea why you want a talented passing team to run 2 backs and 2 TEs and run the ball. Its just plain dumb. You go with the matchups that favor your success.

Also see no mention of some stellar Run D by the defense most of the game.

You run the ball more because more and more teams are figuring out the Packers passing game, and that results in less favorable match ups.

[pbmax]

You run the ball more because more and more teams are figuring out the Packers passing game, and that results in less favorable match ups.

Defenses figure out passing games all the time. Doesn't mean you stop passing. Didn't stop Lombardi from running his sweep, didn't stop Walsh from throwing to his RBs or John Taylor.

You avoid what the defense is looking for when you don't think you can get away with it. Packers v Ravens in 2001. That is what worries me about the passing game. Cover 2 isn't hard to figure out. Favre used to roast it. Of course, having a TE or RB who can catch does help.

I don't mind being able to run, or choosing to, but its not the only option. The West Coast offense was built to abuse the Cover 2 in Pittsburgh and Mel Blount played man corner like a super villain. One problem is that they have put some eggs in the Matthew Mulligan basket and he is taking a TE spot and will not be running down the seam often.

[denverYooper]

Defenses figure out passing games all the time. Doesn't mean you stop passing. Didn't stop Lombardi from running his sweep, didn't stop Walsh from throwing to his RBs or John Taylor.

You avoid what the defense is looking for when you don't think you can get away with it. Packers v Ravens in 2001. That is what worries me about the passing game. Cover 2 isn't hard to figure out. Favre used to roast it. Of course, having a TE or RB who can catch does help.

I don't mind being able to run, or choosing to, but its not the only option. The West Coast offense was built to abuse the Cover 2 in Pittsburgh and Mel Blount played man corner like a super villain. One problem is that they have put some eggs in the Matthew Mulligan basket and he is taking a TE spot and will not be running down the seam often.

I have a small amount of hope that Franklin is the "RB who can catch" who can loosen up cover 2 a bit. I get the feeling that he's going to take some screen passes a long way this year and see him being sort of like Bush/Sproles were for the Saints.

Now, if they could just get Finley playing more like Graham...

[Guiness]

Yes, I know. The Ref told McCarthy he could not be sure where Stakrs knee was in the reply. McCarthy's point is that the limitations of the human body and physics means it can't be on the ground.

I was commenting that before replay in football, 98 refs out of 100 would call this a run to the half yard line because from the position of his body, you would almost never look for the ball where it is.

My understanding is that in order to overturn the ruling on the field, conclusive evidence is required. So if every part of the body that would make him be considered 'down' can not be seen, they go with the original ruling.

I know what you mean though, pre tv replay era, this is never a TD, but now there's a ghost of a chance.

[RashanGary]

My understanding is that in order to overturn the ruling on the field, conclusive evidence is required. So if every part of the body that would make him be considered 'down' can not be seen, they go with the original ruling.

I know what you mean though, pre tv replay era, this is never a TD, but now there's a ghost of a chance.

what if he was upside down, but u couldnt see his knee. would they have to assume it possible that his knee could be touching the ground. if its not possible, its not possible. at some point you have to say, theres no way his knee is down. i think that picture gets that point across. Touchdown.

[Iron Mike]

It's probably asking too much of officials to expect them to be competent in both applied physics and geometry.

I guess you're right:

[Guiness]

I guess you're right:

Nice one IM, never seen that cap before. I near lost my mind over that call.

[mraynrand]

I guess you're right:

I knew a high school basketball ref who was studying dark matter, but that was only because his head was up his ass.

[Joemailman]

I guess you're right:

That was one of the worst calls I ever saw, but they were just getting started...

[Guiness]

That was one of the worst calls I ever saw, but they were just getting started...

I think the first was actually a more ridiculous mistake. It was easily seen, I really don't know how that call went the wrong way. It would've ended the drive, IIRC, and pretty much the game with it. The game ending hail mary at least the first time through you were going 'what was that?' and could not be sure exactly what happened.

[pittstang5]

I think the first was actually a more ridiculous mistake. It was easily seen, I really don't know how that call went the wrong way. It would've ended the drive, IIRC, and pretty much the game with it. The game ending hail mary at least the first time through you were going 'what was that?' and could not be sure exactly what happened.

And I still don't fully understand how on the replay (since all touchdowns are reviewed) it couldn't be reveresed. It really doesn't matter anymore.

Because of this game, my hatred for Seattle escalated to the same as the Bears, Vikings and Lions. Even though the Refs were to blame, Pete Carroll and Golden Tate's responses/interviews from that incident were just asinine.