PDA

View Full Version : Crymoanwhine about the SB Refs Thread


Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 06:19 PM
All the calls Ive seen have been legit, maybe they are slightly ticky tack, but Arizona IS NOT EXECUTING. So it doesnt matter what the calls are if Arizona isn't doing **** anyway.

All the while Ed Hochuli laughs at your hypocrisy :D

Spider
02-01-2009, 06:20 PM
All the calls Ive seen have been legit, maybe they are slightly ticky tack, but Arizona IS NOT EXECUTING. So it doesnt matter what the calls are if Arizona isn't doing **** anyway.

All the while Ed Hochuli laughs at your hypocrisy :D

How special ........

Bronx33
02-01-2009, 06:21 PM
How special ........

I concur....

enjolras
02-01-2009, 06:21 PM
Only if your wearing black and gold.

Bronx33
02-01-2009, 06:23 PM
Only if your wearing black and gold.


Black maybe but the gold would give away his ninja-ness.

Spider
02-01-2009, 06:24 PM
Hey Ninja will you make me a thread so I can bítch about the new bítch brought in from California to run Colorado's DOT dept .............. thanks in advance your buddy spider

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 06:24 PM
For the record Arizona started executing and got their heads out of their asses and the refs arnt stopping them! WOW!

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 06:25 PM
Hey Ninja will you make me a thread so I can bítch about the new bítch brought in from California to run Colorado's DOT dept .............. thanks in advance your buddy spider

So you attack me because I think the NFL -ISN'T- fixed?

Way to take the high road.

Bronx33
02-01-2009, 06:28 PM
Maybe your clueless and accept the penalty ratio like it's normal.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 06:30 PM
Maybe your clueless and accept the penalty ratio like it's normal.

All the penalties Ive seen are legit. Some may have been missed or not, but all the big ones called ARE REAL PENALTIES. Maybe you're clueless and believe Arizona is supposed to win by holding calls on Pitt and not scoring TDs on their own, or stopping Pitts offense without grabbing and yanking on their facemasks or running into their HOLDER for christs sakes.

Spider
02-01-2009, 06:31 PM
So you attack me because I think the NFL -ISN'T- fixed?

Way to take the high road.

Attack ? if i attacked i would have said , listen you your daddy jácked off into a flower pot and raised a blooming Idiot ..... I asked you to do me a favor ........

Natedog24
02-01-2009, 06:31 PM
100 post rule

Bronx33
02-01-2009, 06:34 PM
All the penalties Ive seen are legit. Some may have been missed or not, but all the big ones called ARE REAL PENALTIES. Maybe you're clueless and believe Arizona is supposed to win by holding calls on Pitt and not scoring TDs on their own, or stopping Pitts offense without grabbing and yanking on their facemasks or running into their HOLDER for christs sakes.



See sunshine that's where we disagree butt iam not going to start a thread to cry about it.:approve:

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 06:36 PM
See sunshine that's where we disagree butt iam not going to start a thread to cry about it.:approve:

Im not crying about it. You Arizona fans are the ones crying about it :)

Bronx33
02-01-2009, 06:38 PM
Im not crying about it. You Arizona fans are the ones crying about it :)


Ummm yes you are and this thread is proof. :kiss:

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 06:47 PM
Ummm yes you are and this thread is proof. :kiss:

So I'm crying about the refs having a Pitt bias by saying the game has been fairly officiated. Ok, I get it....

TheReverend
02-01-2009, 06:51 PM
So I'm crying about the refs having a Pitt bias by saying the game has been fairly officiated. Ok, I get it....

You're dim.

Period.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 06:54 PM
Is it a fairly reffed game yet? Your team is winning.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:03 PM
Oh nvm, definately not a fairly reffed game anymore with the 0 Penalties called on the Pitt drive, they must have cheated their way to the endzone and santonio holmes must have been cheating on all his catches.

SoCalBronco
02-01-2009, 07:10 PM
Im not crying about it. You Arizona fans are the ones crying about it :)

Here's a napkin for your chin.

http://onlinebargainshopping.com.au/catalog/images/damask_napkin.jpg

TheReverend
02-01-2009, 07:12 PM
Oh nvm, definately not a fairly reffed game anymore with the 0 Penalties called on the Pitt drive, they must have cheated their way to the endzone and santonio holmes must have been cheating on all his catches.

Anyone watching that game that didn't think the calls were one-sided was a Pitt fan or retarded.

Which are you?

Popcorn Sutton
02-01-2009, 07:17 PM
Anyone watching that game that didn't think the calls were one-sided was a Pitt fan or retarded.

Which are you?

I'm with you Rev... it's not only the calls that get me... It's the non-calls. Anybody see Warner get slammed in the back of the head TWICE with no call yet Dansby gets ringed up for hitting Roethlisberger in the back... Pitiful!

It's not that hard to imagine... It's a business folks and which team do you think will bring the league more money if they win?

TheReverend
02-01-2009, 07:21 PM
I'm with you Rev... it's not only the calls that get me... It's the non-calls. Anybody see Warner get slammed in the back of the head TWICE with no call yet Dansby gets ringed up for hitting Roethlisberger in the back... Pitiful!

It's not that hard to imagine... It's a business folks and which team do you think will bring the league more money if they win?

It's sad.

VERY sad.

Innocence is lost, regardless. This is the FINAL shred of evidence required.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Anyone watching that game that didn't think the calls were one-sided was a Pitt fan or retarded.

Which are you?

So because I disagree with you I'm an idiot?

Or is it because Arizona had the lead with less than a minute left and couldn't hold it, thus a call here and there in 2nd quarter lost them the game? Bull****, they could have won easily if they just stopped pitt on defense. Or hell, if they hadn't thrown the 100 yard INT Return!

TheReverend
02-01-2009, 07:23 PM
Btw, Pitt is one of the worst cities in the entire united states

TheReverend
02-01-2009, 07:24 PM
So because I disagree with you I'm an idiot?

Or is it because Arizona had the lead with less than a minute left and couldn't hold it, thus a call here and there in 2nd quarter lost them the game? Bull****, they could have won easily if they just stopped pitt on defense. Or hell, if they hadn't thrown the 100 yard INT Return!

No.

Because you're an idiot.

Bronx33
02-01-2009, 07:25 PM
I'm with you Rev... it's not only the calls that get me... It's the non-calls. Anybody see Warner get slammed in the back of the head TWICE with no call yet Dansby gets ringed up for hitting Roethlisberger in the back... Pitiful!

It's not that hard to imagine... It's a business folks and which team do you think will bring the league more money if they win?


exactly but ninjadouche sees life in a whole new light.

lex
02-01-2009, 07:26 PM
I'm with you Rev... it's not only the calls that get me... It's the non-calls. Anybody see Warner get slammed in the back of the head TWICE with no call yet Dansby gets ringed up for hitting Roethlisberger in the back... Pitiful!

It's not that hard to imagine... It's a business folks and which team do you think will bring the league more money if they win?

Its not only the penalties but its also the close plays where Fixburgh almost is never required to use a challenge. It seemed like Arizona, however, was always in the position where they were the ones who had to consider challenging plays. A good example was the play earlier in the game where Warners arm was clearly going forward but they had to uses a challenge to get the call overturned. People can look at it and say, "they ended up making the right call, whats the harm?" The harm is that you dont get an infinite number of challenges and you shouldnt need to waste it on a call that should have been obvious since you may need it for a call thats less clear.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:27 PM
Anyone watching that game that didn't think the calls were one-sided was a Pitt fan or retarded.

Which are you?

Holy god, this is one of the best forum owns ever.

God I love this. Hypocrisy is hilarious! God damn, you sir, lose!

http://orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2087788&postcount=1

mr007
02-01-2009, 07:32 PM
Holy god, this is one of the best forum owns ever.

God I love this. Hypocrisy is hilarious! God damn, you sir, lose!

http://orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2087788&postcount=1

No offense man, but you're new to the forum... you may want to respect some of the people who have been posting here for a long time instead of just spouting off when no one even knows wtf you are.

Secondly, anyone who doesn't think the Steelers had penalties in their favor from a reffing standpoint (I'm not talking legit calls) is blind or completely biased. End of story.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:35 PM
No offense man, but you're new to the forum... you may want to respect some of the people who have been posting here for a long time instead of just spouting off when no one even knows wtf you are.

Secondly, anyone who doesn't think the Steelers had penalties in their favor from a reffing standpoint (I'm not talking legit calls) is blind or completely biased. End of story.

I just defended myself, I never started a full on attack like he did until I found that little gem.

Inkana7
02-01-2009, 07:37 PM
I just defended myself, I never started a full on attack like he did until I found that little gem.

Shut the **** up. You're no victim.

mr007
02-01-2009, 07:38 PM
I just defended myself, I never started a full on attack like he did until I found that little gem.

I wouldn't exactly say being called "dim" for calling the game fairly officiated a full on attack, maybe a basic observation.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:40 PM
Shut the **** up. You're no victim.

I never went after anyone. Rev singled me out for AGREEING WITH HIS PREVIOUS IDEAS WHEN THEY ARE WHAT HE WANTS TO HAPPEN, AND THEN STICKING WITH THOSE IDEAS WHEN WHAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO HAPPEN, HAPPENS.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:40 PM
I wouldn't exactly say being called "dim" for calling the game fairly officiated a full on attack, maybe a basic observation.

You followed the Superbowl thread then I see.

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 07:43 PM
So because I disagree with you I'm an idiot?

Or is it because Arizona had the lead with less than a minute left and couldn't hold it, thus a call here and there in 2nd quarter lost them the game? Bull****, they could have won easily if they just stopped pitt on defense. Or hell, if they hadn't thrown the 100 yard INT Return!

No, you are free to disagree. you are free to speak your mind. You are free to have an opinion.

And other people are free to think you are an idiot for your opinion.

Thats the beauty of freedom.

mr007
02-01-2009, 07:45 PM
You followed the Superbowl thread then I see.

I didn't follow any threads, I just watched the game.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:46 PM
I didn't follow any threads, I just watched the game.

I was crucified for saying I thought the game was fair or at least winnable by both teams (if Arizona executed) in that thread.

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 07:46 PM
I just defended myself, I never started a full on attack like he did until I found that little gem.

Just curious, why are you defending yourself to some nameless internet people who you will likely never meet?

And why are you here if you are a ****tsburgh fan?

WTF is wrong with you?

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 07:48 PM
I was crucified for saying I thought the game was fair or at least winnable by both teams (if Arizona executed) in that thread.

Crucified?

Way to nail yourself to the cross there Jesus.

You were disagreed with and your attitude presented people with an opening to inflammatory remarks, none of which were crucifying. You want crucifying? We can do that here too.

This was just a little bit of flaming for an arrogant, self-righteous little Squeeler fan.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 07:49 PM
Just curious, why are you defending yourself to some nameless internet people who you will likely never meet?

And why are you here if you are a ****tsburgh fan?

WTF is wrong with you?

Im a pitt fan now because I disagree with the norm idea that the game was fixed for them now?

Jumping to conclusions is awesome.

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 08:11 PM
Im a pitt fan now because I disagree with the norm idea that the game was fixed for them now?

Jumping to conclusions is awesome.

No, you are a Pitt fan for calling everyone else Arizona fans. No one here is a Zona fan, they were just rooting for them douchebag. But you called them that. So I called you a Pitt fan.

Ninjatime
02-01-2009, 08:25 PM
No, you are a Pitt fan for calling everyone else Arizona fans. No one here is a Zona fan, they were just rooting for them douchebag. But you called them that. So I called you a Pitt fan.

I called someone an Arizona fan?

Paladin
02-01-2009, 08:43 PM
Anyone watching that game that didn't think the calls were one-sided was a Pitt fan or retarded.

Which are you?

Your question has too many options for him to answer. And "Pitt fan or retarded" are not mutually exclusive categories......

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 08:46 PM
Your question has too many options for him to answer. And "Pitt fan or retarded" are not mutually exclusive categories......

BWahahaha

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 08:46 PM
I called someone an Arizona fan?

Yes in this thread moron. "All you arizona fans are crying"

****nut.

Paladin
02-01-2009, 08:48 PM
Jumping to conclusions is awesome.


That's how a lot of the guys around here get their exercise. That and sex.....

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 08:51 PM
My wife wont let me have sex with her until the doctors are certain she is non-fertile :)

Paladin
02-01-2009, 08:53 PM
Want Spider to check her out? He's got game.

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 08:58 PM
Want Spider to check her out? He's got game.

Spider is the last person I want near my fertile wife.

No more babies. 3 is plenty. I cant afford to send more than 3 to KU :)

chaz
02-01-2009, 09:05 PM
zona got screwed with some of the calls...but they also had their chances...sucks but i still have to get up in the morning.

Broncoman13
02-01-2009, 09:09 PM
I'm with you Rev... it's not only the calls that get me... It's the non-calls. Anybody see Warner get slammed in the back of the head TWICE with no call yet Dansby gets ringed up for hitting Roethlisberger in the back... Pitiful!

It's not that hard to imagine... It's a business folks and which team do you think will bring the league more money if they win?

Several holding penalties should have been called on the Steeler's OLine as well. Cardinal players were throwing their hands up in the middle of plays trying to get the Ref's attention so they could see the holds. Lots of no calls against the Steelers. Not sure I'm ready to say the game is fixed, but this certainly doesn't help the NFL's image. If I were a non-fan that already had doubts about the legitimacy of the NFL... I would have no doubts anymore!

Blueflame
02-01-2009, 09:53 PM
What I wanna know is... on 3rd and 1... a holding penalty is called on the offense and the result is a 1st and 20. ??? How is that not called as 3rd and 11? (benefited Arizona, btw....)

enjolras
02-01-2009, 10:17 PM
What I wanna know is... on 3rd and 1... a holding penalty is called on the offense and the result is a 1st and 20. ??? How is that not called as 3rd and 11? (benefited Arizona, btw....)

I think I missed the play in question, but if I recall correctly the rule is:

If the ball is moved beyond the line of scrimmage holding calls are assessed from the point of the infraction. If that point is beyond the first down marker the yardage is first given and THEN the penalty is assessed. In that case you can make a first down and then have the penalty yards taken.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-01-2009, 10:30 PM
Not sure if someone mentioned this, but why wasnt the last play reviewed?

azbroncfan
02-01-2009, 10:36 PM
Btw, Pitt is one of the worst cities in the entire united states

Pitt has one of the largest government welfare assistance in the country.

Blueflame
02-01-2009, 10:47 PM
I think I missed the play in question, but if I recall correctly the rule is:

If the ball is moved beyond the line of scrimmage holding calls are assessed from the point of the infraction. If that point is beyond the first down marker the yardage is first given and THEN the penalty is assessed. In that case you can make a first down and then have the penalty yards taken.

I've been watching football a long time and I've never seen an offensive holding penalty assessed that way. Until today. And because it was 3rd down, it extended the drive....

ZONA
02-01-2009, 11:02 PM
I don't think the NFL is fixed at all. I thought the refs called alot of penalties tonight. Alot of them were good calls. A few I think were bad. I just think the few bad ones went against the cards and not the Steelers. The Dansby penalty was pathetic. I would have said the same thing if it was a Steeler hitting Warner. You can't ask a 250+ pounder running full speed 1 step away to just stop on a dime. I thought he showed enough restraint by just pushing him instead of laying him out.

cutman0122
02-02-2009, 02:15 AM
Not sure if someone mentioned this, but why wasnt the last play reviewed?


I didn't see no reviews neither. The biggest game of the of the season just ended abruptly without the benefit of instant replay. Weird!!

Drek
02-02-2009, 03:50 AM
I don't think the NFL is fixed at all. I thought the refs called alot of penalties tonight. Alot of them were good calls. A few I think were bad. I just think the few bad ones went against the cards and not the Steelers. The Dansby penalty was pathetic. I would have said the same thing if it was a Steeler hitting Warner. You can't ask a 250+ pounder running full speed 1 step away to just stop on a dime. I thought he showed enough restraint by just pushing him instead of laying him out.

The biggest thing on the Dansby roughing the passer call is the refs showing a complete lack of awareness to the game going on before them. Roethslithberger was slipping out of sacks play after play, just because Dansby came hard and fast enough to make sure that wouldn't happena gain he shouldn't be penalized.

If you want to be a mobile, scrambling QB you don't get the luxury of ticky tack roughing the passer fouls.

As for the game in its entirety, the problem wasn't the calls. It was the non-calls. Ask any experienced NFL OL what percentage of their plays they hold on and you'll get answers ranging from "60%" to "90%" or even "coach said if I wasn't holding I wasn't trying". A LOT of the holds they called on the Cards did not have a direct impact on the game, and a lot of non-call holds by the Steelers (mostly on Dockett, who is a beast) sure as hell did.

Thats the big problem, and its the same problem with the 2005 SB. The refs are calling legit penalties on one team and somehow missing a hell of a lot of very similar penalties by the other.

But this is what happens when the league is so damn vague in how the require refs to interpret the rules, and the 10 yard hit for a holding penalty (should be 5 from the spot of the infraction in my opinion) doesn't help.

I will say this though. I really didn't want to believe the NBA was a victim of rigged officiating back in 2002 when the WC Finals were so heavily slanted to LA that it was disgusting, but the feeling in the pit of my gut told me otherwise.

Sometimes I get the same feeling from the NFL, and it can't help but seem a lot more plausible because of all the professional sports leagues the NFL's officiating crew is the only one that aren't full time employees of the league. You lose all sorts of quality control by not being the primary source of income and occupation for the men you give so much power to.

TheReverend
02-02-2009, 04:15 AM
I vommitted about 7 pounds all over my living room while this thread was going full force.

Not feelin too fresh this morning...

mr007
02-02-2009, 09:32 AM
I've been watching football a long time and I've never seen an offensive holding penalty assessed that way. Until today. And because it was 3rd down, it extended the drive....

It has always been this way. Holding is called at the point of infraction, the problem is most holding calls are on offensive lineman, which means the infraction occured at the LOS, resulting in a 10 yard loss. If the infraction occurs by a wide receiver performing a block and the offense was advancing the ball, the result of the play is loss of 10 yards from the point of infraction (hence 1st and 20).

Blueflame
02-02-2009, 10:04 AM
It has always been this way. Holding is called at the point of infraction, the problem is most holding calls are on offensive lineman, which means the infraction occured at the LOS, resulting in a 10 yard loss. If the infraction occurs by a wide receiver performing a block and the offense was advancing the ball, the result of the play is loss of 10 yards from the point of infraction (hence 1st and 20).

Again, I have never seen a holding call on 3rd and 1 result in anything but 3rd and 11....and neither had any of the other people watching the game at the SB party yesterday. Penalties negate first downs all the time... and holding usually means a replay of the down... yet in this instance the penalty was assessed on the next play. I still firmly believe that it should have been 3rd and 11; not 1st and 20.

mr007
02-02-2009, 10:21 AM
Again, I have never seen a holding call on 3rd and 1 result in anything but 3rd and 11....and neither had any of the other people watching the game at the SB party yesterday. Penalties negate first downs all the time... and holding usually means a replay of the down... yet in this instance the penalty was assessed on the next play. I still firmly believe that it should have been 3rd and 11; not 1st and 20.

It's just because you don't see a lot of holding calls on WRs while the offense is advancing the ball at the same time. It happens much more frequently on punt and kickoff returns, the infraction occurs at the spot of the foul.

I've seen a 3rd and 15 turned into a 1st and 20 due to a hold. It happens, you probably just haven't taken notice of it.

Spider
02-02-2009, 10:25 AM
As someone who has trucked through Pittsburg , I can tell you a few things ....
1. No truckstops in the city ......
2. Squirrel Mountain tunnel is a pain in the ass .....
3. More Bridges in that city alone then most states have .....
4. but at night .... wow ........ it isnt new york city , but it is a sight to see

azbroncfan
02-02-2009, 10:29 AM
How come noone is complaining about the holding call on Pitt in the endzone where Biesel pancaked the C and they called him for a hold? That was a big play as Pitt had picked up the first which would of most likely ended the game.

Drek
02-02-2009, 11:42 AM
How come noone is complaining about the holding call on Pitt in the endzone where Biesel pancaked the C and they called him for a hold? That was a big play as Pitt had picked up the first which would of most likely ended the game.

Because as the C was falling he literally reached inside the DL's shoulder pads and drug him down with him?

That was as obvious a hold as it gets, and the hold directly resulted in the defender not A. sacking Roethslithberger B. blocking the pass or C. at the very least obstructing Roethslithberger's view and potentially stopping the pass.

You got to call holding when it clearly effects the outcome of a play.

Ninjatime
02-02-2009, 01:34 PM
Because as the C was falling he literally reached inside the DL's shoulder pads and drug him down with him?

That was as obvious a hold as it gets, and the hold directly resulted in the defender not A. sacking Roethslithberger B. blocking the pass or C. at the very least obstructing Roethslithberger's view and potentially stopping the pass.

You got to call holding when it clearly effects the outcome of a play.

It wouldn't have affected the outcome. Both players were falling when Roeth was releasing.

Either way, it was one that could go both ways, and was one that cut in Arizona's favor, not Pitts. Most holding calls can be contested either way.

Ninjatime
02-02-2009, 01:43 PM
I think the refs were just in a philanthropic mood last night and had no choice but to call ticky tack fouls.

Beantown Bronco
02-03-2009, 06:36 AM
Can't believe nobody's mentioned the obvious missed call after the last Pitt TD, when Holmes used the ball as a prop during a celebration right in front of the ref. All season long, that was an unsportsmanlike penalty and the kickoff should've been at the 15 yard line instead of the 30. That would've been VERY significant at that point.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-03-2009, 06:50 AM
Again, I have never seen a holding call on 3rd and 1 result in anything but 3rd and 11....and neither had any of the other people watching the game at the SB party yesterday.
Seriously? I couldn't count the number of times (this year) I saw holding calls cost a team 12-18 yards, and I also saw 4-5 holding calls which went for first down also!
And you've "never" seen one?

Natedogg
02-03-2009, 08:13 AM
This is probably a dumb queston.

But why wansn't the Cardinal's last offensive play (where Warner "fumbled") challenged to see if his arm was going forward?

Beantown Bronco
02-03-2009, 08:14 AM
This is probably a dumb queston.

But why wansn't the Cardinal's last offensive play (where Warner "fumbled") challenged to see if his arm was going forward?

Not enough companies forked out the $ for more commercials.

Drek
02-03-2009, 09:14 AM
It wouldn't have affected the outcome. Both players were falling when Roeth was releasing.

Either way, it was one that could go both ways, and was one that cut in Arizona's favor, not Pitts. Most holding calls can be contested either way.

How wouldn't it? The Steelers OL was flopped on his ass and the defensive player was about to run through free until the OL literally reached into his shoulder pads around his neck and drug him down to the ground.

Roethslithberger threw his pass through that VERY passing lane too.

The defensive player might have tripped on his own, he might have fallen or failed to make the play for a lot of other reasons, but when the steeler's OL reached his hand inside the defender's shoulder pads and pulled him down you're talking about if's and buts and you got to call the holding since it could have had a direct impact on the play.

Can't believe nobody's mentioned the obvious missed call after the last Pitt TD, when Holmes used the ball as a prop during a celebration right in front of the ref. All season long, that was an unsportsmanlike penalty and the kickoff should've been at the 15 yard line instead of the 30. That would've been VERY significant at that point.

NBC's coverage flipped away from that pretty quick, huh?

That would've been a big difference maker, the return itself would've been much more dangerous.

This is probably a dumb queston.

But why wansn't the Cardinal's last offensive play (where Warner "fumbled") challenged to see if his arm was going forward?
Obviously a fumble though. He was hit as he was cocking his arm back, and it was moving as he brought it forward. The booth looked at it and didn't consider it worth formal review.

Blueflame
02-03-2009, 12:14 PM
Seriously? I couldn't count the number of times (this year) I saw holding calls cost a team 12-18 yards, and I also saw 4-5 holding calls which went for first down also!
And you've "never" seen one?

Not only have I never seen offensive holding on 3rd and 1 result in anything but 3rd and 11, but neither had like 5 other longtime football-watchers at the SB party I attended Sunday. I'd really like to see a play-by-play from NFL.com of a game in which it did. It's certainly not "commonplace" for officials to give the 1st down in that situation.

mr007
02-03-2009, 12:18 PM
Not only have I never seen offensive holding on 3rd and 1 result in anything but 3rd and 11, but neither had like 5 other longtime football-watchers at the SB party I attended Sunday. I'd really like to see a play-by-play from NFL.com of a game in which it did. It's certainly not "commonplace" for officials to give the 1st down in that situation.

It happens every single time the infraction occurs downfield while the offense is moving the ball forward. No offense, but there are plenty of "longtime" football watchers and fans that don't completely understand or know many NFL rules. The call on the field was correct and, as I said, happens in each instance of the same situation.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-03-2009, 12:33 PM
Not only have I never seen offensive holding on 3rd and 1 result in anything but 3rd and 11, but neither had like 5 other longtime football-watchers at the SB party I attended Sunday. I'd really like to see a play-by-play from NFL.com of a game in which it did. It's certainly not "commonplace" for officials to give the 1st down in that situation.
So you and your "longtime football-watchers" have NEVER heard the Ref say "10 yards from the spot of the foul. Repeat # down."???
Maybe you need to pay more attention to the game as a FAN, and stop being a spectator?!?;)


"Off the top of my head" - meaning I COULD be wrong, Philli received a few 1st down/holding calls this year and I'm pretty sure Denver got minimum of ONE, probably a few.

Blueflame
02-03-2009, 12:37 PM
It happens every single time the infraction occurs downfield while the offense is moving the ball forward. No offense, but there are plenty of "longtime" football watchers and fans that don't completely understand or know many NFL rules. The call on the field was correct and, as I said, happens in each instance of the same situation.

Play-by-play from NFL.com, please.

Blueflame
02-03-2009, 12:39 PM
So you and your "longtime football-watchers" have NEVER heard the Ref say "10 yards from the spot of the foul. Repeat # down."???
Maybe you need to pay more attention to the game as a FAN, and stop being a spectator?!?;)


"Off the top of my head" - meaning I COULD be wrong, Philli received a few 1st down/holding calls this year and I'm pretty sure Denver got minimum of ONE, probably a few.

There's your key, GBDU... they didn't repeat 3rd down; they assessed the 10 yards on 1st down. I still maintain that penalty should have resulted in 3rd and 11; not 1st and 20.

mr007
02-03-2009, 12:47 PM
Play-by-play from NFL.com, please.

Here's one from the superbowl last year:

2-10-NE 26 (1:05) (Shotgun) 33-K.Faulk up the middle to NE 41 for 15 yards (92-M.Strahan). PENALTY on NE-84-B.Watson, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at <b>NE 33</b>.

This was 2nd and 10 from the NE 26 yard line. THE PENALTY: Offensive HOLDING by the Tight End occured <b>downfield</b> while the offense was moving the ball which is where the penatly was enforced at the 33 yard line, which is what happens in every single situation of offensive holding that doesn't occur at the LOS. Here is the result of the play, as per NFL.com: I have bolded so you can see.

Timeout #1 by NE at 00:59.
<b>2-13-NE 23</b> (:59) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 83-W.Welker to NE 32 for 9 yards (98-F.Robbins, 91-J.Tuck).

2nd and 13 from the NE 23 after a 10 yard holding penatly on 2nd and 10. Why?? Because the penalty occured at the NE 33, 7 yards up field resulting in a net-loss of 3 yards (10 yard penalty occuring 7 yards up the field, 10-7 =3). Again, this happens in every single instance of offensive holding that occurs downfield while the offense is moving the ball for positive yardage (past the occurance of the penalty).

mr007
02-03-2009, 12:50 PM
There's your key, GBDU... they didn't repeat 3rd down; they assessed the 10 yards on 1st down. I still maintain that penalty should have resulted in 3rd and 11; not 1st and 20.

That's because they already had a <b>1st down</b> before the spot of the infraction. You are wrong in your assessment of the rules.

Blueflame
02-03-2009, 12:57 PM
Here's one from the superbowl last year:

2-10-NE 26 (1:05) (Shotgun) 33-K.Faulk up the middle to NE 41 for 15 yards (92-M.Strahan). PENALTY on NE-84-B.Watson, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at <b>NE 33</b>.

This was 2nd and 10 from the NE 26 yard line. THE PENALTY: Offensive HOLDING by the Tight End occured <b>downfield</b> while the offense was moving the ball which is where the penatly was enforced at the 33 yard line, which is what happens in every single situation of offensive holding that doesn't occur at the LOS. Here is the result of the play, as per NFL.com: I have bolded so you can see.

Timeout #1 by NE at 00:59.
<b>2-13-NE 23</b> (:59) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 83-W.Welker to NE 32 for 9 yards (98-F.Robbins, 91-J.Tuck).

2nd and 13 from the NE 23 after a 10 yard holding penatly on 2nd and 10. Why?? Because the penalty occured at the NE 33, 7 yards up field resulting in a net-loss of 3 yards (10 yard penalty occuring 7 yards up the field, 10-7 =3). Again, this happens in every single instance of offensive holding that occurs downfield while the offense is moving the ball for positive yardage (past the occurance of the penalty).

OK, but to be the same as what happened Sunday, the 15 yard gain would have been awarded as a 1st down and then the penalty assessed on the next play. That didn't happen.

You are not going to convince me that the Cardinals should not have been facing 3rd and 11 as the result of that holding penalty. Replay of the down always happens with holding.

Blueflame
02-03-2009, 12:59 PM
That's because they already had a <b>1st down</b> before the spot of the infraction. You are wrong in your assessment of the rules.

I do not believe I am. The holding penalty was a part of the play and should have resulted in replaying 3rd down.

mr007
02-03-2009, 01:06 PM
I do not believe I am. The holding penalty was a part of the play and should have resulted in replaying 3rd down.

Umm look at the New England game. It's simple math, they will say replay of the down <b>only</b> if the down remains the same. Here's a scenario based thing so you can better understand.

2nd and 10 from the 20. Run to 50 yard line for 30 yards, holding WR enforced at the 35 yard line. Result of the play is 2nd and 5 from the 25, replay down.

3rd and 10 from the 20. Pass, touchdown. Holding WR enforced at the 39 yard line. Result of the play is 3rd and 1 from the 29, replay down.

3rd and 10 from the 20. Pass, 30 yards to the 50. Holding TE enforced at the 42 yard line. Result of the play is 1st and 20 from the 32 yard line.

By your logic, the first 2 scenarios would result in 2nd and 15 and 3rd and 20 respectively. Here are plays from the 1st 2 Denver Bronco games that mathematically eliminate your logic:

1-10-OAK 29 (3:10) 20-D.McFadden left end to OAK 37 for 8 yards (33-M.Manuel). PENALTY on OAK-80-Z.Miller, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, <b>enforced at OAK 37</b>.
1-12-OAK 27 (2:42) 20-D.McFadden up the middle to OAK 31 for 4 yards (55-D.Williams).

By your logic this should be 1st and 20 at the 27.

1-10-DEN 48 (3:11) 43-D.Sproles left tackle pushed ob at DEN 33 for 15 yards (24-C.Bailey). PENALTY on SD-89-C.Chambers, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, <b>enforced at DEN 33</b>.
1-5-DEN 43 (2:32) 17-P.Rivers pass incomplete deep middle to 85-A.Gates.

By your logic, this should be 1st and 15 from the Den 43.

If you take the spot the penalty was <b>ENFORCED</b> and subtract 10 yards, you get the result of the next down. If the result of that mathematical equation gives the team a 1st down, the result of the play is <b> 1st and 20</b>. I cannot possibly present it more clearly than this, so if you don't understand, sorry.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-03-2009, 01:09 PM
Holding - 10 yards from the spot of the foul. Repeat # down
You missed my point!


For 007:
San Diego at Denver 08

1-10-DEN 48 (3:11) 43-D.Sproles left tackle pushed ob at DEN 33 for 15 yards (24-C.Bailey). PENALTY on SD-89-C.Chambers, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at DEN 33.
1-5-DEN 43 (2:32) 17-P.Rivers pass incomplete deep middle to 85-A.Gates.



I kinda feel like I am EXPLAINING how a wheel works. ;)

Blueflame
02-03-2009, 01:18 PM
It's really not important... the Cardinals still lost. :pfbbt:

Maintaining the stance that the penalty should have resulted in 3rd and 11 though.

mr007
02-03-2009, 01:23 PM
It's really not important... the Cardinals still lost. :pfbbt:

Maintaining the stance that the penalty should have resulted in 3rd and 11 though.

Ahh right, completely ignoring logic... now if only I could remember where I've seen that before...... :egbgb: just givin' ya a hard time.

Blueflame
02-03-2009, 01:31 PM
Ahh right, completely ignoring logic... now if only I could remember where I've seen that before...... :egbgb: just givin' ya a hard time.

Nah, I still think the call was assessed wrong... and that the Cardinals got a gift from the officials. But it didn't change the outcome of the game, so it really doesn't matter all that much.

bronco militia
02-04-2009, 01:30 PM
http://www.profootballtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/holmestoes.JPG

Crushaholic
02-04-2009, 01:36 PM
I still think the game was pretty well officiated. Granted, this is contrast to what I consider a HORRIBLE year for officiating in the NFL. Referees were getting calls wrong in SEVERAL games during the regular season. I'm just glad they saw the holding call in the endzone. That at least gave the Cardinals a chance to come back...