NFL 2012

[JSngry]

If you call the low strike all game long and then wait until a 3-2 count in a tie game with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth to finally get all legal about it and call it Ball 4, you're more crooked than you are if you just go ahead and call it a strike one more time.

Oh, btw, it's WWE. I don't watch it, but my son and his buddoes have for as long as I can remember.

And the NFL can never offer you this:

[JSngry]

Besides - two teams in which zero players are of interest to me, two hyper-emo coaches who have the "brother vs brother media goo all over them, PLUS the slope-head CBS announcing team (Jim "OMG THAT POWER OUTAGE SHIFTED ALL THE MOMENTUM TO THE FORY-NINERCE!!!! (guess I missed the power outage when the Niners played the Falcons...) Nantz and Phil "OMG WHATEVER IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS WHAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT plus the incomparable cliche-obsessed trio of Dan, Shannon, Boomer and their flint-jawed tunnel-visioned leader, "Coach") almost ruined what was otherwise a very good football game.

[alocispepraluger102]

for goody:

http://www.huffingto..._n_2585207.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------"Football, beer, and above all gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult."

~George Orwell, 1984

Edited February 4, 2013 by alocispepraluger102

[Larry Kart]

Acute comments IMO (the final one especially) from former NFL safety Matt Bowen:

The “no-call” in the red zone: I will always come to the defense of the secondary when we talk about physical play and some contact on the release (or through the route stem). However, I can see why Jim Harbaugh had a serious issue on the fade route to Michael Crabtree vs. Jimmy Smith. As a DB, you can get away with a hold if you keep your hands inside of the shoulder pads from a press-alignment. But when you grab outside of those pads (as we saw with Smith on the release), that’s a call the refs probably should make. Rough night all around for the officiating crew down in New Orleans.

Ravens’ Cover 0 pressure: In two key situations (2 point play and the 4th down fade route), Baltimore played “zero-pressure.” Think of man-pressure with no safety help in the middle of the field. That’s smart football. Play with inside leverage and force the QB to throw the slant or the fade. This allows you to dictate the game situation from a defensive perspective.

49ers’ red zone play calling: San Francisco had something going when they burned a timeout on 3rd down (QB Counter Lead) in that final series, but I have to question the play coming off the timeout (quick flat route out of a bunch alignment) and the 2nd down call to run the Flat-7 (Sprint action). That’s a situation where you can throw inside breaking routes (Hi-Lo for example) or line up and go with the base downhill run schemes before throwing the fade on 4th down.

Bowen's second point suggests why the 49ers' called those flat routes; Baltimore's defense more or less dictated them. Too bad about that time out on the QB counter lead play. To me, odds looked good there that CK would have scored.

[alocispepraluger102]

Acute comments IMO (the final one especially) from former NFL safety Matt Bowen:

The “no-call” in the red zone: I will always come to the defense of the secondary when we talk about physical play and some contact on the release (or through the route stem). However, I can see why Jim Harbaugh had a serious issue on the fade route to Michael Crabtree vs. Jimmy Smith. As a DB, you can get away with a hold if you keep your hands inside of the shoulder pads from a press-alignment. But when you grab outside of those pads (as we saw with Smith on the release), that’s a call the refs probably should make. Rough night all around for the officiating crew down in New Orleans.

Ravens’ Cover 0 pressure: In two key situations (2 point play and the 4th down fade route), Baltimore played “zero-pressure.” Think of man-pressure with no safety help in the middle of the field. That’s smart football. Play with inside leverage and force the QB to throw the slant or the fade. This allows you to dictate the game situation from a defensive perspective.

49ers’ red zone play calling: San Francisco had something going when they burned a timeout on 3rd down (QB Counter Lead) in that final series, but I have to question the play coming off the timeout (quick flat route out of a bunch alignment) and the 2nd down call to run the Flat-7 (Sprint action). That’s a situation where you can throw inside breaking routes (Hi-Lo for example) or line up and go with the base downhill run schemes before throwing the fade on 4th down.

Bowen's second point suggests why the 49ers' called those flat routes; Baltimore's defense more or less dictated them. Too bad about that time out on the QB counter lead play. To me, odds looked good there that CK would have scored.

matt bowen is a fine knowledgeable analyst.

Edited February 4, 2013 by alocispepraluger102

[Tim McG]

If you call the low strike all game long and then wait until a 3-2 count in a tie game with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth to finally get all legal about it and call it Ball 4, you're more crooked than you are if you just go ahead and call it a strike one more time.

Oh, btw, it's WWE. I don't watch it, but my son and his buddoes have for as long as I can remember.

And the NFL can never offer you this:

It's WWF...World Wrestling Federation.

And in baseball, you get three strikes and endless foul balls WITH another at bat to follow. In the NFL it's one strike and you're done. There are no second opportunities unless...the official throws the freakin' flag.

[JSngry]

No dude, it's WWE now- World Wrestling Entertainment. It changed in 2002.

[Jazzmoose]

I noticed at the coin toss that the referee referred to the game as "the 2013 Super Bowl". I've never heard the Super Bowl referred to by the calendar year before.

Here's hoping it sticks and this godawful roman numeral thing goes away.

Again, I can deal with the loss. The Niners played like crap.

But if I was making book, I'd give you the points for a Ravens win. Bookies made millions.

The refs know better. In th regular season that will ALWAYS be a holding/pass interference penalty. Why is it suddenly different in the SB. Otherwise, why have any rules at all? Somebody got to them. I have seen this before in other SBs where the Niners were not in it.

NFL=WWF

And once again, you're embarrassing yourself. You're like the Tea Party of sports; it's always a conspiracy, it's always the other guys fault.

[GA Russell]

How about that hold on the safety play at the end?

It was a good non-call. The refs had been letting that go all game. It would have looked bad if they decided to call it there. Plus, it looked liker the receiver pushed off with a hand to the defender's face/hemet.

I think you are referring to a different play. I am referring to the safety, when the punter ran around in the end zone and took 8 seconds off the clock. The Baltimore offensive lineman was beaten by the San Francisco lineman, and the Balt guy wrapped both arms around the SF guy's waist from behind, preventing him from tackling the punter.

I don't know NFL rules, so I don't know if that penalty would have made any difference. But that was the most outrageous hold I've ever seen in my life.

[Larry Kart]

How about that hold on the safety play at the end?

It was a good non-call. The refs had been letting that go all game. It would have looked bad if they decided to call it there. Plus, it looked liker the receiver pushed off with a hand to the defender's face/hemet.

I think you are referring to a different play. I am referring to the safety, when the punter ran around in the end zone and took 8 seconds off the clock. The Baltimore offensive lineman was beaten by the San Francisco lineman, and the Balt guy wrapped both arms around the SF guy's waist from behind, preventing him from tackling the punter.

I don't know NFL rules, so I don't know if that penalty would have made any difference. But that was the most outrageous hold I've ever seen in my life.

Oddly enough, the penalty for holding in the end zone is a safety, which is what Baltimore was going for anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_(American_football)

Less or no time off the clock would I guess be the issue if the penalty had been called.

[GA Russell]

That's what I was thinking, Larry. My first thought was that in regard to its goal of spending time before taking a safety, Baltimore was in a no-lose position, and the holding was therefore meaningless. I wonder if the coaches thought of that.

[JSngry]

Ok, I'll ask it - I want stats that show how often "bad officiating" = "the fix is in" and how often "bad officiating" really is just bad officiating.

I saw enough bad officiating - especially when it came to helmet-to-helmet stuff - in that game yesterday that I'd welcome a play-by-play review to weigh who got the better end of the deal. I strongly suspect that it would end up being a wash. Both teams play dirty, er, excuse me, "physical" football, so hey.

And no, having one instance of "bad officiating" that comes when your team was trying to win a game that, except for a few short minutes, they never had a hold of anyway, doesn't count as anything other than just one more instance of bad officiating, especially when it came in a game that started off pretty chippy and almost immediately turned into an overt "let 'em play" affair.

They played.

[Tim McG]

I noticed at the coin toss that the referee referred to the game as "the 2013 Super Bowl". I've never heard the Super Bowl referred to by the calendar year before.

Here's hoping it sticks and this godawful roman numeral thing goes away.

Again, I can deal with the loss. The Niners played like crap.

But if I was making book, I'd give you the points for a Ravens win. Bookies made millions.

The refs know better. In th regular season that will ALWAYS be a holding/pass interference penalty. Why is it suddenly different in the SB. Otherwise, why have any rules at all? Somebody got to them. I have seen this before in other SBs where the Niners were not in it.

NFL=WWF

And once again, you're embarrassing yourself. You're like the Tea Party of sports; it's always a conspiracy, it's always the other guys fault.

Oh?

Then what would be your explanation for obvious calls which are selectively ignored? You can't just call me out unless you have an alternate explanation for this sort of openly shoddy officiating. Now how about it?

How about that hold on the safety play at the end?

It was a good non-call. The refs had been letting that go all game. It would have looked bad if they decided to call it there. Plus, it looked liker the receiver pushed off with a hand to the defender's face/hemet.

I think you are referring to a different play. I am referring to the safety, when the punter ran around in the end zone and took 8 seconds off the clock. The Baltimore offensive lineman was beaten by the San Francisco lineman, and the Balt guy wrapped both arms around the SF guy's waist from behind, preventing him from tackling the punter.

I don't know NFL rules, so I don't know if that penalty would have made any difference. But that was the most outrageous hold I've ever seen in my life.

That is called holding during the regular season.

In the SB...it's anybody's guess.

[Soulstation1]

WWF had to change to WWE

Cuz of the World Wildlife Fund.....

[Tim McG]

Ok, I'll ask it - I want stats that show how often "bad officiating" = "the fix is in" and how often "bad officiating" really is just bad officiating.

I saw enough bad officiating - especially when it came to helmet-to-helmet stuff - in that game yesterday that I'd welcome a play-by-play review to weigh who got the better end of the deal. I strongly suspect that it would end up being a wash. Both teams play dirty, er, excuse me, "physical" football, so hey.

And no, having one instance of "bad officiating" that comes when your team was trying to win a game that, except for a few short minutes, they never had a hold of anyway, doesn't count as anything other than just one more instance of bad officiating, especially when it came in a game that started off pretty chippy and almost immediately turned into an overt "let 'em play" affair.

They played.

Then how do you explain the "shielding" penalty on the very first down in the game? If the pass interference was a "non-call" then why wasn't this one? Both calls went against the Niners. Both calls adversely affected the play on the field. And you guys are honestly expecting me to believe that was some sort of happy coincidence? C'mon.

With all due respect, Guys, you're arguing a logical fallacy. A non-call is made when the outcome would not be adversely affected. It isn't made selectively or against one team. If there was any legitimacy to that argument, then no ticky-tack foul like shielding would be called at any point in the game. There were unsportsmanlike penalties, helmet slap penalties, holding on the 109 yard run back, defensive and offensive pass interference up the wahzoo. The only reason it happened was because the officials [one in particular] turned a blind eye. This is supposed to be the biggest game of the year and they totally disrespected the fans by not playing by the same rules they play during the regular season. All fans should be appalled by this. You root for your team for 16+ games only to see it get snatched away by non-compliant officials who penalize on a whim? I'm calling bullshit on the NFL.

Tell me about it when your team gets to the SB and the officials side with the opposing team.

Edited February 4, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[Soulstation1]

Bookies lost money on the SB

All the money was on SF

[Blue Train]

There probably is a rule on here about posting threads from other places. As hard as it is to believe, he was even less of a Mensch after the Giants won last year.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Blue Train

[JSngry]

Then how do you explain the "shielding" penalty on the very first down in the game?

Dude, that was an illegal formation. People were standing still and there it was. It's like, line up, set, and UH-oh!

If you need more explanation, see here: http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/8/11/1617766/know-your-annoying-penalties

Pretty unambiguous, really.

[JSngry]

This is supposed to be the biggest game of the year and they totally disrespected the fans by not playing by the same rules they play during the regular season. All fans should be appalled by this. You root for your team for 16+ games only to see it get snatched away by non-compliant officials who penalize on a whim? I'm calling bullshit on the NFL.

So, they throw that one flag on that one play and everything would be beautiful, eh?

How many games do you watch anyway? I see bad, at times awful, officiating in almost every game, especially the ones with at-best-average teams involved. And it pretty much evens out.

Call bullshit on the NFL all you want, but call it on all the games, not just this one, and not just because you feel like you got "robbed" of a win or something. Call bullshit based on objective, balanced evidence, not one emo torture moment.

And call bullshit on CBS while you're at it. GOD do I hate their crew. I can see JB gritting his teeth in his mind every passing second. But he took the money, so, hey, too bad about that, eh?

[GA Russell]

Then how do you explain the "shielding" penalty on the very first down in the game?

Dude, that was an illegal formation. People were standing still and there it was. It's like, line up, set, and UH-oh!

If you need more explanation, see here: http://www.teamspeed...oying-penalties

Pretty unambiguous, really.

Jim, I don't like the explanation you linked to. I also don't think it is relevant to this play.

The play referred to in the link is a common error in the CFL, called "No End." It happens when the curve of the offensive line on passing plays is bent too much at the snap of the ball, so that the tight end is technically in the backfield.

In the play last night, I believe that SF had eight men on the line. In the CFL, the left tight end would have been an ineligible receiver because only the two players at the extreme ends of the line may be eligible receivers. I think, but I'm not sure, that the tight end caught the pass. Therefore, it was an "ineligible receiver" penalty.

But I'm not NFL expert, so I may be wrong.

[Chalupa]

How about that hold on the safety play at the end?

It was a good non-call. The refs had been letting that go all game. It would have looked bad if they decided to call it there. Plus, it looked liker the receiver pushed off with a hand to the defender's face/hemet.

I think you are referring to a different play. I am referring to the safety, when the punter ran around in the end zone and took 8 seconds off the clock. The Baltimore offensive lineman was beaten by the San Francisco lineman, and the Balt guy wrapped both arms around the SF guy's waist from behind, preventing him from tackling the punter.

I don't know NFL rules, so I don't know if that penalty would have made any difference. But that was the most outrageous hold I've ever seen in my life.

Whoops. Yes, I meant the other one. And I agree that non holding call on the Balt O lineman was awful.

[JSngry]

Then how do you explain the "shielding" penalty on the very first down in the game?

Dude, that was an illegal formation. People were standing still and there it was. It's like, line up, set, and UH-oh!

If you need more explanation, see here: http://www.teamspeed...oying-penalties

Pretty unambiguous, really.

Jim, I don't like the explanation you linked to. I also don't think it is relevant to this play.

The play referred to in the link is a common error in the CFL, called "No End." It happens when the curve of the offensive line on passing plays is bent too much at the snap of the ball, so that the tight end is technically in the backfield.

In the play last night, I believe that SF had eight men on the line. In the CFL, the left tight end would have been an ineligible receiver because only the two players at the extreme ends of the line may be eligible receivers. I think, but I'm not sure, that the tight end caught the pass. Therefore, it was an "ineligible receiver" penalty.

But I'm not NFL expert, so I may be wrong.

No, you might be right. But I believe the refs called "illegal formation" and the replay showed and explained why, Phil Simms even saying, yeah, before the play even ran, I'm thinking, that's an illegal formation. (not an exact quote but pretty close). It might have been the last time I wanted to hear Simms explain anything all night.

Either way, it wasn't an interpretive call of a play in motion. A formation is either legal or it isn't.

[Chalupa]

Refs come through with tough non-call

But I'm happy to say Boger and his crew did a commendable job.

It was a relatively penalty-free game (49ers had 5, Ravens had 2), and while there are always a few plays in question, the biggest play that had 49ers fans screaming came late in the game.

Here was the situation: the 49ers had the ball, fourth-and-goal from the Baltimore 5-yard line with 1:50 left in the game. Baltimore led, 34-29.

Kaepernick lofted a pass to Michael Crabtree, who was being guarded by Jimmy Smith. Both players were hand fighting and when you look at this play in real time, there's not enough to call pass interference against either player. Smith had a quick grab and Crabtree had a quick push-off. Smith went down on the play and the pass fell incomplete.

Crabtree never complained and it's the type of play where a flag thrown against either team would have, in my mind, created more controversy than a decision not to throw the flag.

By the way, it couldn't be defensive holding because the pass was in the air when the contact occurred. It's either offensive pass interference or defensive pass interference.

It was not an obvious foul and until I looked at it in slow motion, it seemed like no foul at all. It's not a penalty I would want called if I were still VP of Officiating for the NFL.

Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

[Tim McG]

Then how do you explain the "shielding" penalty on the very first down in the game?

Dude, that was an illegal formation. People were standing still and there it was. It's like, line up, set, and UH-oh!

If you need more explanation, see here: http://www.teamspeed...oying-penalties

Pretty unambiguous, really.

Right.

And it was called because of the rule, yes?

Holding and pass interference are rules, too.

Why weren't they enforced but this penalty was? That is my question.

Then how do you explain the "shielding" penalty on the very first down in the game?

Dude, that was an illegal formation. People were standing still and there it was. It's like, line up, set, and UH-oh!

If you need more explanation, see here: http://www.teamspeed...oying-penalties

Pretty unambiguous, really.

Jim, I don't like the explanation you linked to. I also don't think it is relevant to this play.

The play referred to in the link is a common error in the CFL, called "No End." It happens when the curve of the offensive line on passing plays is bent too much at the snap of the ball, so that the tight end is technically in the backfield.

In the play last night, I believe that SF had eight men on the line. In the CFL, the left tight end would have been an ineligible receiver because only the two players at the extreme ends of the line may be eligible receivers. I think, but I'm not sure, that the tight end caught the pass. Therefore, it was an "ineligible receiver" penalty.

But I'm not NFL expert, so I may be wrong.

No, you might be right. But I believe the refs called "illegal formation" and the replay showed and explained why, Phil Simms even saying, yeah, before the play even ran, I'm thinking, that's an illegal formation. (not an exact quote but pretty close). It might have been the last time I wanted to hear Simms explain anything all night.

Either way, it wasn't an interpretive call of a play in motion. A formation is either legal or it isn't.

No. They called it shielding.

The announcers even talked about and how it is rarely, if ever, called.

[Aggie87]

I think the litmus test is when the great masses of people who aren't fans of either particular team are screaming that it was a bad call, then it's a bad call.

In this case, the only person screaming is an obviously partial Niners fan. Nobody else is, or coming to his defense. That essentially ends the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Luckily, that partial fan has explicitly sworn off all future NFL games, so we won't have to worry about this next time around, if the Niners are in the big game.