HawkShack.com

These were his comments (mixed with my responses):
HIm: For those of you that might believe that "the greatest corner back in the game" made the game winning play. Some....meaning me, would have to disagree. The refs clearly made the game winning play in which 7 points were scored. But your right it wasn't a fumble. I don't have my glasses on. So that must not be the football in the niners hands right before he went down WITH the football...The refs made the game winning play.just sayin..

Me:
ROFLMAO...the seahawks DIDNT SCORE after that play........

Me:
Marshawn Lynch fumbled it right back to you on 4th and goal.......

Him:
Hey ....its my rendition of the game dnit....they scored 7 eventually .....you assumed I meant right after.....uuummm not my fault

Me:
SF actually came out better after this series....went from the 1 yard line to the 15 yard line, after Seattle stripped Kaepernick and was ready to score anyway.......after the blown call, SF improves field position and it became a non-issue in the game because of Lynch's fumble.....

Him:
Yes..bad ref calls were a non issue of the game.....there is no mention of bad calls on FB or the internet....say goodnight dude, Im done.

Me:
There's no mention of this particular play affecting the outcome of the game....Lynch fumbles and there's no net affect of the blown call. What part of that is hard to understand? Was there some other call that affected the score of the game, because this one didnt.



Can you believe these FORTYWHINER FANS????????? OMG

Delusional

It has never been a popular stance in this ( or any Seahawks forum) but it has ALWAYS been my belief that "champions" face adversity ( including having the deck "stacked" against them, whether it be bad calls or injuries or anything else) and overcome that adversity to reach their goal, so whether that was a blown call or not matters little.

You can also let him know that Seattle DID NOT score seven after the play, for the rest of the game, as at that point it was 20-17 Seahawks at the time.... also ask him about the kicked fumble by Kap that lead DIRECTLY to seven points for SF, should be interesting to see what excuses he comes up with. Kap doesn't illegally kick the ball forward, Bennett recovers his forced fumble... Hmmm....

By my definition the Niners are. NOT Championship material.

There are distinctions- there is sh*tty officiating, there's one-sided (also sh*tty by definition) officiating, and there's one-side officiating that can cost a team a game.

If this game was anything, it was the first. It was not one-sided, and it sure as h3ll didn't cost them the game.

Tell your friend if he wants to btch about lousy officiating, he'll find a kindred spirit with me. We'll part ways if he wants to pretend a blown call (the missed Navarro recovery) that didn't cost his team any points and that in fact may have benefited his team was the reason they lost, though.

I have had several people bring the fumble up. Mostly I have not responded because frankly if you think that affected the game you have no understanding of football. Which is OK, lots of people that have no understanding of football watch this time of the year.

My wife turned to me right after Lynch bobbled it and said "s***, is it bad that I think that it's fair that it happened?' I was heartbroken for Lynch, but as someone else said - the football gods worked it out.

I'm surprised that the Niners fans are whining about the fumble at the one yard line when the call they should really be complaining about is the roughing the punter penalty that was called running into the kicker. That blown call had much more of an impact on the game than the fumble at the one, which if anything, ended up being more of a benefit to the Niners than to the Hawks.

In any event, I don't feel as if there was a large advantage/disadvantage gained or lost by either team as a result of the officiating.

Eh, the missed roughing the punter and the illegal batting of the ball on Kap are "washes" in my book. SF didn't get the first down, Seattle didn't score, Seattle didn't get the HUGE lost yards and it directly turned into 7 for SF, I know which one call I would prefer go the Hawks way.....

I gotten were I try to tune out the bad calls because for the most part they go both ways, like the holding penalty on Giacomini.

My question is why everone insists that it was roughing the kicker? According to the rule the difference between roughing the kicker and running into the kicker is a judgement call. There is no mention of hitting the plant foot being roughing. That is just what Joe Buck and Troy was saying, that is not true.

My question is why everone insists that it was roughing the kicker?

The reasonable people are simply saying contact that hard, especially with the plant leg, is usually called roughing, and I agree. SF should have gotten bailed out there.

My issue, as you allude to and I've argued elsewhere, is this characterization that contact with the plant leg is automatically roughing "by the letter of the law" and so on, as Aikman and others said. It's not, and you're correct.

The difference between roughing and running into is a judgment call, and contact with the plant leg is just usually judged more harshly.

It isn't like the attempted blocker could hit the kicking leg so hard he spins the punter, but get off with 'running into' because it wasn't the plant leg he hit.

[edit]

I'll add that this is at least according to the official copy of the NFL rules I found. Maybe there's some addendum or official guidelines somewhere that specifies the distinction.

The reason that everyone thinks it's automatic if you hit the plant leg, is because Buck and Aikman weren't the ones who said it, it was Mike Perierra or however you spell his stupid name who said it was, during the broadcast. When an official in charge of officials, who is there just to tell us fans what the rules are, says that it's an automatic penalty, fans will assume he knows what he's talking about .
Funny though, he's not quite right about what he said, at least not according to the rule book.
It's not as black and white as he made it out to be.

monkey wrote:The reason that everyone thinks it's automatic if you hit the plant leg, is because Buck and Aikman weren't the ones who said it, it was Mike Perierra or however you spell his stupid name who said it was, during the broadcast. When an official in charge of officials, who is there just to tell us fans what the rules are, says that it's an automatic penalty, fans will assume he knows what he's talking about .
Funny though, he's not quite right about what he said, at least not according to the rule book.
It's not as black and white as he made it out to be.

You're right, there's nothing in the rule book that speaks directly to hitting the plant leg and it's not as cut and dried as was the impression we were given. What the rule says is that when determining the difference between running into and roughing, the officials are to take into consideration the potential severity of injury to the punter. Hitting the plant leg is the rule of thumb they use to help determine that risk. The SF punter was clearly in a position where he was very susceptible to injury when Maragos hit him and, indeed, was injured on that play, which could have been one of the reasons why the Niners chose not to take the 5 yards and punt again. We got a break. It easily could have been called roughing the punter.

I don't think it was a close as people made out; The rules are below; I got them from another forum, but I'll search for a corroborating link:

http://fansided.com/2014/01/19/san-fran ... if/#!tgOTw[url]

Article 10:

Roughing/Running into the Kicker

No defensive player may run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind

the line unless such contact:

(a) is incidental to and occurs after the defender has touched the kick in flight;

(b) is caused by the kicker’s own motions;

(c) occurs during a quick kick or a rugby-style kick;

(d) occurs during or after a run behind the line;

(e) occurs after the kicker recovers a loose ball on the ground; or

OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 69

RULE

12,

SECTION

2,

ARTICLE

9

(f) occurs because a defender is pushed or blocked (causing a change of direction) into the kicker; or

(g) is the result of a foul by an opponent.

Item 1: Roughing the kicker

.

It is a foul for roughing the kicker if a defensive player:

(a) contacts the plant leg of the kicker while his kicking leg is still in the air; or

(b) slides into or contacts the kicker when both of the kicker’s feet are on the ground.

It is not a foul if the contact is not severe, or if the kicker returns both feet to the ground prior to the contact and falls over a defender who is on the ground.

Note: When in doubt, it is a foul for roughing the kicker.

Item 2: Running into the Kicker

.

It is a foul for running into the kicker if a defensive player:

(a) contacts the kicking foot of the kicker, even if the kicker is airborne when the contact occurs; or

(b) slides under the kicker, preventing him from returning both feet to the ground.

Penalties:

(1) For roughing the kicker: Loss of 15 yards from the previous spot (personal foul)

and an automatic first down.

The player may be disqualified if the action is flagrant.

(2)
For running into the kicker: Loss of five yards from the
previous spot (not a personal foul). There is not an

automatic first down.

A.R. 12.10

Kicker A1 in punt formation muffs a snap. He recovers on
the ground and then kicks. A1 is run into, blocked, or tackled by

B1 who had started his action when A1 first recovered.

Ruling:

Legal action by B1.

A.R. 12.11

Fourth-

and

-12 on B30. On a field-goal attempt which is not good, receiver B1 runs into the kicker without touching the

ball.

Ruling:

A’s ball fourth

-

and

-7 on B25. Running into the kicker. If the field goal had been good, no penalty would be

enforced on the succeeding kickoff, since it was not a personal foul. A

It says when in doubt it is roughing, but it is arguably not in doubt. It wasn't severe; he clearly didn't go for the plant leg, and part (b) of running into the kicker seems to apply. Had this been Jon Ryan and a 49ers player, it would have been called the worst roughing the kicker penalty in history. This isn't the officiating job 49ers fans make it out to be; I'm not losing any sleep over this call.

Good info, Mack- I didn't see some of that text in my searching.

It seems part (a) in the "Roughing..." section is applicable, although could be overridden by the "It's not a foul if" part after (b).

Still looks like it should have been called there. SF should have gotten bailed out in that case.

I listen to talk radio and I have literally not heard ibe person blame the refs. In fact, the biggest blame has been directed toward Harbaugh for not calling a timeout. Personally I don't feel that lost the game either though, because our O had struggled in the redzone all yr and conversely Seattle's redzone D has been prob the NFL's best. Even if we had kept going with the underneath stuff and gotten to say the 6, no guarantee we score.

If there is one play that cost the game it was the breakdown on ST sfter we went up 17-10. I knew it as soon as Baldwin got to the 10. Same way we arguably lost the SB. With teams as evenly matched as these, STs are huge. Snd Seattle's was better all yr.

Maybe not on radio, but I've got a couple friends (Niners' fans) on facebook that believe the Seahawks win is tainted because of officiating. You go to plenty of comment boards and forums, and you'll find plenty of opinions agreeing with this. Not all wholly blame officiating, but some definitely think we got away with murder. It was a pretty even-handed officiated game, in my opinion.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Maybe not on radio, but I've got a couple friends (Niners' fans) on facebook that believe the Seahawks win is tainted because of officiating. You go to plenty of comment boards and forums, and you'll find plenty of opinions agreeing with this. Not all wholly blame officiating, but some definitely think we got away with murder. It was a pretty even-handed officiated game, in my opinion.

I thought it was the first game all season where the Seahawks got better treatment than the other team did from the Officials.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Maybe not on radio, but I've got a couple friends (Niners' fans) on facebook that believe the Seahawks win is tainted because of officiating. You go to plenty of comment boards and forums, and you'll find plenty of opinions agreeing with this. Not all wholly blame officiating, but some definitely think we got away with murder. It was a pretty even-handed officiated game, in my opinion.

You are going to have people like that in any fanbase. I can guarantee you that is not the vibe in northern California though. I sm a sports radio junky, and none of the locals on the radio or the ones I talked to have even mentioned the officials. I think Greg Roman.is getting the bulk of the blame.

On the topic of the running into the kicker call, Mike Perrera came on our talk radio and confirmed that that should have been a personal foul. So I'm not sure what good it does for ordinary people to debate this. The other call that prob hurt us was the 15 yd penalty st the end of the half, because I was certain that JH was going to go for that extra 25 ydd to put us in fg position with 20+ seconds left. So there were some bad calls but bottom line the game was there to be won at the end. Cannot win them all.

Pereira would be considered out of the ordinary compared to us fans in the context of NFL officiating, but not to professional officials; he's a former head officials who interpreted implementation of the rule differently that the officials on the field; is his judgement better than theirs? No it isn't; the guys on the field are required to know the rules just as well as Pereira. The way the rules are written it really could go either way, without it being a an egregiously bad call. I'm sure there'd be plenty of hand wringing if this kind of call went against a 49ers player running into a punter in the same manner.

As for that fifteen yarder for the shove; that call was within the rules; would I have let it go? probably, but it was completely unnecessary.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Pereira would be considered out of the ordinary compared to us fans in the context of NFL officiating, but not to professional officials; he's a former head officials who interpreted implementation of the rule differently that the officials on the field; is his judgement better than theirs? No it isn't; the guys on the field are required to know the rules just as well as Pereira. The way the rules are written it really could go either way, without it being a an egregiously bad call. I'm sure there'd be plenty of hand wringing if this kind of call went against a 49ers player running into a punter in the same manner.

As for that fifteen yarder for the shove; that call was within the rules; would I have let it go? probably, but it was completely unnecessary.

Ya I think his judgment is better than theirs 2 days later after watching it on film. You have nothing left to prove here. You won the game.

You guys let the wrong call go on the judgment of the 'roughness' of the bump into the punter's leg (I agree you guys should have been bailed out there), and we'll let the no-call go when our gunner got clotheslined on the sideline. Fair?

The plant leg is supposed to be just that, the "plant" leg. It's not supposed to hop a yard forward into the defender's path like it did.

Maybe switch to the illegal batting of the ball, or the incorrectly called defensive holding penalty on Sherman ( as Kap was outside the pocket, hence no defensive holding penalty possible). Calls were missed on both sides, and honestly, in the situation the refs were in, I personally felt like they did a decent job. No team received a lopsided advantage.