HawkShack.com

In which a writer is apparently butthurt that either his team or the team he bet on didn't win, so he starts making up rules (hint, Barnwell: contact with a punter's plant leg is not necessarily 'roughing' "by definition") and rationalizing at a level that would make an 8th-grader blush:

http://grantland.com/features/champions ... they-were/

Not that it's that big a deal, but he's pretty obviously biased- it'll get your blood boiling in places.

[edit]

In fairness to Barnwell, he may be an avowed 49er fan/writer and I'm just not familiar with his background.

burrrton wrote:... (hint, Barnwell: contact with a punter's plant leg is not necessarily 'roughing' "by definition") .

Actually, I believe it is.

c_hawkbob wrote:

burrrton wrote:... (hint, Barnwell: contact with a punter's plant leg is not necessarily 'roughing' "by definition") .

Actually, I believe it is.

I've read every resource I can find, and while the plant leg is considered more likely to draw a roughing call (for obvious reasons), contact with it does not making roughing automatic.

I think that call could have gone either way- it wasn't *that* hard a bump, but it wasn't a feather-brush, either- but the point is that it's the force of the hit that decides the call*.

*Again, according to everything I could find. If someone has an official source that says otherwise, I'm open to correction.

Here's the text from NFL's official rules:

RUNNING, ROUGHING KICKER
Penalty: For running into the kicker: Loss of five yards from the previous spot, no automatic first
down. (This is not a personal foul). For roughing the kicker or holder, loss of 15 yards from the
previous spot. (This is a personal foul, and also disqualification if flagrant).
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
(1) Avoiding the kicker is a primary responsibility of defensive players if they do not touch the kick.
(2) Any contact with the kicker by a single defensive player who has not touched the kick is running into
the kicker.
(3) Any unnecessary roughness committed by defensive players is roughing the kicker. Severity of
contact and potential for injury are to be considered.
(4) When two defensive players are making a bona fide attempt to block a kick from scrimmage (punt,
drop kick, and/or placekick) and one of them runs into the kicker after the kick has left the kicker’s foot
at the same instant the second player blocks the kick, the foul for running into the kicker shall not be
enforced, unless in the judgment of the Referee, the player running into the kicker was clearly the
direct cause of the kick being blocked.
(5) If in the judgment of the Referee any of the above action is unnecessary roughness, the penalty for
roughing the kicker shall be enforced from the previous spot as a foul during a kick.

I'm merely stating my understanding from how I was coached to what I've seen as a fan. This is the only time I've ever seen contacting the punters plant leg not called roughing and the explanation for accidental contract being called roughing being always being "you hit the plant leg they'll call it every time".

Well, I don't disagree with you that much, Bob, but my beef is more the characterization of that call as being outside the definition of the rules. There is no definition of roughing that distinguishes between the plant and kicking legs, but both Aikman and Barnwell felt compelled to pretend there was so they could say it was a blown call (rather than just a rare one).

Barnwell isn't very biased at all. He's one of my favorite football writers right now, he's just a little too married to his stats.

kalibane wrote:Barnwell isn't very biased at all. He's one of my favorite football writers right now, he's just a little too married to his stats.

Coulda fooled me with that article...

He sees things how he sees them and I don't always agree, but I don't think he'd say that the officials gave the game to the Seahawks. The running into the kicker penalty was techincally roughing by the letter and such. And the Bowman play was obvious. If it makes you feel better go back in his columns to the game at Candlestick and I'm pretty sure he was pretty vocal about how all the calls seemed to go the way of the Niners. If it wasn't in his article it was in the grantland football podcast. Dude is a solid writer (Giants fan btw).

The running into the kicker penalty was techincally roughing by the letter and such.

Huh? There is no "technically roughing". I just copied you "the letter and such"- it has to be judged sufficiently rough to be roughing. There is no 'letter of the law' that differentiates between legs.

Your point about him being fair overall is well taken, though, and I agree about the Bowman play. This article just strains amateurishly to make a case for the Niners.

Burrton,

So I listened to Barnwell's and Robert Mays' Championship review podcast. He didn't make one reference to questionable refereeing. He talked about how lucky the Niners were to constantly get lucky bounces with fumble recoveries in the first three quarters (this is one of his big things btw, regression towards the mean with fumble recoveries). And both he and Mays talked at length about what a non issue the Richard Sherman interview is and actually fully supported it, saying "it's indicative of not being familiar with Richard Sherman, even though they think they are", "wasn't even offensive, just a dude being happy he won and talking the tiniest amount of sh*t".

I think it's safe to say there is no 49er bias there. LOL

I think it's safe to say there is no 49er bias there. LOL

Good to know. Doesn't help the tone of his article, but noted.

Here’s a quick rundown of why I think this article was odd. This isn’t to say that he said nothing positive about SEA, nor that every one of these examples is just as bad as the rest, but the tone of the article was clear despite him otherwise being a fair and good writer:

“That led the Niners onto a drive that was so impressive it was easy to wonder whether this was simply their day.“

(drives that consist of the QB running for his life when the play beaks down, and that depend on an at least questionable holding call to keep it alive, aren’t usually considered overly “impressive”)

“San Francisco’s front seven was unblockable during the first half.”

(unblockable indicates bit higher level of domination than we saw, although this is defensible)

“At halftime, the Seahawks made a key strategic adjustment that helped get them back on level terms”

(level terms don’t outscore the opponent 20-7)

“Bailey’s arrival saw Lynch run for 11 yards and then five before springing a 40-yard run off a bad angle by rookie 49ers safety Eric Reid, eventually stumbling his way into the end zone. “

(only for a bad angle by them could Lynch end up stumbling into the endzone)

“On the very next play, Kaepernick took on the Legion of Boom and won. He put freakish velocity on a 26-yard touchdown pass to Anquan Boldin, despite Boldin being clearly covered by none other than All-World safety Earl Thomas. Thomas could only get his fingertips on the throw, as Kaepernick’s howitzer was enough for the score.”

(Took them on and won! Freakish velocity! Howitzer! Great array of words there!)

“And then the calls began to go Seattle’s way. “

(here he then says Davis should have had a completion on Kam’s big hit and after that, his made-up rule about contact with the plant leg being an automatic roughing penalty)

“The Seahawks then took the lead for the first time all game early in the fourth quarter, when a 59-yard drive culminated in a shocking score. “

(not just their first lead, they led the first time ALL GAME, and the score was SHOCKING!)

“Pete Carroll sent kicker Steven Hauschka out to kick in the hopes of making it a one-point game, but Hauschka seemed to freeze up on the field before returning to the sideline and telling Carroll he thought the team should go for it. Steamboat Steven!”

(Hausch “froze up”? “Steamboat Steven”??)

“Carroll took his kicker’s advice, and on the fourth-down try, a Wilson hard count somehow got Aldon Smith to jump offside. “

(Somehow, some way, possibly magic, a good QB got a good DE to jump on a hard count! This just does not happen!)

“Kearse beat an overmatched Carlos Rogers, returning to the lineup at less than 100 percent with a hamstring injury, for the biggest touchdown of his career.”

(lucky for Kearse he was in the lineup at <100%)

“Wilson and Lynch failed to complete the handoff, with the ball then bouncing backward. San Francisco had three players with a relatively clear path to the football, including Reid and Whitner. Had either of them picked up the fumble, he would have had a convoy of blockers to the opposite end zone for a game-changing touchdown. Only Wilson stood in their way. I’d like to pretend that Wilson made some heroic play to fend off the defenders and save the football, but he got knocked over and the ball bounced off his helmet, making it harder for the defenders to scoop the ball, at which point the Seattle cavalry showed up and managed to recover the fumble. Seattle lost possession, came away without points, and didn’t even have the field position it expected, but that tiny bounce off Wilson’s helmet might have been enough to save the NFC for Seattle.”

(lucky bounce or SF would have had a 90 yard TD return, not a typical NFL scramble for a loose ball)

Hey guys, back from Vegas and trying to catch-up on all the threads. As far as this article and writer, I have never heard of Barnwell and could give a Sh_t about him. Any and all writers and analysts can s_ck it, we won and I don't care what they have to say.

Any and all writers and analysts can s_ck it, we won and I don't care what they have to say.

For the record, in case you haven't read the thread, Barnwell is apparently a decent writer whose reputation isn't marked by any kind of distaste for Seattle (and in fact he may be somewhat of a fan).

I just maintain you couldn't have guessed that from this particular article, and I think the examples above show why.

Just know this article shouldn't be taken as indicative of his work.

I wouldn't say he's a fan persay but both he and Robert Mays (their other main football writer) really enjoy the brand of football that the Seahawks and Niners play. I probably had a different take on his article just because I'm super familiar with Barnwell's writing. I can see how you might read into it a different way though.

For instance his mention of that fumble that fortunately wasn't returned for a touchdown, I know he's not trying to imply that the 49ers outplayed the Seahawks and the Seahawks survived based on a lucky bounce. However, one of his big things is fumble recovery rate (for better or worse). He would (and has) say the same exact thing about the strip sack that Kaepernick kicked (should have been a flag by the way), and happened to go right to Jonathan Goodwin instead of being recovered by the 3 seahawks around the spot where he actually fumbled.

Or take the Lynch TD... it was a bad angle (and good move by Lynch too) but it was reminiscent of that GB blitzer that tried to take an inside move and let Kaep escape contain. It was still a good play by Lynch/Kaep doesn't negate a good play by Lynch.

For frame of reference, he made a nearly identical statement breaking down the game in SF on Gore's run, maintaining that the Niners running game was getting shut down except for that long run and the only reason that long run happened was timing as he happened to catch Earl Thomas flat footed and a half a second difference and that play gets bottled up and Seahawks probably win.

I kind of know his writing quirks I guess you could say. Trust me Barwell is as objective as they come. I don't always agree with him but I've read absolutely nothing from him that I can accuse him of having bias over, other than his own ideas about stats and situational football decisions which do not extend to any one team.

Good information to know, Kal. Thanks.

Wah wah wah Does somebody need a wahmbulance??? That fact is the NFL owed us 1 or 4 because of past super bad calls in big that went against our Seahawks so I am not going to feel bad that the Whiners had a couple of calls that maybe should have been called the other way.

GET OVER IT!!! That's what the world told us after XL, GET OVER IT!!! Don't put yourself in position to let the officials decide it. GET OVER IT SAN FRANCISCO!!!

You have all off season to gnash your teeth once again. GET OVER IT!!! You laughed in our faces every time it happened to us so I say emphatically, GET OVER IT!!!