No Holding Calls on the Pats?

[snafu]

I think, if they were holding, Brady wouldn't have been under so much pressure all game.

 

This might be the first honest win the Patriots have. Except that they still cheated somehow, no doubt.

 

I sent an email to a Pats fan today.

It said "congratulations, that one looked legit".

[DC Tom]

 

I sent an email to a Pats fan today.

It said "congratulations, that one looked legit".

 

I told a Pats fan today "I don't know how you cheated this time...but I know you did."

 

I don't even necessarily believe that this time around. I just like watching their pointy little heads explode.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

 

They run pick routes on almost every passing play. It's ridiculous.

 

They say the rule is if its within 1 yard - but theres also the incredibly subjective (Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field. ) which is the grey area that they do a great job occupying. If i'm moving is that an "established" position? Who knows... its not defined. So they run their routes into defenders (other teams do this stuff too), with the sole purpose of incidentally running into them.

 

It's kind of legal, because the OPI rules are so undefined. I personally hate those plays as its kinda cheap - but it is currently within the rules.

 

Defenses already have like so many disadvantages in coverage, and you're essentially saying if you make it look like you're not blocking - its ok.

[peterpan]

those most shocking miss was the two handed face mask on the flacons guy. that no call should have canceled out a weak holding call on the falcons which, would have kept the falcons in FG range. with the FG made the Falcons win.

I forget if it was the TD or the 2 pt at the end of the game but it was a bubble screen to the near side fo the field. SHould have been PI because the other WRs started blocking before the catch was made.

It was actually BOTH guys grabbing each others Facemask. It was pretty obvious when they showed the replay. So it was a wash as they could have flagged either team for it or both.

I actually told my friends watchingbwith me that was a GOOD PI to take as otherwise it's a TD and the games over. This way they had a chance to stop them or even get a turnover themselves.

Its 100% legal for a ball carrier to stiff arm a defenders face mask.

Edited February 7, 2017 by peterpan

[dave mcbride]

those most shocking miss was the two handed face mask on the flacons guy. that no call should have canceled out a weak holding call on the falcons which, would have kept the falcons in FG range. with the FG made the Falcons win.

I forget if it was the TD or the 2 pt at the end of the game but it was a bubble screen to the near side fo the field. SHould have been PI because the other WRs started blocking before the catch was made.

This is incorrect. The Falcons' receiver on that play ripped off the Pats' CB's helmet from his head, and via the facemask (they both held facemasks, and it was a good no-call). On the 2P conversion, the blocking was engaged within one yard of the LOS (I watched it again), which is entirely legal. And the hold on Chris Long was an outright mugging/strangulation attempt. You *have* to call that.

[peterpan]

 

There was nothing out of the ordinary in that game that tainted the victory. No weird refs calls, etc. Even if they somehow stole the Falcons playbook and took drone photos of practice, I don't think the Pats would deliberately put themselves 25-points in the hole before they start cheating.

The Pats werent able to steal the Falcons radio signal until that TO at the end of the 3rd where Matt Ryan had issues with his headset

 

28-3 at that moment.

 

35-28 final.

This is incorrect. The Falcons' receiver on that play ripped off the Pats' CB's helmet from his head, and via the facemask (they both held facemasks, and it was a good no-call). On the 2P conversion, the blocking was engaged within one yard of the LOS (I watched it again), which is entirely legal. And the hold on Chris Long was an outright mugging/strangulation attempt. You *have* to call that.

The helmet came off when it hit the field.

 

Chris long wasn't called for holding. It was their tackle. Yes he had his arm to the outside but the defender was bull rushing him, not trying to get around the OTs left side, therefore not a hold

 

Also the NFL changed the rule for bubble screen blocking and I believe the WR cannot engage before the ball is caught, regardless as to where on the field the WR is blocking. I have seen it called on WRs multiple times this season when they were blocking at or behind the LOS.

Edited February 7, 2017 by peterpan

[PatsFanNH]

 

first--congrats on your victory.

 

here's the problem with your analysis. to assume that an official can watch a game, at full speed, and make judgment calls on both guys grabbing facemasks and decide "I'm gonna let that go" is simply too much to ask. if both guys are grabbing a facemask, blatantly, it's a penalty, throw the flag. offset. "A good non-call" simply means it's called in other games, but should be let go, but isn't always, but sometimes is.

 

I don't know how a flag is not tossed on that, but inconsistency at the officiating level is a concern.

I agree I just thought it was a good non call as it could have gone either way, (orl both) esp with the Falcon ripping the Pats players helmet off he probably been the one flagged as it was the most obvious. (Then people scream why wasn't it called on both)

The Pats werent able to steal the Falcons radio signal until that TO at the end of the 3rd where Matt Ryan had issues with his headset

 

28-3 at that moment.

 

35-28 final.

 

The helmet came off when it hit the field.

 

Chris long wasn't called for holding. It was their tackle. Yes he had his arm to the outside but the defender was bull rushing him, not trying to get around the OTs left side, therefore not a hold

 

Also the NFL changed the rule for bubble screen blocking and I believe the WR cannot engage before the ball is caught, regardless as to where on the field the WR is blocking. I have seen it called on WRs multiple times this season when they were blocking at or behind the LOS.

I disagree he grabbed Long around the neck and forced him to the ground. Even Troy Aikman saw that and he is usually blind. Also I saw on the Falcons site it is within 1 yard they can block. (Guy quoted the rule.) Edited February 7, 2017 by PatsFanNH

[dave mcbride]

The Pats werent able to steal the Falcons radio signal until that TO at the end of the 3rd where Matt Ryan had issues with his headset

 

28-3 at that moment.

 

35-28 final.

The helmet came off when it hit the field.

 

Chris long wasn't called for holding. It was their tackle. Yes he had his arm to the outside but the defender was bull rushing him, not trying to get around the OTs left side, therefore not a hold

 

Also the NFL changed the rule for bubble screen blocking and I believe the WR cannot engage before the ball is caught, regardless as to where on the field the WR is blocking. I have seen it called on WRs multiple times this season when they were blocking at or behind the LOS.

yes, "the hold on Chris Long" was referring to the actual hold on Chris Long -- as in, he was held. The helmet came off because it was ripped off. It's not debatable. Watch it again. You are not correct about the screen rule. The Bills did it against the Pats in that 16-0 victory, and Robert Woods was the blocker. There was an explanation afterward.

Edited February 7, 2017 by dave mcbride

[MarkyMannn]

Seriously? Blow a 28-3 lead and it had to be the ref's faults? Falcons should try instead blocking and tackling

[Mr. WEO]

 

first--congrats on your victory.

 

here's the problem with your analysis. to assume that an official can watch a game, at full speed, and make judgment calls on both guys grabbing facemasks and decide "I'm gonna let that go" is simply too much to ask. if both guys are grabbing a facemask, blatantly, it's a penalty, throw the flag. offset. "A good non-call" simply means it's called in other games, but should be let go, but isn't always, but sometimes is.

 

I don't know how a flag is not tossed on that, but inconsistency at the officiating level is a concern.

 

 

It should have been easier, at full speed, to call the facemask on the player who's helmet was NOT pulled off, no?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I mentioned to a couple of people, from the point where there was around 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter to the end of the game, the Falcons should have taken a page out of the Pats playbook and fake an injury every 3rd down or so to give their defense a rest. Watch the video of how the soccer players do it, flail your arms back and forth, roll over a few times, wait till the priest comes out and gives last rites, let them cart you off on the stretcher, then come back two plays later. I believe that's what really cost Atlanta the game, their defense was gassed.

[peterpan]

yes, "the hold on Chris Long" was referring to the actual hold on Chris Long -- as in, he was held. The helmet came off because it was ripped off. It's not debatable. Watch it again. You are not correct about the screen rule. The Bills did it against the Pats in that 16-0 victory, and Robert Woods was the blocker. There was an explanation afterward.

I thought you ment Long the OG.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/2/5/14518320/super-bowl-2017-penalty-atlanta-falcons-facemask-new-england-patriots

 

Here is a link to the video. In that instance the hold does look worse than it looked on the replay Sunday Night. I have seen more egregious holds go uncalled very regularly however.

 

In the link you can also see the facemask tackle. As I state above, an offensive played can legally stiff arm a defender in the facemask and it is 100% legal. It is illegal when the runner grabs or twists the facemask. The runners fingers get caught up in the facemask but you can see clearly his hand is open - ie - not grabbing. This should not have been a penalty on Sanu. The clear, obvious, facemask on the defender should have been called.

 

However you are still missing the entire point. if there were three flags on the play, offensive holding, offensive facemask, and defensive facemask, the result would have been the same===== offsetting penalties, replay 2nd down.

 

Saying that "they both face masked each other and it was a good non-call" is simply incorrect as it would have resulted in a replay of 2nd down instead of moving the Falcons 10 yards back and out of FG range - thus forcing them to throw, etc etc etc

Edited February 7, 2017 by peterpan

[dave mcbride]

I thought you ment Long the OG.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/2/5/14518320/super-bowl-2017-penalty-atlanta-falcons-facemask-new-england-patriots

 

Here is a link to the video. In that instance the hold does look worse than it looked on the replay Sunday Night. I have seen more egregious holds go uncalled very regularly however.

 

In the link you can also see the facemask tackle. As I state above, an offensive played can legally stiff arm a defender in the facemask and it is 100% legal. It is illegal when the runner grabs or twists the facemask. The runners fingers get caught up in the facemask but you can see clearly his hand is open - ie - not grabbing. This should not have been a penalty on Sanu. The clear, obvious, facemask on the defender should have been called.

 

However you are still missing the entire point. if there were three flags on the play, offensive holding, offensive facemask, and defensive facemask, the result would have been the same===== offsetting penalties, replay 2nd down.

 

Saying that "they both face masked each other and it was a good non-call" is simply incorrect as it would have resulted in a replay of 2nd down instead of moving the Falcons 10 yards back and out of FG range - thus forcing them to throw, etc etc etc

I think a no-call in that situation is the right call -- keep the game moving and don't slow it down with non-impact offsetting identical penalties. I respect your opinion on this, however.

[peterpan]

I think a no-call in that situation is the right call -- keep the game moving and don't slow it down with non-impact offsetting identical penalties. I respect your opinion on this, however.

But its not non-impact. It did have an impact. Those penalties cause for a replay of 2nd down instead of 10 yard penalty and 2nd down.

 

That ONE call could have changed the outcome of the SB - and changed NFL history forever. Saying it was non-impact is not right

[PatsFanNH]

But its not non-impact. It did have an impact. Those penalties cause for a replay of 2nd down instead of 10 yard penalty and 2nd down.

 

That ONE call could have changed the outcome of the SB - and changed NFL history forever. Saying it was non-impact is not right

More than likely they only call it on one side. That would probably be the side that ripped the other teams helmet off so it would have pushed them back 15 yards instead of 10. Why do people forget that refs are human?

[dulles]

It was actually BOTH guys grabbing each others Facemask. It was pretty obvious when they showed the replay. So it was a wash as they could have flagged either team for it or both.

The problem is that a no call there is not a wash. Since only 1 penalty can be called on each team, the second (hypothetical) facemask penalty on ATL would have been ignored. The first (hypothetical) facemask penalty against NE would have offset the first (actual) holding penalty on ATL. They would have offset and replayed the down. That would have given the game to ATL because they would have been in FG range still. HUGE miss by the officials, but expected by unbiased observers.

[PatsFanNH]

The problem is that a no call there is not a wash. Since only 1 penalty can be called on each team, the second (hypothetical) facemask penalty on ATL would have been ignored. The first (hypothetical) facemask penalty against NE would have offset the first (actual) holding penalty on ATL. They would have offset and replayed the down. That would have given the game to ATL because they would have been in FG range still. HUGE miss by the officials, but expected by unbiased observers.

As I said above more likely than not they call the more obvious one, which would have been on the Falcons as he tore the Patriots helmet off. (Pure speculation but that's how it usually seems to go.)

 

Also it seemed like the sideline judge wasn't calling a lot all game. I mean I (as a Pats fan) remember Edelman being hit on a return AFTER he was out of bounds. (That could have made a huge difference as that's 15 yards up field)

Edited February 7, 2017 by PatsFanNH

[dulles]

I thought you ment Long the OG.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/2/5/14518320/super-bowl-2017-penalty-atlanta-falcons-facemask-new-england-patriots

 

Here is a link to the video. In that instance the hold does look worse than it looked on the replay Sunday Night. I have seen more egregious holds go uncalled very regularly however.

 

In the link you can also see the facemask tackle. As I state above, an offensive played can legally stiff arm a defender in the facemask and it is 100% legal. It is illegal when the runner grabs or twists the facemask. The runners fingers get caught up in the facemask but you can see clearly his hand is open - ie - not grabbing. This should not have been a penalty on Sanu. The clear, obvious, facemask on the defender should have been called.

 

However you are still missing the entire point. if there were three flags on the play, offensive holding, offensive facemask, and defensive facemask, the result would have been the same===== offsetting penalties, replay 2nd down.

 

Saying that "they both face masked each other and it was a good non-call" is simply incorrect as it would have resulted in a replay of 2nd down instead of moving the Falcons 10 yards back and out of FG range - thus forcing them to throw, etc etc etc

Extrajudicial "fairness" is NEVER supposed to color an official's calls. If they see it, they should call it. They have no way of knowing whether or not their "fair" "offsetting" no-call is actually fair. This particular play could have easily made it into the old "You make the call" series. I wouldn't doubt that it becomes fodder for NFL training.

As I said above more likely than not they call the more obvious one, which would have been on the Falcons as he tore the Patriots helmet off. (Pure speculation but that's how it usually seems to go.)

You are saying that they got it wrong...to which I agree. But, to come back and say they would have still gotten it wrong, even if they had a chance to NOT get it wrong is illogical. If they had a chance to get it right, then both facemask penalties would have been called.

[dave mcbride]

But its not non-impact. It did have an impact. Those penalties cause for a replay of 2nd down instead of 10 yard penalty and 2nd down.

 

That ONE call could have changed the outcome of the SB - and changed NFL history forever. Saying it was non-impact is not right

Like I said, I disagree. Reduce calls of non-impact penalties late in games, especially when they're irrelevant to the outcome of the play and offsetting. Let players play. You believe differently, which is fine. But you aren't going to convince me.

[Chandler#81]

 

Except for the obvious satanic influence that is the only explanation for Edelman's bull **** catch.

 

In fact, that should be the name of it, as it goes down in history. The Catch. The Drive. Wide Right. The Immaculate Reception. Homerun Throwback. The Tuck Rule. The bull **** Catch. Because yes, that was a catch. But that was some goddamn bull ****.

It shall be so deemed.

 

The playoffs are notorious -noteworthy? - for fewer calls, but yeah, if a team runs 96 plays during the regular season, they'll typically be hit with a bunch of holding calls. I had no issue with the way the refs handled the game.