striker42
Well-known member
It does suck being an Atlanta fan but I can absolutely believe the result. It really was never going to turn out any other way.
REAL FOOTBALL Thread
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
It does suck being an Atlanta fan but I can absolutely believe the result. It really was never going to turn out any other way.
You realize the Patriots were called for illegal formation, right? They ruled that the rusher was lined up over the long snapper; which he wasn't, he was lined up in the gap between the two players.
Everything I've read said it was not leaping. I don't think they consider him "landing" on the player. You certainly have to be within a yard of the LOS (which he was).
It's just comical. Some Falcons fans took it like good sports.......other just whine about stupid nonsense. "My team lost; REFS FAULT!"
striker42
Well-known member
Most places are too busy fanboying over Tom Brady to pay attention to that play. I've only seen the one article about it and that guy just has a throw away line about him not landing on anyone.
Even if the call wasn't made it doesn't affect the game. I think it's 99.9% that the Pats kick an extra point after one of their TD's instead of going for 2 and risking losing.
The god's honest truth is there's holding on pretty much every play in the secondary and in the trenches. Some of it blatant and never called, some of it barely and it called.
The issue I had was the Falcons were blowing out the Pats and suddenly these holding calls start appearing on 3rd and long for the Pats. The fact it happened 3 times in a row was really bizarre.
The issue I had was the Falcons were blowing out the Pats and suddenly these holding calls start appearing on 3rd and long for the Pats. The fact it happened 3 times in a row was really bizarre.
CrimsonCowboy
Moderator
Did not see that coming
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
They were called for illegal formation, which I don't really consider right, but I can understand why it was called. foul should have been for leaping, maybe that's what they meant and they were idiots and called it the wrong thing, who knows.
And you cannoy read it's not being within a yard it's lined up within a yard. Lined up and being within are not the same thing.
LOL, you are wrong. You can start from anywhere as long as you are within a yard when the ball is snapped.
I thought the Patriots were going to come back after being down 28-3 myself. I saw them come back from a 24-0 deficit against my team(Broncos) 3 years ago. Falcons choked like I thought they would.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Nope. Learn to read.
"Running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or Try Kick and landing on players, unless the leaping player was originally lined up on the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped"
Would a receiver in motion be lined up on the line of scrimmage if he runs to the line before the snap? Nope, because that's an illegal motion.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Leaping+block+field+goal
http://www.sbnation.com/2016/10/23/13376442/seahawks-blocked-kick-cardinals-illegal-bobby-wagner
There are at least two refs that have said it should not have been a penalty on the Pats.
BUT ZITO KNOWS!
http://www.sbnation.com/2016/10/23/13376442/seahawks-blocked-kick-cardinals-illegal-bobby-wagner
There are at least two refs that have said it should not have been a penalty on the Pats.
BUT ZITO KNOWS!
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Is there any way to tell which official makes which call? Just curious
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
So what you're saying is you have no real evidence. So you're so on it.
striker42
Well-known member
Personally, I think they should take the landing on a player part out of the rule all together. Once you're in the air you don't have a lot of control over where you land. It's pretty much a craps shoot as to whether you land on someone or not. The thing that's dangerous is having guys flying in from the second level and jumping forward at the line. I don't like incentivizing guys to try it by giving them a way out. Just make that whole thing illegal.
And the focus is on the penalty that was called on the Pats. The question of whether or not it was leaping has gotten less attention. According to the rule book, that was leaping. He came from the second level, jumped forward into the line, and made contact with a player on his way down (landed on a player). You can argue the contact wasn't sufficient to draw a call but the Refs would have been justified calling that leaping.
Again though, this is a stupid thing to argue over. It's highly unlikely it would have resulted in the Pats winning in regulation. With how gassed the Falcons defense was, I don't see the Pats going for two both times if they didn't have to. They'd have gone for the point after at least once.
Finally, the calls that are made are only a part of the story. It's the calls that aren't made that are the real story. You can call a game one sided and every flag you throw be justified. But if you're ignoring the penalties of one team and calling everything the other team does, you're still influencing the game. There's a reason it's a joke around the league about how the Pats O-line is never called for holding.
And the focus is on the penalty that was called on the Pats. The question of whether or not it was leaping has gotten less attention. According to the rule book, that was leaping. He came from the second level, jumped forward into the line, and made contact with a player on his way down (landed on a player). You can argue the contact wasn't sufficient to draw a call but the Refs would have been justified calling that leaping.
Again though, this is a stupid thing to argue over. It's highly unlikely it would have resulted in the Pats winning in regulation. With how gassed the Falcons defense was, I don't see the Pats going for two both times if they didn't have to. They'd have gone for the point after at least once.
Finally, the calls that are made are only a part of the story. It's the calls that aren't made that are the real story. You can call a game one sided and every flag you throw be justified. But if you're ignoring the penalties of one team and calling everything the other team does, you're still influencing the game. There's a reason it's a joke around the league about how the Pats O-line is never called for holding.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I don't even mind if they weren't calling offensive holding on the Pats or Falcons. Whatever, doesn't matter. What bothered me were the 2 times the Pats clipped a Falcon and it wasn't called and calling holding on the play that pushed Atlanta out of field goal range and virtually sealing the win. The clipping bothers me because it's incredibly dangerous. It's not poor sportsmanship like holding where you're doing something to gain an advantage. You're making an illegal block with a pretty high probability of injuring someone. The issue with the holding against the Falcons was the timing. It took what looked like a highly probable field goal try and pushed it back. You can argue against the play calling, that's fine but there would have been chances to call holds on those plays too. Meanwhile Pats linemen have been tackling guys all day. DOn't get me wrong, the Falcons were holding too, they were just less egregious about it.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
gotta get me one of those "fire Goodell" hats from the Patriots parade.
Tapate50
Well-known member
The OT rule has got to be changed, at least for the SB. Not even getting the ball? Basically a coin flip? Not ok for the SB really
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Yeah I don't think it would have mattered either way but I've long been an opponent of the sudden death. Even if the old sudden death format got us to our first Super Bowl. Both teams should get a crack at it at the very least.