A little ammo when on the web this week.

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/11/8/13561 ... -officials

[RiverDog]

I was at the game last night, but didn't see either play, the first because I'd decided to make it to another section of the stadium to visit with a friend (a fellow Shack/PI poster that doesn't post much anymore) that I had missed meeting before the game and the second play because I was following the ball rather than the play away from the ball.

I agree with the author of the article, ie that those two plays were neither dirty or illegal, and reflect the fact that Sherman is one smart dude that studies the game. I'm always irritated when I see head coaches that don't know the rules (Scott Linehan a few years back, Bruce Arian and Rex Ryan this year, but it makes it even more irritating when a player knows rules and a coach, who is older and more experienced, does not.

[Hawk Sista]

It is frustrating to know what took place is, at the very least 50-50 and yet every person I saw today gave me ish about it. It isn't worth arguing, but it is frustrating to know that people think our boys are dirty cheaters and we get lucky. I guess it is all part of the joy of being at the top.

[jshawaii22]

Still wouldn't surprise me to see the NFL fine Sherman about $15k for the 'unsportsmanlike conduct' that shouldn't of been called. Public Opinion is very one-sided, except for a lot of the talking head ex-jocks (amazing, like Mike Golic and Herm "you play to the whisle" Edwards) who came out in support that it wasn't a P-Foul.

[burrrton]

Seems pretty tough to fine him for UC when the whistle hadn't blown, and tough to fine him for UR when he simply made a football play and didn't even hurt the kicker (he was grabbing the wrong knee like it's a damn soccer game).

Yeah, the public sh*ts the bed whenever they think Seattle gets away with something, and they look the other way and whistle whenever Seattle gets dorked, but this seems to me little different than the treatment New England gets.

Embrace it- they hate us because we're good (and a little because we have a firebrand all-pro).

[RiverDog]

IMO the kicker is just as much at fault as Sherman. If the whistle had blown, the kicker has just as much responsibility to hold up as Sherman. You hear the whistle, you are supposed to stop, period. But kickers don't stop on the whistle like they are supposed to. They continue on to take a free practice kick. If the kicker had stopped and Sherman had proceeded, then I could see a USC penalty/fine. But that's not the case. That play ought to send a signal to all kickers, which is to stop on the whistle, not after they've taken their free practice kick.

And as far as Sherman's clocking the receiver on the last play, that, too, was not only legal, but what they coach defensive backs to do when a quarterback breaks the pocket and becomes a runner. Receivers are then considered potential blockers and although they can't hold, they can take out the opposing blocker so long as the ball isn't in the air. This is football, and plays like that are what separates it from sports like baseball and basketball.

It's incredible to me the negative reaction some are taking. People need to listen to his side of the story, and his side is the rule book.

[HumanCockroach]

Still wouldn't surprise me to see the NFL fine Sherman about $15k for the 'unsportsmanlike conduct' that shouldn't of been called. Public Opinion is very one-sided, except for a lot of the talking head ex-jocks (amazing, like Mike Golic and Herm "you play to the whisle" Edwards) who came out in support that it wasn't a P-Foul.

Even casserly changed his tune when they mentioned no whistle was blown ( went from it was an obvious penalty to there was no whistle? That's an entirely different situation).. You play to the whistle. Period. Nothing in the rule book about a player stopping himself if he thinks they threw a flag... Notice no one else stopped eiter on both sides of the ball... Hell just last year GB got several gift TDs on plays where players stopped because of offsides with unabated that the officials didn't blow dead.

[RiverDog]

Even casserly changed his tune when they mentioned no whistle was blown ( went from it was an obvious penalty to there was no whistle? That's an entirely different situation).. You play to the whistle. Period. Nothing in the rule book about a player stopping himself if he thinks they threw a flag... Notice no one else stopped eiter on both sides of the ball... Hell just last year GB got several gift TDs on plays where players stopped because of offsides with unabated that the officials didn't blow dead.

Honest question: Did the refs admit that they did not blow the whistle? All I've heard was that Sherman might not have heard the whistle any because of the 12th man. If the refs admitted that they did not blow the play dead, then there is no way that they can fine Sherman and everyone that called him out for it owes him an apology.

The talking heads brought up the Green Bay game of last season when Aaron Rodgers lit us up on several plays where our defense jumped and the flag was thrown. Sherman was just doing what he had been taught to do, what every player should do: Play to the whistle.

[c_hawkbob]

Whether the whistle blew or not the play continued. The center snapped the ball, the holder set the ball and the kicker kicked the ball. To Sherman's point: what would you have him do, just stop, stand there and watch the ball go through the uprights?

1- the offsides was a correct call; Richard clearly mistimed an early jump. If there were no whistle then: a) there is no further infraction to the rules; if there is contact with the ball (I believe there was) there is no roughing and b) he damn well better continue the play! an offsides is a free play for the offense: the offense is given a choice of the outcome of the play or the penalty.

2- If "unabated to the kicker" were the call then there should have been a 15 yard penalty (or half the distance) to go with it. But as the play continued, from a coaching standpoint you still want your player to continue to defend the play. The same as if a pass rusher gets and early jump and no one else moves he's coached to go give the QB a hug just to make sure the is no continuance. I was always coached that "if you make a mistake make it full speed", don't balk or stand up and take yourself out of continuing action.

The only conclusion is that the officiating was botched. Period. Richard was doing as he is coached.

Also, as far as I could tell the only person calling what Richard did "dirty" was Casserly. He said he saw "clear intent to injure" which is not something that becomes OK if a whistle was blown so Charlie's just full if sh!t on this one.

[Agent 86]

Whether the whistle blew or not the play continued. The center snapped the ball, the holder set the ball and the kicker kicked the ball. To Sherman's point: what would you have him do, just stop, stand there and watch the ball go through the uprights?

1- the offsides was a correct call; Richard clearly mistimed an early jump. If there were no whistle then: a) there is no further infraction to the rules; if there is contact with the ball (I believe there was) there is no roughing and b) he damn well better continue the play! an offsides is a free play for the offense: the offense is given a choice of the outcome of the play or the penalty.

2- If "unabated to the kicker" were the call then there should have been a 15 yard penalty (or half the distance) to go with it. But as the play continued, from a coaching standpoint you still want your player to continue to defend the play. The same as if a pass rusher gets and early jump and no one else moves he's coached to go give the QB a hug just to make sure the is no continuance. I was always coached that "if you make a mistake make it full speed", don't balk or stand up and take yourself out of continuing action.

The only conclusion is that the officiating was botched. Period. Richard was doing as he is coached.

Also, as far as I could tell the only person calling what Richard did "dirty" was Casserly. He said he saw "clear intent to injure" which is not something that becomes OK if a whistle was blown so Charlie's just full if sh!t on this one.

I cannot for the life of me stand Casserly. In the leadup to Super Bowl 48 and 49, anytime he had a segment, it was full of clips of Seahawks defenders doing what he perceived as holding, grabbing, illegal hits, etc.., to the point where it seemed like a personal vendetta he had with either Pete Carroll or the Seahawks team in general. It was completely over the top, and came off as a whiny kid complaining, and made me think he was trying to make the refs aware of it and to help get calls for the Broncos and Patriots. I remember being shocked to see a so called "analyst" be so biased. He is a total clown, along with the likes of Prisco, Bayless, etc....so it does not surprise me to hear he thought it was intentional.

Ugh, the thing I am dreading this Sunday is how many times we will have to see and hear about the Malcolm Butler play. I have done a good job of changing the channel whenever I see that play being discussed, but there will be no avoiding it this Sunday night. Collinsworth will have a field day with it.

[RiverDog]

Whether the whistle blew or not the play continued. The center snapped the ball, the holder set the ball and the kicker kicked the ball. To Sherman's point: what would you have him do, just stop, stand there and watch the ball go through the uprights?

1- the offsides was a correct call; Richard clearly mistimed an early jump. If there were no whistle then: a) there is no further infraction to the rules; if there is contact with the ball (I believe there was) there is no roughing and b) he damn well better continue the play! an offsides is a free play for the offense: the offense is given a choice of the outcome of the play or the penalty.

2- If "unabated to the kicker" were the call then there should have been a 15 yard penalty (or half the distance) to go with it. But as the play continued, from a coaching standpoint you still want your player to continue to defend the play. The same as if a pass rusher gets and early jump and no one else moves he's coached to go give the QB a hug just to make sure the is no continuance. I was always coached that "if you make a mistake make it full speed", don't balk or stand up and take yourself out of continuing action.

The only conclusion is that the officiating was botched. Period. Richard was doing as he is coached.

Also, as far as I could tell the only person calling what Richard did "dirty" was Casserly. He said he saw "clear intent to injure" which is not something that becomes OK if a whistle was blown so Charlie's just full if sh!t on this one.

Understood and agreed, but nevertheless, my question still stands. Did the refs say that they did or did not blow the whistle? It makes a difference in that if they didn't blow the whistle, there isn't any rationale AT ALL for either calling a penalty or fining him.

[HumanCockroach]

No the whistle did NOT blow. Even Blandino said the officials were "in the process of shutting the play down" and all have readily admitted that the whistle blew AFTER Sherman contacted the kicker ( ie after he has touched the ball) at no point has an official, Blandino, or even the media claimed otherwise. EVERY player continued, including both lines, the snapper holder and kicker. To answer your question.

[burrrton]

Exactly- since the whistle hasn't blown, it's a live play, period, so unless he does something outside the rules in that scenario, you can't call him for a foul (and he was touching the ball while contacting the kicker).

End of discussion if it had happened to any other team but Seattle or maybe New England.

[jshawaii22]

After Sherman broke offside, you can see the side judge (or maybe backjudge) running in and waving the play dead but he was BEHIND Richard. If there was no whistle, and there WAS a still picture of Richards' hand on the ball with his back to the kicker just as his foot met the ball, so it comes down to if the NFL gives in to public pressure. We'll know more tomorrow when the weekly fines start coming out.

And to me the biggest blowhards in this whole mess were Gruden in the booth and Balandiadi (sp?) who went off at 1/2 time and tweeted it was a PF to the world, without knowing all the details. Everyone else just followed their leads.

[RiverDog]

No the whistle did NOT blow. Even Blandino said the officials were "in the process of shutting the play down" and all have readily admitted that the whistle blew AFTER Sherman contacted the kicker ( ie after he has touched the ball) at no point has an official, Blandino, or even the media claimed otherwise. EVERY player continued, including both lines, the snapper holder and kicker. To answer your question.

OK, thanks, HC. I was asking an honest question.

Here's a perfect picture of Sherman's point:

http://www.12up.com/posts/4080588-richa ... cebook.com

[NorthHawk]

Sherman got fined for the hit on Carpenter, so it would seem they thought it was intentional.

[burrrton]

Amazing. No whistle, kicker tried to kick, Sherman had a hand on the ball, and they still fine him.

I'd love to hear what they thought he should have done differently and why.

[HumanCockroach]

Not going to happen. There's nothing in the RB to justify the fine or a penalty, so there's nothing they can say to explain it.

[monkey]

Amazing. No whistle, kicker tried to kick, Sherman had a hand on the ball, and they still fine him.

I'd love to hear what they thought he should have done differently and why.

No whistle, kicker FLOPPED while Sherman had his hand on the ball.
There will be no explanation of the fine because they cannot say, on the record, "we're trying to save face because of public opinion." But that's what it is, it's certainly not because of any broken rule.

[burrrton]

There will be no explanation of the fine because they cannot say, on the record, "we're trying to save face because of public opinion." But that's what it is, it's certainly not because of any broken rule.

Yup.

[HumanCockroach]

They explained it as "we couldn't hear the whistle on film"

In essence, blaming the fans for making noise to justify the fine. Which is complete and utter nonsense. You could hear every whistle in the game on the broadcast, but not that one? The official admitted to not blowing it before contact, but you're still not sure? Yeah, OK, I've got a bridge to sell you as well.

[EmeraldBullet]

There was no whistle until right before the contact. Sherman also blocked the ball before he hit the kicker (indisputable from the one angle, from the other angle it looks worse). People just hate us cause we are so good and have always overcome whatever obstacle presents itself.
This is the difference between seahawks and pats fans. Pats fans expect their team to win and get calls. We expect to get calls against us and still overcome. Nothing ever is handed to us. And honestly I like it that way. Makes me proud to be a hawks fan.

[burrrton]

You could hear every whistle in the game on the broadcast, but not that one?

In fact, you can clearly hear the whistle when the finally *do* blow it on that very play.

They're asking everyone to buy their claim that whistles were magically 'unhearable' until the moment they weren't.

[HumanCockroach]

I know. I actually stayed up after getting home from the game primarily to see what the f*** happened... Obviously we couldn't hear a whistle in the stadium, I thought maybe I had missed the whistle seeing people losing their minds on social media on the way home, turns out I didn't.... That said 69,000 people could INDEED tell Carpenter was faking it immediately( and I suppose that number is inflated by 7 officials, all the players on the field), whether Bills fans at the stadium admit it or not. Once he realised no flag was forth coming, he immediately stopped grabbing the wrong knee, writhing in pain and literally hopped to his feet. Sprinted on and off the field and had no issues kicking ( anyone checked that Bills injury report? 99 percent sure, he's not on it).

[RiverDog]

I'm not going to get too wound up on it. It didn't affect the outcome of the game and Sherman can afford the fine.

My big worry is tomorrow night. I'm almost afraid to watch.

[HumanCockroach]

Worried? Why? Ultimately, it's a game, Seattle hasn't lost by more than 10 points in years, and ultimately Brady hasn't played anyone yet..... I'm absolutely excited and intrigued by this matchup.

[RiverDog]

Worried? Why? Ultimately, it's a game, Seattle hasn't lost by more than 10 points in years, and ultimately Brady hasn't played anyone yet..... I'm absolutely excited and intrigued by this matchup.

Haven't played anyone? How about the same team that we just gave up 425 yards to in front of the 12th man and had to go into the last seconds before we eeked out a win? The Patriots crushed that same team the week before.

Short week and a cross country trip for us, defense minus Bennett, Patriots coming off a bye. I'm not betting the farm.

[HumanCockroach]

You mean without McCoy and half their receivers?

How about Pittsburgh, there's somebody right? Course it was Landry Jones at QB....

Truth is, sometimes you need to actually look into who was playing and when...

They haven't played anybody yet...

[RiverDog]

You mean without McCoy and half their receivers?

How about Pittsburgh, there's somebody right? Course it was Landry Jones at QB....

Truth is, sometimes you need to actually look into who was playing and when...

They haven't played anybody yet...

You can make a similar argument about us. Who have we played? Dolphins, Niners, Rams, Jets, Cards, Falcons, Saints, and Bills. Only one of those teams has a winning record.

[HumanCockroach]

Whatever, be worried if you want to be, I'm not. It doesn't mean Seattle will win, just that Seattle can indeed win. In my book if you can win, there's no reason whatsoever to be worried.

Seattle actually matches up exceedingly well with NE and I'm fascinated to see how they shake out.

[RiverDog]

Whatever, be worried if you want to be, I'm not. It doesn't mean Seattle will win, just that Seattle can indeed win. In my book if you can win, there's no reason whatsoever to be worried.

Seattle actually matches up exceedingly well with NE and I'm fascinated to see how they shake out.

Well, however we characterize our emotions, it's going to be a big challenge to beat them in their house on a short week when they're coming off a bye. Hopefully we'll rise to the level of our competition. If we play like we have the past 3 weeks against lesser competition, it could be a long night.

[HumanCockroach]

Went pretty close to the way I thought... Close, ultimately Seattle wins. Like I said, they have played no one.

[burrrton]

Went pretty close to the way I thought... Close, ultimately Seattle wins. Like I said, they have played no one.

Alright, HC- I'm going to need your against-the-spread picks for next week by noon Thursday for my Pickem league- I'm getting my ass kicked...