KJ Wright illegal bat

[Scottemojo]

Kam made a great play, and there was other bad calls this week that were just as costly as this one. At the end of the day Calvin is the one to blame. If he protects the ball and lets momentum do its thing the Lions score and more likely than not win the game.

Are you saying that a subjective non-call on a play that wouldn't have changed anything if the player hadn't even reacted to the ball was a bad call?

What I am saying is if Lions fans want to be upset than they should be upset with Calvin. Calvin made a bad play, Kam made a great one. The call was just the cherry on top of it all no matter which way you lean. Do I feel in that situation it would be a stupid call to make. Yes, it was clear that he could have just grabbed it and downed it or gone out of bounds. At the same time the rules are in place for a reason and even though the bat penalty in this case would have been a ridiculous call it should have been called because a penalty was committed.

Your words. THE RULES ARE IN PLACE FOR A REASON. Explain to me the reason for that rule.

 

[MVP53]

There is no way you can watch that and conclude Earl intentionally batted the ball out of bounds. KJ Wright's was far more obvious. Again, completely different play.

I'm not sure what you are looking at. It's clearly the same. How can YOU not see what everyone else sees?!
In both cases there was a forced fumble.
In both cases the ball was batted out of the end zone for a safety.

Forget about intent and what the ref saw, both plays are identical and neither play was called for illegal batting.
KJ clearly pushes the ball out.
Earl clearly pushes the ball out.

I even remember comments from the analysts saying "Earl not only forced the fumble, but had the presence of mind to also knock the ball out of the end zone for a safety". Seems nobody knows about this obscure rule.

To bring up "The Tip" is just wrong. Now THAT is clearly a different play.

How can you ignore "intent"? That's the whole purpose of the penalty.

Both players hit the ball out of bounds, yes. Wright's was pretty clearly intentional. Earl's was very much debatable. One could easily argue Earl's was happenstance and just part of the tackle he was making.

There is no way a ref would watch Earl's play, in real time, and throw a penalty for illegal batting.

 

[HawkFreak]

There is no way a ref would watch Earl's play, in real time, and throw a penalty for illegal batting.

And isn't it possible "in real time" that the official made a judgment call regarding intent?...without the benefit of the ordeal the media has made about it, the numerous slow motion replays, and the admission of KJ?

 

[TasteTheBeastmode]

I figured the non-call was to make up for SB XL. :stirthepot:

Umm.... No. One call, in one game, not even close. :141847_bnono:


Every game for infinity? Maybe.

 

[CamanoIslandJQ]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cristoballz1/status/651281908312113152[/tweet]

A picture is worth 10,000 words. How can KJ be called for batting a ball that is already out of bounds?
Pure BS controversy by ESPN, just like the "fail Mary", that was indeed a simultaneous catch and was indeed a TD, all that ESPN ever showed was the one stupid angle of the play, even though other, more clearly indicative angles showed that both players had the ball, thus the simultaneous catch & the correct rule was applied.

ESPN is becoming more like the National Enquirer with their sensationalist coverage. What a bunch of BS.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Excuses are for losers. They scored 3 POINTS on offense. Don't like it, score more than 3 points. Plus, they were gifted their only TD of the game. Don't like it, don't fumble.

 

[PackerNation]

This came out of the Holy Roller play. They had to create a penalty to prevent the offense from trying to advance the ball forward without maintaining possession. I don't understand why they had to make an offensive ball fumbled through the endzone a change of possession and a touchback. It should be the same as the rest of the normal field of play.

They will probably change it so that it is placed back where the offense last had possession after this season.

[youtube]TTxi_gYWyyI[/youtube]

It's actually a good rule because then you could just bat the ball all the way down the field or out of bounds. You can't bat the ball and this is why.

 

[MVP53]

There is no way a ref would watch Earl's play, in real time, and throw a penalty for illegal batting.

And isn't it possible "in real time" that the official made a judgment call regarding intent?...without the benefit of the ordeal the media has made about it, the numerous slow motion replays, and the admission of KJ?

Could be. Not sure what we're arguing here. KJs was far more obvious. Surprised its even generated this much debate.

 

[MVP53]

There is no way a ref would watch Earl's play, in real time, and throw a penalty for illegal batting.

And isn't it possible "in real time" that the official made a judgment call regarding intent?...without the benefit of the ordeal the media has made about it, the numerous slow motion replays, and the admission of KJ?

Could be. Not sure what we're arguing here. KJs was far more obvious. Surprised its even generated this much debate.

 

[MVP53]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cristoballz1/status/651281908312113152[/tweet]

A picture is worth 10,000 words. How can KJ be called for batting a ball that is already out of bounds?
Pure BS controversy by ESPN, just like the "fail Mary", that was indeed a simultaneous catch and was indeed a TD, all that ESPN ever showed was the one stupid angle of the play, even though other, more clearly indicative angles showed that both players had the ball, thus the simultaneous catch & the correct rule was applied.

ESPN is becoming more like the National Enquirer with their sensationalist coverage. What a bunch of BS.

It wasn't OOB. That pic is at an angle.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Kam made a great play, and there was other bad calls this week that were just as costly as this one. At the end of the day Calvin is the one to blame. If he protects the ball and lets momentum do its thing the Lions score and more likely than not win the game.

Are you saying that a subjective non-call on a play that wouldn't have changed anything if the player hadn't even reacted to the ball was a bad call?

What I am saying is if Lions fans want to be upset than they should be upset with Calvin. Calvin made a bad play, Kam made a great one. The call was just the cherry on top of it all no matter which way you lean. Do I feel in that situation it would be a stupid call to make. Yes, it was clear that he could have just grabbed it and downed it or gone out of bounds. At the same time the rules are in place for a reason and even though the bat penalty in this case would have been a ridiculous call it should have been called because a penalty was committed.

By that same line of reasoning, pass interference on a subjectively non-catchable ball should be called every time too, because a penalty was committed.

 

[Scottemojo]

I don't think that penalty came from the holy roller. The rule is specifically about balls in the endzone that cannot be batted out of the endzone, IIRC.

 

[Hawkpower]

Kam made a great play, and there was other bad calls this week that were just as costly as this one. At the end of the day Calvin is the one to blame. If he protects the ball and lets momentum do its thing the Lions score and more likely than not win the game.

Are you saying that a subjective non-call on a play that wouldn't have changed anything if the player hadn't even reacted to the ball was a bad call?

What I am saying is if Lions fans want to be upset than they should be upset with Calvin. Calvin made a bad play, Kam made a great one. The call was just the cherry on top of it all no matter which way you lean. Do I feel in that situation it would be a stupid call to make. Yes, it was clear that he could have just grabbed it and downed it or gone out of bounds. At the same time the rules are in place for a reason and even though the bat penalty in this case would have been a ridiculous call it should have been called because a penalty was committed.

Your words. THE RULES ARE IN PLACE FOR A REASON. Explain to me the reason for that rule.

I'm curious what the Cards fan thinks about this too.

What, exactly, did KJ do that caused a problem for the lions? DId making the ball go out of bounds a half second sooner than it would have mean that the rule is there for a reason?

Or, alternatively, did the ref use the judgement that he is allowed in this situation due to the fact that KJ gained no advantage?

Thanks

 

[Popeyejones]

I'm curious what the Cards fan thinks about this too.

What, exactly, did KJ do that caused a problem for the lions?

Why bother asking Ringless when KJ Wright himself already explained the competitive advantage of doing what he did (in the context of saying he wouldn't ever do it again because it's a penalty)?

Real question.

 

[Hawkpower]

I'm curious what the Cards fan thinks about this too.

What, exactly, did KJ do that caused a problem for the lions?

Why bother asking Ringless when KJ Wright himself already explained the competitive advantage of doing what he did (in the context of saying he wouldn't ever do it again because it's a penalty)?

Real question.

I didnt hear what KJ said, but its quite possible he had no idea that there were no Lions behind him, and hence no advantage gained. The ball was on its way out of bounds anyway.

The ref clearly saw that there were no Lions near him, and therefore used the appropriate judgement granted to him by not throwing a ridiculous and unnecessary flag.

Now that he ( and the rest of the NFL) knows the rule, you are right, nobody will take the risk.

 

[Jville]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AaronQ13Fox/status/651857573092552704[/tweet]

Interesting .......... that event conjured up the memory of that Brady tuck ruling coming out of nowhere verses the Raiders. Then there are all those free-for-all Hail Mary passes where contact has been ignored for many years. Someday, that will reach out and alter an outcome.

 

[Hawkpower]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AaronQ13Fox/status/651857573092552704[/tweet]

Interesting .......... that event conjured up the memory of that Brady tuck ruling coming out of nowhere verses the Raiders. Then there are all those free-for-all Hail Mary passes where contact has been ignored for many years. Someday, that will reach out and alter an outcome.

12 years?

Wow, if true. Guess the refs used their discretion in all of the other instances as well.

One would like to think that would quiet the hilarious indignation of the niner and cards fans who are so amusingly fighting this admirable battle (for obvious reasons).

But likely not.

 

[PackerNation]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cristoballz1/status/651281908312113152[/tweet]

A picture is worth 10,000 words. How can KJ be called for batting a ball that is already out of bounds?
Pure BS controversy by ESPN, just like the "fail Mary", that was indeed a simultaneous catch and was indeed a TD, all that ESPN ever showed was the one stupid angle of the play, even though other, more clearly indicative angles showed that both players had the ball, thus the simultaneous catch & the correct rule was applied.

ESPN is becoming more like the National Enquirer with their sensationalist coverage. What a bunch of BS.

The ball was not even close to being OOB:



It probably would have bounced out anyways though:



Still KJ should have just grabbed the ball, he was right there. End of game, no story.

 

[Hawkpower]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cristoballz1/status/651281908312113152[/tweet]

A picture is worth 10,000 words. How can KJ be called for batting a ball that is already out of bounds?
Pure BS controversy by ESPN, just like the "fail Mary", that was indeed a simultaneous catch and was indeed a TD, all that ESPN ever showed was the one stupid angle of the play, even though other, more clearly indicative angles showed that both players had the ball, thus the simultaneous catch & the correct rule was applied.

ESPN is becoming more like the National Enquirer with their sensationalist coverage. What a bunch of BS.

The ball was not even close to being OOB:



It probably would have bounced out anyways though:



Still KJ should have just grabbed the ball, he was right there. End of game, no story.

12 years.

No advantage gained.

Shouldnt have been a story anyway. No way this is a story if Clay Matthews is tapping the ball out to seal a win over the Lions, I guarantee it.

 

[PackerNation]

12 years.

No advantage gained.

Shouldnt have been a story anyway. No way this is a story if Clay Matthews is tapping the ball out to seal a win over the Lions, I guarantee it.

Doesn't matter, still a penalty. It's a penalty and a story no matter what two teams were playing that night and no matter who batted the pass out of the end zone.

Besides Clay wouldn't do that, he knows the rules. :mrgreen: