well, my TV seemed to be working: it shows BrettFarve throwing a pick-six.
Speaking of that game:
I’d probably rule it a catch myself, but it wasn’t a slam-dunk. His arms were around the midpoint of the ball rather than ‘under’ it, and at one point in the slow-mo replay it looked like the ball was slipping downwards through his arms. So, again, I’d probably rule it a catch based on what I saw, but I don’t think it’s a travesty that the officials thought the ball was not really under control when the ground pushed it back up into his arms and body.
[PS – On the late overturned Minn TD, how does the official standing on the back line of the end zone call it a catch when the Viking receiver’s second foot was a good four or five inches out of bounds? Isn’t watching the feet and the end line that official’s main job?]
Looked to me like it was just wide of the the Patriot’s hand. Which means a kick right down the middle might well have been blocked. I don’t know if the kicker would aim right a little bit because of the rusher diving in from the left or not, but if so, then the Patriots could take a little bit of credit for the missed kick. Not that they didn’t have a horseshoe up their a** all day on all the other plays, of course.
Funny, I thought it was incredibly, stunningly, blindingly obvious that it did.
I also thought it was clear that he established possession in the air and retained it through the full event, and thus that this should have been ruled a complete pass. It seems the rule is morphing toward “Regardless of the issue of possession, if any part of the ball touches the ground, pass is incomplete.”
Just when I think there is a spark, the slightest hint, of rationality to your fandom, you come up with a comment so out there, so out of touch with reality, that it, once again, reminds me of why I should just ignore what you say.
There is an argument, as Quercas makes, that, while the ball touched the ground, Shiancoe held possession enough to rule it a catch. I don’t think 95% of the time you’re not going to get a call like that because he trapped the ball between the ground and his body, but at least there is an argument to be made.
But denying the ball hit the ground? That’s just ridiculous.
Dain Bread said “the ball hit the ground first and bounced.” It certainly did not, and that’s what I meant. He had his arms underneath it the whole time. The rules permit incidental contact with the ground if the player has control of the ball. That was a touchdown, and I didn’t see conclusive evidence that it even made contact.
They also gave a TD to Quarless that he dropped, but Chilly wasn’t able to see the replay on that in time. In any case, the officials are always the Packers’ bitches at Lambeau.
Clay Matthews also tore his helmet off on another play and didn’t get flagged. That should be a suspension.
Looks like the standard “ohshitididn’tseethatthingi’mgonnahit” defensive move to absorb some of the shock and keep going. Although I think he has the right of way, he should have tried to steer better after being blocked out.
If you watch more San Diego games, you’ll find that this is common. For example, these same two teams played in a playoff game a few years ago; if you look it up, you’ll find phrases like
I don’t think either the Broncos or the 49ers will return from London.
I swear I think I might watch the rest of San Francisco’s season just to watch all the new and creative ways they can find to lose. This week it was a combination of playing not-to-lose and somehow confusing six minutes left with two minutes left. Losing the starting QB because we have a rookie right tackle doesn’t help. I hope all the Smith-haters are happy, but most of the chatter on 49er fan boards is brainless clamoring for Nate Davis.
Singletary seems like he has a rigid offensive philosophy: defense. Once they got the lead, scoring again was not a option. You can’t run the clock out at 5:34 left, especially when the O-line doesn’t block. And on defense, they stopped blitzing and played prevent when the opponent had 4:30 left and multiple timeouts. They had been getting burned already with intermediate routes.
Then you weren’t looking.
OK, maybe you weren’t looking during the replays. I’ll give you that maybe the live angle didn’t let you see the ball hit the ground, but the replays were blindingly obvious that it did. The only question is whether he had complete control of the ball when it hit the ground, or whether the impact with the ground helped him gain/maintain control. As I said, from what I could see, it’s a justifiable opinion that the ball was slipping out at the time it hit the ground: he was only holding it with his forearms after all, and they were not under the ball, but on either side of it, at about the halfway point.
But you probably think the viking receiver was in bounds on the late catch in the back of the endzone, don’t you? You know, the one where the referee on the field was clearly out to screw the Vikings by cleverly awarding a touchdown to them? (You see, in the instant he telepathically came to an agreement with the review official that it would be called a TD initially but overturned on review just so they could screw with the Vikings psychologically.). Of course it was even more egregious when the referees pushed Farve’s arm just as he threw, to force the interceptions…
I’m beginning to think ‘cynic’ doesn’t mean what one of us thinks it means…
No, his arms were clearly under it. I watched the replay a bunch of times.
No, Harvin was out, but the officials made the correct call on the replay there (if they were trying to screw the Packers, they wouldn’t have reversed it), unlike with the Shank catch.
It was pretty obvious that the ball would be moving around when Schiancoe came down because the point of the ball was straight down. It would have moved around on impact if had been nailed to his hands. On the other hand, he obviously maintained control of it the whole time.
So, I think there was a reasonable argument for the call to go either way. I do not think there was indisputable visual evidence sufficient to overturn the call on the field (whichever way it went).
Speaking of which, I wish the officials would address this more often. Even when you know that they’re not overturning a call because there isn’t indisputable evidence, they never admit it; they always say, “the runner came down inbounds”, or whatever, as though the replay confirmed the call. Tell the truth! We all know what the rule is, zebras.
Saying the Packers are shit
Misreresenting what actualy happened on a play (the ball hit the ground, but I agree it should have been a catch)
Saying the Vikings totally outplayed the Packers
Disregarding three horrible interceptions by Favre
Bitching about the Refs being TOTALLY in the Packers pocket
Which has absolutely nothing to do with proving that when you said: “Favre did throw some bad picks. That’s the only reason the Packers even got on the board”, you were, once again, completely wrong. As G.O. so succiently pointed out.