NFL 2012

[Tim McG]

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).

So....the logic is if he complained the play was holding?

How does this explain the no-call by the ref? Watch the replay. It is painfully and obviously a hold.

[alocispepraluger102]

the tight end was covered. it was the flankers responsibility to back off the line.

[Tim McG]

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.

Stop it, Aggie. You don't know anything of the sort.

And who are these "masses of people" you're talking about? On this forum? Geez. Just how many Californians inhabit this place anyway...2 or 3? Out West and especially in NorCal, "masses of people" are saying it was a bad call.

[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.

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.

Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut because I have never read the NFL Rule Book. Just last year I read the CFL Rule Book. In the CFL, that was not an illegal formation. The link you provided mentions that there may be more than seven men on the line. In the CFL, only the two on the outside (one on each end) are eligible receivers. Someone else on the line caught the ball. So I would guess that the NFL and CFL rules are the same in this case, and that it was an ineligible receiver problem, not an illegal formation problem.

Edited February 5, 2013 by GA Russell

[JSngry]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=330203025

San Francisco 49ers at 15:00 BAL SFO 1st and 10 at SF 20 (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass deep left to V.Davis to SF 40 for 20 yards (B.Pollard). PENALTY on SF-V.Davis, Illegal Formation, 5 yards, enforced at SF 20 - No Play.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2013020300/2012/POST22/ravens@49ers#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay&menu=drivechart

1. San Francisco 49ers at 15:00
   
2. 9-J.Tucker kicks 65 yards from BAL 35 to end zone, Touchback.
   
3. 1-10-SF 20 (15:00) (Shotgun) 7-C.Kaepernick pass deep left to 85-V.Davis to SF 40 for 20 yards (31-B.Pollard). PENALTY on SF-85-V.Davis, Illegal Formation, 5 yards, enforced at SF 20 - No Play.
   

[Tim McG]

http://espn.go.com/n...ameId=330203025

San Francisco 49ers at 15:00 BAL SFO 1st and 10 at SF 20 (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass deep left to V.Davis to SF 40 for 20 yards (B.Pollard). PENALTY on SF-V.Davis, Illegal Formation, 5 yards, enforced at SF 20 - No Play.

http://www.nfl.com/g...menu=drivechart

1. San Francisco 49ers at 15:00
   
   
2. 9-J.Tucker kicks 65 yards from BAL 35 to end zone, Touchback.
   
   
3. 1-10-SF 20 (15:00) (Shotgun) 7-C.Kaepernick pass deep left to 85-V.Davis to SF 40 for 20 yards (31-B.Pollard). PENALTY on SF-85-V.Davis, Illegal Formation, 5 yards, enforced at SF 20 - No Play.
   

That isn't what the ref called on field and it wasn't what the announcers were talking about in the booth.

Obviously, ESPN has called it illegal formation to jibe with the rule on their broadcast. Listen/watch the replay you don't believe me.Bottom line, they still made that call but did not make the holding/interference [among many others I already listed] calls.

The argument was they were letting the players play. I'm saying that is patent bullshit. You simply cannot enforce one rule and ignore the others. My point: The officiating was abysmally poor and I think fixed or messed with in a way which gave the Ravens the edge and eventually determined the outcome of the game.

You are free to disagree.

Edited February 5, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

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.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/super-bowl-47-ravens-34-49ers-31-my-top-10-cbs-contemplations/

10. I’m calling B.S. on CBS’ Phil Simms. And, for that matter, the 49ers. With two weeks to prepare for the Super Bowl, San Francisco lined up in an illegal formation on the game’s first play. Said Simms after referee Jerome Boger explained the penalty: “I could see it when they came out … I’m up here in the booth saying that’s an illegal formation.” No, Phil, you weren’t. You didn’t say a peep before the snap.

http://www.footballzebras.com/2013/02/03/7027/#more-7027

Sun • 6:43 pm EST • Ben Austro

1st Qtr 14:50. Good call right out of the chute for umpire Darrell Jenkins. Tight end was covered by a wideout on the line of scrimmage which is an illegal formation foul.

[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.

Stop it, Aggie. You don't know anything of the sort.

And who are these "masses of people" you're talking about? On this forum? Geez. Just how many Californians inhabit this place anyway...2 or 3? Out West and especially in NorCal, "masses of people" are saying it was a bad call.

Of course they are, they are biased Niners fans.

People in Texas sure aren't screaming about it. Again, that tells me unbiased people aren't upset about it. Biased people are.

[alocispepraluger102]

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.

http://dfw.cbslocal....contemplations/

10. I’m calling B.S. on CBS’ Phil Simms. And, for that matter, the 49ers. With two weeks to prepare for the Super Bowl, San Francisco lined up in an illegal formation on the game’s first play. Said Simms after referee Jerome Boger explained the penalty: “I could see it when they came out … I’m up here in the booth saying that’s an illegal formation.” No, Phil, you weren’t. You didn’t say a peep before the snap.

the tight end was covered. a tight end cannot be covered by another eligible receiver on the o-line. it was the flankers responsibility to back off the line.

------------------------------------

the only announcer who had a coherent thought or clue yesterday was boomer esiason, both on radio color and tv at half time. the other legions of old player announcers were worthless, and personally, i can't stand boomer

Edited February 5, 2013 by alocispepraluger102

[JSngry]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/audibles/2013/audibles-line-super-bowl-xlvii

Ben Muth: Illegal formation on the first play of the game is as bad as it gets.

Tom Gower: What a lousy opening drive for the 49ers, with the illegal formation penalty (how?!) and the second-down play-fake to the wrong side (?!). Great pancake by Frank Gore of Arthur Jones on the play, but still...

Danny Tuccitto: Mike, Boger said the illegal formation call was that Michael Crabtree covered up Vernon Davis, but when they showed the All-22 angle, Crabtree was off the line. Yes, no, maybe?

Tom Gower: The slot receiver was definitely covering Davis.

Danny Tuccitto: Davis WAS in the slot. I'm confused.

Tom Gower: The player lined up in the slot covered up the player lined up as the inline tight end, whoever those were.

Ben Muth: That illegal formation might replace Leon Lett getting stripped by Don Beebe as the dumbest play in Super Bowl history. They've ran or walked through that play a dozen times in the past week. Incredibly stupid.

[GA Russell]

Well, you certainly seem to have the facts on your side, so I will concede.

But how do you explain that your link says that there may be more than seven men on the line? Wasn't that the problem, then?

[Tim McG]

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.

Stop it, Aggie. You don't know anything of the sort.

And who are these "masses of people" you're talking about? On this forum? Geez. Just how many Californians inhabit this place anyway...2 or 3? Out West and especially in NorCal, "masses of people" are saying it was a bad call.

Of course they are, they are biased Niners fans.

People in Texas sure aren't screaming about it. Again, that tells me unbiased people aren't upset about it. Biased people are.

People in Texas have nothing to scream about.

Houston, might, [and i really thought they were going all the way this year] but not the rest of the state. Besides, you want to talk bias? Texans hate the 49ers.

Is it at all possible that a person can be a fan and want the officials to call a fair game?

Hence my point about these so-called masses of people.

[GA Russell]

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.

http://dfw.cbslocal....contemplations/

10. I’m calling B.S. on CBS’ Phil Simms. And, for that matter, the 49ers. With two weeks to prepare for the Super Bowl, San Francisco lined up in an illegal formation on the game’s first play. Said Simms after referee Jerome Boger explained the penalty: “I could see it when they came out … I’m up here in the booth saying that’s an illegal formation.” No, Phil, you weren’t. You didn’t say a peep before the snap.

the tight end was covered. it was the flankers responsibility to back off the line.

------------------------------------

the only announcer who had a coherent thought or clue yesterday was boomer esiason, both on radio color and tv at half time. the other legions of old player announcers were worthless, and personally, i can't stand boomer

I watched much of the game on mute. But I don't primarily blame the announcers. I primarily blame the network executives who give them their instructions.

Let's dispense with the jargon. In plain English, what does it mean to "cover" or "shield" in this case?

[alocispepraluger102]

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.

http://dfw.cbslocal....contemplations/

10. I’m calling B.S. on CBS’ Phil Simms. And, for that matter, the 49ers. With two weeks to prepare for the Super Bowl, San Francisco lined up in an illegal formation on the game’s first play. Said Simms after referee Jerome Boger explained the penalty: “I could see it when they came out … I’m up here in the booth saying that’s an illegal formation.” No, Phil, you weren’t. You didn’t say a peep before the snap.

the tight end was covered. it was the flankers responsibility to back off the line.

------------------------------------

the only announcer who had a coherent thought or clue yesterday was boomer esiason, both on radio color and tv at half time. the other legions of old player announcers were worthless, and personally, i can't stand boomer

I watched much of the game on mute. But I don't primarily blame the announcers. I primarily blame the network executives who give them their instructions.

i turned to the nfl network after the game for analysis. the nfl network should be ashamed of itself for marketing such mediocre rubbish.

Edited February 5, 2013 by alocispepraluger102

[Aggie87]

Is it at all possible that a person can be a fan and want the officials to call a fair game?

I am a fan of football, and didn't care who won the game. I think the call/non-call was fine, and the outcome was right. Biased Niners fans don't, biased Ravens fans probably do. I don't see boatloads of people who are football fans (but not fans of either of these two teams) whining about the outcome of this game. Do you?

[Tim McG]

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.

http://dfw.cbslocal....contemplations/

10. I’m calling B.S. on CBS’ Phil Simms. And, for that matter, the 49ers. With two weeks to prepare for the Super Bowl, San Francisco lined up in an illegal formation on the game’s first play. Said Simms after referee Jerome Boger explained the penalty: “I could see it when they came out … I’m up here in the booth saying that’s an illegal formation.” No, Phil, you weren’t. You didn’t say a peep before the snap.

the tight end was covered. it was the flankers responsibility to back off the line.

------------------------------------

the only announcer who had a coherent thought or clue yesterday was boomer esiason, both on radio color and tv at half time. the other legions of old player announcers were worthless, and personally, i can't stand boomer

I watched much of the game on mute. But I don't primarily blame the announcers. I primarily blame the network executives who give them their instructions.

Let's dispense with the jargon. In plain English, what does it mean to "cover" or "shield" in this case?

As I understand it, the wide out lines up in such away that he obscures the tight end from the ref. The TE needs to be off the line. And if you watch the tape, he was inches off the line and thus a ticky-tack call by the ref. It really has no application to today's intricate defensive schemes which, so far as I know, would have no real impact on the game itself either. But it is in the books.

Is it at all possible that a person can be a fan and want the officials to call a fair game?

I am a fan of football, and didn't care who won the game. I think the call/non-call was fine, and the outcome was right. Biased Niners fans don't, biased Ravens fans probably do. I don't see boatloads of people who are football fans (but not fans of either of these two teams) whining about the outcome of this game. Do you?

Well, coming from a biased fan who pigeon holes all Niners fans into one category and blithely casts aside any reasonable explanations, that works for you.

But, let's be honest, you do have a tendency to broad brush things as an all or nothing at all scenario.

Edited February 5, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

I grew up to hate Cowboys fans because the refs were never on the Cowboys' side. Ever. Anytime the Cowboys lost, it was the ref's fault. This went on until the middle 1970s or so until a lot of the fans learned that calls go both ways, good and bad, and that to blame the refs for a loss is a really...amateur hour thing to do (but there is still that contingent, and god knows I want to slam a hot-but-dull butter knife in their larynx every time a flag is thrown against the Cowboys and they give out with the Oh C'MONNNNN thing...). I'm like, you know, play better, ok? Of course, these days, there's getting to be fewer and fewer Cowboys fans who have actually seen what a difference that playing better, consistently, can really make...but that's another story.

A bad call can cost you a play. If you lose the game, it's your fault, unless you are getting so blatantly and consistently reamed by the refs to the point where a Congressional investigation is called for.

Are the People's Representatives For And From The Great State Of California setting the date for a hearing?

I think not.

Edited February 5, 2013 by JSngry

[JSngry]

And let me tell you this - I watched the game only because it was the Super Bowl. It's like, ok, Baltimore has the murderer and San Francisco has..nobody that I care about, and both coaches are irritating as fuck, so...guess it's still the Super Bowl so, ok, I'll watch.

And damned if CBS didn't do their dead-level best to ruin THAT.

[Dan Gould]

You don't want to hear it and you'll never change Tim, but you're coming off exceptionally foolish.

Its one thing to insist that the refs screwed your team - the last refuge of a whiner if you ask me but its not an entirely insane complaint.

But when it turns into some sort of conspiracy, you're in loony tunes land now.

But do tell me: If the refs were hand-picked to make sure the 49ers lost, why was the game so close? Why didn't they make sure the game was well in hand and not end up in a situation where they had to make such a horrendous call at the end of the game?

[Larry Kart]

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).

So....the logic is if he complained the play was holding?

How does this explain the no-call by the ref? Watch the replay. It is painfully and obviously a hold.

Periera explained that that the call couldn't have been defensive holding on the final play, only pass interference, because the contact that might have been PI occurred only after the ball was in the air; defensive holding, when it occurs, takes place before the ball is thrown. As for the difference between the first play of the game and the last one, the penalty called on the first play was not a judgment call (or was not one unless you insist that the difference between wrong and right there was too small to call in such an important game, which I think is the opposite of what you've said elsewhere on this thread), while the non-call on the last play of the 49ers final drive was a judgment call. Finally, as others have said, if the game was fixed, how in the flaming hell is it allowed to end up with the 49ers running four plays from the seven yard line, when a TD by them would win the thing? Especially when the CK running play they tried to run but that was aborted by a Jim Harbaugh time out might well have scored. Some fix! Oh, wait -- maybe Jim was in on it?

[Noj]

If I were a Niners fan, I'd be more upset that they used their last gasp to run a fade route, which is such a difficult play to complete and requires a perfect pass with perfect touch and the receiver out-leaping his coverage to haul it in then making sure to get two feet in bounds.

The play to run was a misdirecting buttonhook to the tight end Davis, right over the middle. Throw to his back shoulder after he fakes a move to the outside. That play works ALL THE TIME. Way more often than a fade route, I guarantee it.

[Larry Kart]

Noj -- I couldn't agree more about the play call there and on the other passes they ran in those four final plays, but as Matt Bowen points out:

http://www.nationalf...-the-49ers.html

The Ravens' set-ups/play calls more or less forced the 49ers' play calls there, although the quarterback run that was aborted by a 49ers' time out as the play clock ran down looked to me like it might have scored. Further, about the Ravens' defensive setups in the red zone -- recall the 49ers two-point conversion attempt after their final TD. Ed Reed was right in CK's face immediately, and CK rather oddly just threw the ball away (I say rather oddly because there was no downside to throwing in the area of a possible receiver). In any case,, the Ravens forced the play, when I'll bet that the 49ers' plan there was for CK to throw or run as he saw fit. In any case, I still would have taken my chances on any of those four last plays with CK hovering at pistol formation depth in the middle of the field and making a choice that looked good to him. Rolling out limited his choice of receivers and virtually eliminated the run option.

More on those last plays:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/goal-to-go/?ref=sports&gwh=94C26102AABEE445C11F572CDB3BF66A

[Jim R]

I'm a Niners fan, and have been since the early 60's, when I was old enough to realize they existed. This discussion is embarrassing, as it pertains to complaining about bad calls or "fixes". Please.

When the game ended, I was disappointed, but not frustrated or up in arms. The frustration had already peaked, leveled off, and died away before the power outage. The comeback was nice, and made the second half a bit less miserable (I thought the ads were less miserable, too), but little brother trying to beat big brother after getting himself in a headlock like that... wishful thinking.

I watched a little postgame coverage, and then moved on. Haven't thought about the game since. SO different from the way I felt (at age 34) after the Roger Craig fumble against the Giants in the '90 NFC championship game that spoiled the three-peat. I think I'm actually becoming a sane adult (although I still can't let go of that Craig fumble, so maybe not).

[Tim McG]

Meh.

I'm over it.

Baseball season is nearly upon us

[GA Russell]

If I were a Niners fan, I would be upset that they didn't run a multi-lateral kick return like the Stanford Band Play on the final play of the game.