More Banjo - The Bears Still Suck!

[Patler]

It would be interesting to have Patler compare the 2.

Cuz he witnessed both?

Precisely.

Now, now; I already told you that I do not remember games from 85 seasons ago. 65 seasons, sure, but not 85!

[ThunderDan]

That could be interesting. Here's more tidbits on blocked field goals

That seems crazy. I sure don’t remember that many blocked FG in the last 20 years let alone the last 3.

[Patler]

That seems crazy. I sure don’t remember that many blocked FG in the last 20 years let alone the last 3.

Didn't Yosh Nijman have two last year, relatively close together; then question the press about what the Packer record was for blocks in a season?

[SudsMcBucky]

Will have to post just to re-inforce my avatar.

[Joemailman]

Packers blocked field goal was legal.

After the Packers beat the Bears by blocking a field goal on the last play of the game, Bears coach Matt Eberflus claimed the Packers should have been flagged because “they were obviously on our long snapper.”

The NFL disagrees.

The Bears sent the play into the league for an explanation, and the league’s officiating office informed the Bears that the Packers made a clean play, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

NFL rules prohibit lining up directly across from the long snapper, or making contact with him while his head is still down immediately following the snap. Packers defensive lineman T.J. Slaton was lined up legally but did make contact with Bears long snapper Scott Daly on the blocked field goal. But the league ruled that the Slaton’s contact was legal. Contact can be made with long snappers as long as it’s not when the long snapper’s head is down immediately following the snap.

If the officials had ruled that Slaton had illegally contacted Daly while his head was still down, it would have been a 15-yard unnecessary roughness penalty and the Bears would have had another chance to make the field goal. But the officials didn’t throw the flag and the Packers won. And the league office says that was the correct call.

[Patler]

I saw a blurb on Monday from one of the retired NFL officials explaining why no penalty should have been called on the blocked field goal, even though there was some contact with the long snapper:

- He said the snapper appears to hold a pose with his head down.
- At the same time, the guard moves out slightly, then back toward the long snapper, attempting to pinch the Packer against the snapper, in essence creating the "look" of a penalty.
- The Packers lined up well outside the snapper and did not move at or initiate contact with the snapper.
- Any contact made was to the side of the long snapper, not to his head or neck area.
- The officials do not expect the long snapper to be totally untouched for the entirety of the play.