HumanCockroach wrote:Couple things. When it happened I felt the same way, however, the RB was touched, and while it looked from the back angle he wasn't down, and after replays he didn't look down, when they replayed from the front, he was ( left elbow hits the ground, which isn't considered part of the hand, and indeed "downs" the player) they did show the replays, and ultimately they would have ruled him on the ground. That said, it upset and frustrated me, that the whistle wasn't blown ( which it definitely wasn't) until AFTER they let the fumble occur. It felt like they were waiting to see if he escaped and made a play, when Seattle did instead they were johnny on the spot to rule him down, even without a whistle. That is lazy and could have cost Seattle dearly. For instance had he found a way to escape and run for a huge gain or a TD Seattle could waste a TO and possibly challenge maybe it shows he is down and maybe not, should have never been left to chance.
My impression was that he was never down, but I was watching his knee, not his elbow.
FolkCrusader wrote:I have found it interesting that what I thought was the biggest blown play by the officials yesterday has gotten zero press. Third Qtr. NO has the ball 2nd and 10.
HumanCockroach wrote:Couple things. When it happened I felt the same way, however, the RB was touched, .
burrrton wrote:My impression was that he was never down, but I was watching his knee, not his elbow.
Confirmed (for those still in doubt). Elbow was firmly planted on the ground. Correct call.
Dudes elbow was down, but he never got touched.
monkey wrote:burrrton wrote:My impression was that he was never down, but I was watching his knee, not his elbow.
Confirmed (for those still in doubt). Elbow was firmly planted on the ground. Correct call.
It's not about whether he was down (he was) it's about whether or not he got TOUCHED, or was down by contact, he wasn't! Dudes elbow was down, but he never got touched. He got back up and tried running because he KNEW he hadn't been touched, so yeah that was a fumble. Lousy call.
Hawk Sista wrote:IMHO, it was at the very least, worthy of additional discussion and an explanation. That it didn't happen made it very frustrating. The dropped INTs, deflecting the ball to the rcvr will not happen next week.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not taking a shot at Earl, but had he not made the play on the ball that he did, our corner (Lane?) would have more than likely made the pick on that deflected pass. It's pretty frustrating when you have two guys in position but can't make the play.
NorthHawk wrote:RiverDog wrote:I'm not taking a shot at Earl, but had he not made the play on the ball that he did, our corner (Lane?) would have more than likely made the pick on that deflected pass. It's pretty frustrating when you have two guys in position but can't make the play.
That comes from everyone giving 100% effort. I'd rather see that than both DBs waiting for the other to make a play. The game prior to Sunday they had 3 players collide in the end zone going after the ball. It's something that's going to happen when you have a backfield full of ball hawks.
RiverDog wrote:NorthHawk wrote:RiverDog wrote:I'm not taking a shot at Earl, but had he not made the play on the ball that he did, our corner (Lane?) would have more than likely made the pick on that deflected pass. It's pretty frustrating when you have two guys in position but can't make the play.
That comes from everyone giving 100% effort. I'd rather see that than both DBs waiting for the other to make a play. The game prior to Sunday they had 3 players collide in the end zone going after the ball. It's something that's going to happen when you have a backfield full of ball hawks.
I agree, and I don't want Earl or anyone else to change the way they're playing. They are a ball hawking defenses, and as a rule, we're the beneficiary of all that flying around.
Can't argue with that. Much rather see the occasional popped up ball than to see everyone standing around.
RiverDog wrote:Can't argue with that. Much rather see the occasional popped up ball than to see everyone standing around.
More times than not, it's the defense that will come up with a popped up ball. I know that my heart always skips a beat when it happens to our offense. That play Saturday was just plain ass dumb luck for the Saints. That pass was badly underthrown and not one, but two DB's had a chance to pick it off.
burrrton wrote:RiverDog wrote:Can't argue with that. Much rather see the occasional popped up ball than to see everyone standing around.
More times than not, it's the defense that will come up with a popped up ball. I know that my heart always skips a beat when it happens to our offense. That play Saturday was just plain ass dumb luck for the Saints. That pass was badly underthrown and not one, but two DB's had a chance to pick it off.
Yep. Just to itemize the things that led to NO 'having a chance':
1. Kam drops one of the easiest picks he'll see in his career. Scientifically calculated* chance of that happening: 2%.
2. Not one, but TWO, defenders miss what would be among the top two or three easiest picks of either of their careers. Chance: 1%.
3. The two defenders missing the pick leads to a 51 yard completion. Chance: 0.5%.
4. Onside kick gives a tailor-made bounce to one of the surer sets of hands in the league, and it bounces off his chest right to a Saint. Chance: 0.5%.
Enter those numbers into your TI-84, run the standard "Luckiest Team in the NFL" algorithm, and you see the chances of all that happening is roughly one in a billion.
Take heart, Hawks fans. That game wasn't as close as it appeared.
*Meaning: pulled straight from my @ss.
Don't know if I agree with your numbers
It really did seem like the breaks were often in NOs favor this game.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests