HawkShack.com

Every week there is a "catch" or "non catch" that changes the outcome of games. NOBODY knows what a catch is any longer.

I still think the rule is too complicated and requires "interpretation".
Make the rules simpler and there will be fewer mistakes.

A catch is what the ref thinks it is unless Blandino was on Jerry Jones party bus again and then all of a sudden taking three steps with control isn't a catch and fumble. Even homer Aikman had to admit it was a fumble.
Its a complete farce the way the game is called nowadays. And I told everyone that it wasn't going to get better with this mother ship nerve center run by the used car salesman Dean Blandino in NYC reviewing the reviews. The calls are still Fd up and all over the map.
It just gives the NFL more control over outcomes, sorry its how I feel.

What kills me about the non catch - no fumble in Dallas was it correctly called a catch/fumble on the field and they overturned it ~ when supposedly there has to be overwhelming, clear evidence to do so. There was nothing clear, nor overwhelming shown on the replay to indicate it wasn't a catch. Just BS.

The "catch" that held up in the Colts/Panthers game was clearly touching the ground, even moving around before the Colt secured the ball. I wanted the Colts to win, but it was pretty clear that wasn't a "catch" as they describe one to be.

It's been a horrible year for officiating. I'm not of the "fix is in" guys, but this year has given plenty of ammo to those that are.

Every time I watch replays for NFL games of yore from the past (1960's, 70's, 80's) you know, before most of the rule changes favoring the offense I see play after play that would have gone the other way now and totally changed history. I not talking about the Immaculate catch, that was one rule change that was good. I am talking about catches that would have been ruled incomplete or fumbles that would have been ruled as either incomplete pass and/or player down. I am talking about TD catches in the end zone where the ball comes out really fast but since the player had crossed the plane in was ruled a TD where now it would be an incomplete pass.

There are teams that lost championships and/or key play off games that they would or should have won and teams that did win key play off games or championships that wouldn't or maybe shouldn't have. It is NOT the same game that I grew up watching. I remember Jack Lambert saying "what's next? Are they going to put quarterbacks in skirts?" It has gotten that bad, at least they don't call the QB in the "grasp" anymore. That has always rankled me when they talk about Krieg getting sacked 7 times @ K.C. one year, even though he hit Paul Skansi in the end zone at the end of the game for a come from behind win. One of our few wins in KC, in ANY era. That's a tough place to play!

Looked like a fumble to me, but it didn't surprise when it was overturned.

Where we did catch a break was not being penalized for what looked to be 12 men on the field, then calling 2 timeouts in a row.

Zorn76 wrote:Looked like a fumble to me, but it didn't surprise when it was overturned.

Where we did catch a break was not being penalized for what looked to be 12 men on the field, then calling 2 timeouts in a row.

I thought the refs on the field got it right but that it was very close and could have been called either way. What really rankled me was overturning it as I did not see clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The rule is fine the way it is written. Possession is always going to be a difficult call to make no matter how you define it.

3 steps with both hands on the ball sure looked like possession to me. Even the complete homer douche Aikman had to admit it. And it was a huge momentum swing that robbed Seattle of a scoring opportunity with good field position. I agree about the two timeouts that was a weird sequence.

Overall I haven't seen much love for the Hawks from officials over the past few decades.......

Hawktawk wrote:3 steps with both hands on the ball sure looked like possession to me. Even the complete homer douche Aikman had to admit it. And it was a huge momentum swing that robbed Seattle of a scoring opportunity with good field position. I agree about the two timeouts that was a weird sequence.

Overall I haven't seen much love for the Hawks from officials over the past few decades.......

I wouldn't say that. We've gotten our fair share of breaks this season, including the one against the Lions that arguably won the game for us.

Zorn76 wrote:Looked like a fumble to me, but it didn't surprise when it was overturned.

Where we did catch a break was not being penalized for what looked to be 12 men on the field, then calling 2 timeouts in a row.

There is no twelve men penalty called on defense prior to a snap. The error was allowing the second time out.

In basketball, if you attempt to call a timeout when you don't have one, they assess a technical foul. They ought to have some sort of penalty that's assessed on a team that attempts to call a timeout when they don't have one or aren't allowed to call one, such as a 15 yard penalty and an automatic runoff of the clock. That puts the onus on the players and coaches rather than the refs to know when they can call a timeout and when they can't.

They do RD, they just blew it.

And for the record, they blew the fumble call as well. Transferring the ball from two hands to one is by definition " a football move" per their own rules. A player doesn't have to complete the transfer only attempt it. As it shows intent by the receiver to protect the ball from an opposing player, the same as a stiff arm, spin, or lowering a shoulder. Transfer of the ball is defined as a "football move".

( unless they ruled he was bobbling the ball which I certainly would think was impossible)

HumanCockroach wrote:They do RD, they just blew it.

And for the record, they blew the fumble call as well. Transferring the ball from two hands to one is by definition " a football move" per their own rules. A player doesn't have to complete the transfer only attempt it. As it shows intent by the receiver to protect the ball from an opposing player, the same as a stiff arm, spin, or lowering a shoulder. Transfer of the ball is defined as a "football move".

( unless they ruled he was bobbling the ball which I certainly would think was impossible)

They do penalize a team for attempting to call an unpermitted timeout? I knew that they'll penalize a team for trying to challenge an unchallengeable play, but I hadn't heard of a penalty for attempting to call two consecutive timeouts or calling a timeout they don't have.

I probably wouldn't have put Fredd Young on there, depending on who they've left off.

I voted for Wilson and Thomas for the top 10, but not anyone else of the current Hawks. Hauschka should make an all Seahawk team as the PK but I'm not sure I'd put him on a top 40.

A lot of great names on that list. Just reading them dusts off a lot of fond memories.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... e-timeouts

My mistake, there is a penalty, but only if a team is attempting to ice a kicker with the second timeout. What should have happened is the refs simply should have ignored the request. Making it a moot point as Dallas wasn't going to get the snap OFF prior to the defender getting off the field.

If it was deemed to be icing the kicker a fifteen yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is called.

HumanCockroach wrote:http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/186003/why-the-seahawks-werent-penalized-for-calling-consecutive-timeouts

My mistake, there is a penalty, but only if a team is attempting to ice a kicker with the second timeout. What should have happened is the refs simply should have ignored the request. Making it a moot point as Dallas wasn't going to get the snap OFF prior to the defender getting off the field.

If it was deemed to be icing the kicker a fifteen yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is called.

OK, thanks. I wonder if icing the kicker really works, if kickers percentages are any lower or not.

However, I do think that as in basketball, the responsibility of knowing if they have any timeouts available or if they are in a situation where they can't call one should be put on the coaches and players, not the refs. The Zebras have enough to keep track of without having to worry about whether or not a team has timeouts left.

I agree, like knowing when it's a catch and not a catch.

HumanCockroach wrote:I agree, like knowing when it's a catch and not a catch.

Except that the refs got that one right. It's the replay center that doesn't know when it's a catch and not a catch.

Most analysis shows that icing a kicker doesn't work whatsoever and if anything actually helps kickers gather their thoughts especially if they manage to get a practice kick off after the play is blown dead.

Functionally speaking, icing a kicker is basically just falls into the same bin as rally caps and other sports superstitions.

Here we go again. It doesnt look like he controlled the ball "through the process" - but whatever...

I agreed with that call, he had possession, turned, and took two steps before losing control. But they've been hugely inconsistent this season.

RiverDog wrote:I agreed with that call, but they've been hugely inconsistent this season.

I agree as well - however if that fumbled ball remained in bounds and we recovered, I doubt it would have been ruled a catch.