Catch Interference (Non) Penalty

[hawknation2017]

And I think Beathard had at least 3 intentional grounding throws but was only called for one.

Yeah, saw that too.

To be fair though, RW consistently throws more balls away from within the tackle box than any QB I've ever seen. I seriously can't believe I'm the only person who has noticed this.

I think it's just something that they don't call that much.

And seriously, props to RW and the Hawks staff if this is known and intentional, as it decreases sacks and keeps his INT rate down by taking advantage of a penalty that isn't called that much.

Does he? I never noticed that. I only always see him throw out of bounds. But I might just not pay enough attention.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

So the QB who escapes the pocket every chance he gets, more than any other QB in the league, is supposedly throwing the ball away from WITHIN the pocket. And getting away with it, LOL. Well done, Pops. You have truly outdone yourself here.

 

[purpleneer]

I'm glad it didn't affect the outcome.

Yep. Whatever it was, me too.

FWIW I think it's a good example of why it's good the NFL instituted the rule for all scoring plays being confirmed in NY.

If that exact same play happened a couple years ago and the Hawks were out of challenges that's a VERY BLOWN call that results in a TD for the 9ers.

As much as you are often a (relatively) level-headed and reasonable observer, your entire position on every part of this play is bonkers. This point especially is, because replay wasn't needed at all, let alone to determine it couldn't possibly be a TD had they even ruled an un-interfered-with Lockett touched it first. At no level of football does a punting team have the ability to advance the ball once it is kicked past the LOS unless the opposing team first fully possesses it. You can't advance a muff. It was never even possibly a scoring play.

 

[Popeyejones]

I'm glad it didn't affect the outcome.

Yep. Whatever it was, me too.

FWIW I think it's a good example of why it's good the NFL instituted the rule for all scoring plays being confirmed in NY.

If that exact same play happened a couple years ago and the Hawks were out of challenges that's a VERY BLOWN call that results in a TD for the 9ers.

As much as you are often a (relatively) level-headed and reasonable observer, your entire position on every part of this play is bonkers. This point especially is, because replay wasn't needed at all, let alone to determine it couldn't possibly be a TD had they even ruled an un-interfered-with Lockett touched it first. At no level of football does a punting team have the ability to advance the ball once it is kicked past the LOS unless the opposing team first fully possesses it. You can't advance a muff. It was never even possibly a scoring play.

Oh yeah, 100% agreed that with what ACTUALLY HAPPENED the 9ers can't advance the ball -- the ball is down where they touch it if they end up recovering after the touch (what Largent brought up about illegal touching).


I'm not talking about what actually happened though. I'm talking about the refs THINKING the ball touched Lockett at some point and then the 9ers returning that "fumble" for a TD. We both know the ball never touched Lockett though, and the refs eventually knew the ball never touched Lockett because as a (wrong) scoring play the play immediately went for review in New York.

What I'm saying is that (1) if scoring plays didn't immediately go for review in New York and (2) hypothetically if the Hawks had been out of challenges that could have been WRONGLY CALLED as a touchdown for the 9ers, which it 100% wasn't.

Basically what I'm saying is that the automatic review saved us from a game in which a VERY blown call could have effected the outcome to a game in which a potentially blown call DID NOT effect the outcome. :2thumbs: