Just saw the non-pick 6

[Popeyejones]

Check out the shot from the front at the 1:15 mark. He clearly pushes him in the back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7c0Ze7rBmk

Yep at 1:12. Not even needed cuz it's obvious from the other angle but clear as day.

TBF there's nothing particular about this board or Hawks fans with this type of thing (it happens on all fan boards for all teams), but I always get a kick out of it.

TBH I'd be shocked if there's a single person arguing that it wasn't in the back and didn't alter Rodgers' path who isn't a fail mary truther also.

It just comes with fandom. Gotta agree to disagree as there's not point fighting it (as I first learned trying to convince my fellow 9ers fans as they try to explain away obvious penalties and non-penalties that serve their rooting interests, like every fanbase does).

 

[hawknation2017]

Check out the shot from the front at the 1:15 mark. He clearly pushes him in the back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7c0Ze7rBmk

Under the rule, it doesn't matter if he touches his back if it doesn't happen FROM BEHIND. Avril is coming down in front of Rodgers and hits him in the shoulder/side/back. That's not an illegal block because it doesn't happen from behind.

If the word "OR" wasn't present for the second part of the rule you would be correct... In this case, under the rule, this is a penalty:
Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.

Re-read the rule more carefully. Each alternative of the conjunction requires that the block be made "from behind." Avril was clearly making the block in front and to the side of Rodgers.

 

[Smellyman]

Check out the shot from the front at the 1:15 mark. He clearly pushes him in the back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7c0Ze7rBmk

Yep at 1:12. Not even needed cuz it's obvious from the other angle but clear as day.

TBF there's nothing particular about this board or Hawks fans with this type of thing (it happens on all fan boards for all teams), but I always get a kick out of it.

TBH I'd be shocked if there's a single person arguing that it wasn't in the back and didn't alter Rodgers' path who isn't a fail mary truther also.

It just comes with fandom. Gotta agree to disagree as there's not point fighting it (as I first learned trying to convince my fellow 9ers fans as they try to explain away obvious penalties and non-penalties that serve their rooting interests, like every fanbase does).

Yes, like Buck and Aikman, Perreira and Blandino

 

[Tical21]

Check out the shot from the front at the 1:15 mark. He clearly pushes him in the back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7c0Ze7rBmk

Under the rule, it doesn't matter if he touches his back if it doesn't happen FROM BEHIND. Avril is coming down in front of Rodgers and hits him in the shoulder/side/back. That's not an illegal block because it doesn't happen from behind.

If the word "OR" wasn't present for the second part of the rule you would be correct... In this case, under the rule, this is a penalty:
Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.

Re-read the rule more carefully. Each alternative of the conjunction requires that the block me made "from behind." Avril was clearly making the block in front and to the side of Rodgers.

Both hands clearly are behind the shoulder pads. Not sure how that could be constituted as being in "front", but whatever makes ya happy.

 

[HawkGA]

The Avril push was CLEARLY a totally unnecessary push in the back, and kudos to the lot of you that recognize it as a dumb play rather than a bad call. You restore my faith in Seahawks fans. I was expecting it to be me against the world trying to explain reality to the blind homers. That is just about as obvious as a block in the back gets.

Your general conclusion might be fine (though I still disagree), but the last statement is clearly not. There are plenty of plays where a player is running full speed, coming from behind the player and plows into them. THAT is a block in the back. This was a tap (I wouldn't even call it a block) from the side, which if Avril had been a step faster would have clearly not been in the back (as opposed to borderline).

As to those "it gets called every time" I refer you back to the NFC Championship game the year before the Super Bowl *XL when the Panthers had a punt return for a touchdown but there was a block in the back and the refs picked up the flag. It wasn't a harsh block in the back but it was much more obvious than this one.

 

[mikeak]

Actually the worst call in my book (not most game impacting) was the holding call against Griffin

I really don't think he touches him so to even call it a hold was mind numbing

 

[scutterhawk]

Lol.. no... his path didn't change... and he got tapped on the shoulder... Nothing about that was remotely close to a push in the back

Don't really have any interest in debating if reality is real or not, but in pushing both his arms out for the block Avril makes contact with Rodgers' back all the way on the other side of his body from where Avril is.

Likewise, Rodgers throws his arms up in the air to keep balance while veering off from his path.

https://twitter.com/SamuelRGold/status/ ... 93/video/1

Arguing that Avril didn't push him in the back while trying to block him or that the block didn't redirect Rodgers at all is basically trying to argue that reality isn't real.

Again though, if this doesn't happen in the same frame as the ball carrier, or if Rodgers isn't still actively pursuing as part of the play when he gets pushed in the back, or if Rodgers isn't the closest defender to the ball carrier, I don't think this gets called.

Avril was IN FRONT of Rodgers. Hitting a guy in the side, when you are already in front of him and coming down to make contact, is not a block in the back. That was a clean block.



The whole point of the rule is to prevent players from getting knocked down FROM BEHIND, not to prevent a hand from incidentally touching another player's side/back during an otherwise clean block attempt from the front.

RULE SUMMARY VIEW OFFICIAL RULE
ILLEGAL BLOCK ABOVE THE WAIST

Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.
http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl ... the-waist/

This is Aaron Rodgers we're talking about, THE AARON RODGERS, so that push in the shoulder pads was all the excuse the official running along side needed to throw the flag.
The phantom punch penalty on Lane was proof that there was ABSOLUTE BIAS by the Officials.
Some here saying that it's no big deal are flat out.....wrong.........BIAS for one team or player is WRONG.

 

[ptisme]

Check out the shot from the front at the 1:15 mark. He clearly pushes him in the back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7c0Ze7rBmk

Under the rule, it doesn't matter if he touches his back if it doesn't happen FROM BEHIND. Avril is coming down in front of Rodgers and hits him in the shoulder/side/back. That's not an illegal block because it doesn't happen from behind.

If the word "OR" wasn't present for the second part of the rule you would be correct... In this case, under the rule, this is a penalty:
Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.

Re-read the rule more carefully. Each alternative of the conjunction requires that the block be made "from behind." Avril was clearly making the block in front and to the side of Rodgers.

LOL, His hands were on his back (pushing from behind) and he altered his movement... The tragedy here was not this but the Lane call (I concede on that without question)...

 

[scutterhawk]

Under the rule, it doesn't matter if he touches his back if it doesn't happen FROM BEHIND. Avril is coming down in front of Rodgers and hits him in the shoulder/side/back. That's not an illegal block because it doesn't happen from behind.

If the word "OR" wasn't present for the second part of the rule you would be correct... In this case, under the rule, this is a penalty:
Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.

Re-read the rule more carefully. Each alternative of the conjunction requires that the block me made "from behind." Avril was clearly making the block in front and to the side of Rodgers.

Both hands clearly are behind the shoulder pads. Not sure how that could be constituted as being in "front", but whatever makes ya happy.

Gets pushed in the back which forces him to run....Sideways??? :roll:

 

[ptisme]

Lol.. no... his path didn't change... and he got tapped on the shoulder... Nothing about that was remotely close to a push in the back

Don't really have any interest in debating if reality is real or not, but in pushing both his arms out for the block Avril makes contact with Rodgers' back all the way on the other side of his body from where Avril is.

Likewise, Rodgers throws his arms up in the air to keep balance while veering off from his path.

https://twitter.com/SamuelRGold/status/ ... 93/video/1

Arguing that Avril didn't push him in the back while trying to block him or that the block didn't redirect Rodgers at all is basically trying to argue that reality isn't real.

Again though, if this doesn't happen in the same frame as the ball carrier, or if Rodgers isn't still actively pursuing as part of the play when he gets pushed in the back, or if Rodgers isn't the closest defender to the ball carrier, I don't think this gets called.

Avril was IN FRONT of Rodgers. Hitting a guy in the side, when you are already in front of him and coming down to make contact, is not a block in the back. That was a clean block.



The whole point of the rule is to prevent players from getting knocked down FROM BEHIND, not to prevent a hand from incidentally touching another player's side/back during an otherwise clean block attempt from the front.

RULE SUMMARY VIEW OFFICIAL RULE
ILLEGAL BLOCK ABOVE THE WAIST

Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.
http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl ... the-waist/

This is Aaron Rodgers we're talking about, THE AARON RODGERS, so that push in the shoulder pads was all the excuse the official running along side needed to throw the flag.
The phantom punch penalty on Lane was proof that there was ABSOLUTE BIAS by the Officials.
Some here saying that it's no big deal are flat out.....wrong.........BIAS for one team or player is WRONG.

Except his hands weren't on his shoulder pads, they were on his back... He may have been coming from the side but Rodgers was by him quick and by the time contact was made it was in the back...

 

[ptisme]

If the word "OR" wasn't present for the second part of the rule you would be correct... In this case, under the rule, this is a penalty:
Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.

Re-read the rule more carefully. Each alternative of the conjunction requires that the block me made "from behind." Avril was clearly making the block in front and to the side of Rodgers.

Both hands clearly are behind the shoulder pads. Not sure how that could be constituted as being in "front", but whatever makes ya happy.

Gets pushed in the back which forces him to run....Sideways??? :roll:

"in a manner that affects his movement"

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Clearly a push in the back? ok......

 

[scutterhawk]

Don't really have any interest in debating if reality is real or not, but in pushing both his arms out for the block Avril makes contact with Rodgers' back all the way on the other side of his body from where Avril is.

Likewise, Rodgers throws his arms up in the air to keep balance while veering off from his path.

https://twitter.com/SamuelRGold/status/ ... 93/video/1

Arguing that Avril didn't push him in the back while trying to block him or that the block didn't redirect Rodgers at all is basically trying to argue that reality isn't real.

Again though, if this doesn't happen in the same frame as the ball carrier, or if Rodgers isn't still actively pursuing as part of the play when he gets pushed in the back, or if Rodgers isn't the closest defender to the ball carrier, I don't think this gets called.

Avril was IN FRONT of Rodgers. Hitting a guy in the side, when you are already in front of him and coming down to make contact, is not a block in the back. That was a clean block.



The whole point of the rule is to prevent players from getting knocked down FROM BEHIND, not to prevent a hand from incidentally touching another player's side/back during an otherwise clean block attempt from the front.

RULE SUMMARY VIEW OFFICIAL RULE
ILLEGAL BLOCK ABOVE THE WAIST

Blocks an opponent (from behind) in the back above the opponent’s waist, or uses his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play.
http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl ... the-waist/

This is Aaron Rodgers we're talking about, THE AARON RODGERS, so that push in the shoulder pads was all the excuse the official running along side needed to throw the flag.
The phantom punch penalty on Lane was proof that there was ABSOLUTE BIAS by the Officials.
Some here saying that it's no big deal are flat out.....wrong.........BIAS for one team or player is WRONG.

Except his hands weren't on his shoulder pads, they were on his back... He may have been coming from the side but Rodgers was by him quick and by the time contact was made it was in the back...

Was NOT in the back......Any fool can see... well MOST any fool can see it.

 

[Popeyejones]

Yes, like Buck and Aikman, Perreira and Blandino

Will respond to this b/c I think it matters before bowing out:

(1) The announcers (correctly IMO) kept on talking about and bringing up the Lane ejection, not the block in the back. The Lane ejection was egregious, everyone agrees. They called the block in the back close, as I recall.

(2) Even more importantly, what Buck, Aikman, Pereira or Blandino have to say doesn't hold much truck with me, because what announcers have to say only gets used opportunistically.

If Aikman says something fans agree with they say "Aikman said it!", and if Aikman says something fans disagree with they say "Damn Aikman hates us and is soooo in the bag for the ________, how does he even have a job?!??!"

If what Buck, Aikman, Pereira, or Blandino says matters, it has to also matter when you don't like what they say, and I have yet to come across a single NFL fan from a single NFL team who actually holds themselves to that standard.

I mean, with the frequency with which Buck, Aikman, Pereira, and Blandino get trashed on this board it really strains credulity for them to suddenly have a one-night-only performance as the end-all-be-all of what fans should believe.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[TriCHawk]

Yes, like Buck and Aikman, Perreira and Blandino

Will respond to this b/c I think it matters before bowing out:

(1) The announcers (correctly IMO) kept on talking about and bringing up the Lane ejection, not the block in the back. The Lane ejection was egregious, everyone agrees. They called the block in the back close, as I recall.

(2) Even more importantly, what Buck, Aikman, Pereira or Blandino have to say doesn't hold much truck with me, because what announcers have to say only gets used opportunistically.

If Aikman says something fans agree with they say "Aikman said it!", and if Aikman says something fans disagree with they say "Damn Aikman hates us and is soooo in the bag for the ________, how does he even have a job?!??!"

If what Buck, Aikman, Pereira, or Blandino says matters, it has to also matter when you don't like what they say, and I have yet to come across a single NFL fan from a single NFL team who actually holds themselves to that standard.

I mean, with the frequency with which Buck, Aikman, Pereira, and Blandino get trashed on this board it really strains credulity for them to suddenly have a one-night-only performance as the end-all-be-all of what fans should believe.

Just my 2 cents.

The block in the back was pretty ticky-tack, and I don't think it really had any effect on the play. Personally, I don't think it should have been called, but Avril should have never touched him.

The quote from Aikman that stood out to me, because he said it more than once, is that he would 'hate to be the guy taking Pete's call on Monday morning.' Which basically is saying that Seattle was getting hosed by the refs. Which they were.

Do I think that's the reason they lost? Not really. The poor officiating definitely factored in to the outcome, but for as much as I think the Hawks got hosed, the O-line was atrocious. It's pretty hard to win when your offense is MIA. So I put the loss on the O more than the officials.

Speaking of... I always chuckle when people say this or that call cost us this many points, which was enough to win.... Well maybe yes, maybe no. Then you're assuming a game plays out exactly the same, which it will most definitely not.

That's my 2

 

[Ilinoiseyhawk]

Rodgers is so effing coddled by the league.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

The block in the back was pretty ticky-tack, and I don't think it really had any effect on the play. Personally, I don't think it should have been called, but Avril should have never touched him.

Agreed completely. It was ticky tack. It was also completely avoidable. Avril didn't have to make that block attempt. All he did was invite the possibility of a ticky tack foul.

It's essentially the exact same kind of scenario as the Detroit game at home where KJ batted the ball out of bounds in the end zone. In that case, it was also ticky tack. But it was a foul and should have resulted in a first and goal at the one. That call went our way. When you tempt the refereeing Gods, you can't complain about getting burnt. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. The real sin is inviting the interpretation in the first place.

Do I think that's the reason they lost? Not really. The poor officiating definitely factored in to the outcome, but for as much as I think the Hawks got hosed, the O-line was atrocious. It's pretty hard to win when your offense is MIA.

Agreed here too. This wasn't the reason we lost. This was the Packers' third play of the game. And as much as we'd like to pin this loss on the OL, there were multiple plays that Seattle didn't hit on that would have altered the outcome. Richardson not slipping on a perfect pass in the end zone for a score. Overthrowing Lockett who was wide open for a score. There were other opportunities as well.

It was a close game. Hit on just one of those and it's a different game and very likely a win. The OL shoulders it's fair share. But there were clearly misplays by the QB and receivers that contributed too. In a close game where you lose, every slight gets magnified as a reason we lost.

 

[WmHBonney]

The non-PI call on Graham in the endzone was also stunningly bad.

No. It wasn't bad. It was INTENTIONAL. There is no damn way a ref could be that bad. He saw it. He made a conscious decision to not call it.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

Next time Avril should take the qb out. If they going to give a penalty might as well get his money's worth.

 

[ptisme]

Yes, like Buck and Aikman, Perreira and Blandino

Will respond to this b/c I think it matters before bowing out:

(1) The announcers (correctly IMO) kept on talking about and bringing up the Lane ejection, not the block in the back. The Lane ejection was egregious, everyone agrees. They called the block in the back close, as I recall.

(2) Even more importantly, what Buck, Aikman, Pereira or Blandino have to say doesn't hold much truck with me, because what announcers have to say only gets used opportunistically.

If Aikman says something fans agree with they say "Aikman said it!", and if Aikman says something fans disagree with they say "Damn Aikman hates us and is soooo in the bag for the ________, how does he even have a job?!??!"

If what Buck, Aikman, Pereira, or Blandino says matters, it has to also matter when you don't like what they say, and I have yet to come across a single NFL fan from a single NFL team who actually holds themselves to that standard.

I mean, with the frequency with which Buck, Aikman, Pereira, and Blandino get trashed on this board it really strains credulity for them to suddenly have a one-night-only performance as the end-all-be-all of what fans should believe.

Just my 2 cents.

The block in the back was pretty ticky-tack, and I don't think it really had any effect on the play. Personally, I don't think it should have been called, but Avril should have never touched him.

The quote from Aikman that stood out to me, because he said it more than once, is that he would 'hate to be the guy taking Pete's call on Monday morning.' Which basically is saying that Seattle was getting hosed by the refs. Which they were.

Do I think that's the reason they lost? Not really. The poor officiating definitely factored in to the outcome, but for as much as I think the Hawks got hosed, the O-line was atrocious. It's pretty hard to win when your offense is MIA. So I put the loss on the O more than the officials.

Speaking of... I always chuckle when people say this or that call cost us this many points, which was enough to win.... Well maybe yes, maybe no. Then you're assuming a game plays out exactly the same, which it will most definitely not.

That's my 2

I'm with this... GB had an 11 point lead in the forth quarter and was happy just to keep the clock moving rather than looking to score... SEA defense was gassed at that point and wasn't nearly as effective as they were in the first half.