Offsides negates personal fouls?

[BadgerVid]

While I am happy it was called as it was, I am no longer sure after seeing a few pictures in here that it was the correct call. I believe the rule actually says "if the ball is touched in the air"...and it appears in the picture that RS touched the ball before it was kicked while it was still on the ground in the holder's grasp. Subtle difference, but possibly significant?

 

[Hawkpower]

I swear I'm not trying to be a villain on this board and we screwed myself by misrepresenting the roughing the kicker rule. All I'm saying is... I've seen calls go for Seattle, I've seen em go against.

Your argument keeps changing as the thread evolves.

A simple "I was wrong" was all you needed. No need to try and maintain some sort of point after it has been completely blown up.

My argument hasn't changed. Refs missed a few calls at the end of the first half, and it went in Seattle's favor. We should all be able to agree on that.

The "refs missed a few calls" wasn't your original argument, now was it?

Every team gets a few calls once and a while. Buffalo did as well. See the horrid out of bounds step in the second half as an example.

The statistics show that no team gets shafted in reference to their opponents more than Seattle. Going on 4 years in a row now. So forgive us if we dont feel sad when an opposing fan comes in here and tries to act like we should be SO THANKFUL that we got a call.

What team makes you smile on Sundays, by the way?

 

[Hawkpower]

While I am happy it was called as it was, I am no longer sure after seeing a few pictures in here that it was the correct call. I believe the rule actually says "if the ball is touched in the air"...and it appears in the picture that RS touched the ball before it was kicked while it was still on the ground in the holder's grasp. Subtle difference, but possibly significant?

Probably because the odds of actually touching it on the ground were not even considered

 

[JustTheTip]

Yeah y'all are fools. NFL rule book says nothing about "getting the ball first". This is why people dislike Seattle fans.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbna...d-goal-seahawks-bills-officials?client=safari

Read the article, the rule is clearly stated there. Humble thyself

I read the rule, I was wrong. Doesn't change that instead of roughing the kicker, the refs could have called unnecessary roughness. Sorry I spouted off misinformation, I hate that. My bad.

Okay you wore me down. The refs absolutely should have called unnecessary roughness...... on Carpenter, for intentionally kicking Richard when it was obvious he trying to avoid contact. Then they should have written a new flopping rule over how obviously bad Carpenters injury acting was while trying to draw the flag.

 

[a_gumbel]

I swear I'm not trying to be a villain on this board and we screwed myself by misrepresenting the roughing the kicker rule. All I'm saying is... I've seen calls go for Seattle, I've seen em go against.

Your argument keeps changing as the thread evolves.

A simple "I was wrong" was all you needed. No need to try and maintain some sort of point after it has been completely blown up.

My argument hasn't changed. Refs missed a few calls at the end of the first half, and it went in Seattle's favor. We should all be able to agree on that.

The "refs missed a few calls" wasn't your original argument, now was it?

Every team gets a few calls once and a while. Buffalo did as well. See the horrid out of bounds step in the second half as an example.

The statistics show that no team gets shafted in reference to their opponents more than Seattle. Going on 4 years in a row now. So forgive us if we dont feel sad when an opposing fan comes in here and tries to act like we should be SO THANKFUL that we got a call.

What team makes you smile on Sundays, by the way?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

While I am happy it was called as it was, I am no longer sure after seeing a few pictures in here that it was the correct call. I believe the rule actually says "if the ball is touched in the air"...and it appears in the picture that RS touched the ball before it was kicked while it was still on the ground in the holder's grasp. Subtle difference, but possibly significant?

You're still not allowed to rough the kicker intentionally, even if you tip the ball. So the judgement call for the refs was did Sherman purposefully try to run into Carpenter and hurt him.

Idk, I get what Sherman was doing, he's allowed to continue the play even if he knows he was offsides until he hears the whistle. But if he ran into Carpenter on purpose to hurt him, then that's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

If I was Ryan, I'd be WAY more pissed that the refs didn't restart the play clock when the held the ball with 5 seconds and caused the delay of game. IMO far more egregious on the refs part than a judgement call like Sherman's play.

 

[253hawk]

While I am happy it was called as it was, I am no longer sure after seeing a few pictures in here that it was the correct call. I believe the rule actually says "if the ball is touched in the air"...and it appears in the picture that RS touched the ball before it was kicked while it was still on the ground in the holder's grasp. Subtle difference, but possibly significant?

Not at all. If the ball is still being held on the ground, it's technically a fumble/loose ball.

 

[JustTheTip]

Looked to me me like Sherman was doing everything possible to avoid contact, even putting himself at risk. Bad things can happen of the kicker makes contact with the ball in the wrong way while his elbow is locked reaching for the ball like that.

 

[ivotuk]

Looked to me me like Sherman was doing everything possible to avoid contact, even putting himself at risk. Bad things can happen of the kicker makes contact with the ball in the wrong way while his elbow is locked reaching for the ball like that.

As we saw happened to his elbow prior to our SuperB Owl win.

 

[jlwaters1]

I can't believe how many people seem to forget the touching ball rule. It's not like it's new.

Touching the ball doesn't matter when there was no play to begin with. Seattle got away with a personal foul, 3 points and a game AGAIN.

That's true assuming the whistle was blown in time, which it wasn't.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I can't believe how many people seem to forget the touching ball rule. It's not like it's new.

Touching the ball doesn't matter when there was no play to begin with. Seattle got away with a personal foul, 3 points and a game AGAIN.

That's true assuming the whistle was blown in time, which it wasn't.

But there is a play, it's like when a player jumps offsides and the QB throws it deep for a TD because they know they got a free play.

Same thing. If Sherman just lets up and stops, then Carpenter can kick the FG and Ryan can decline the offsides. So Sherm did the right thing by making sure the kick didn't happen.

 

[DJrmb]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TheMikeSalk/status/796031145527783424[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guga31bb/status/795854646048858112[/tweet]

So who were those arguing that the whistle blew at the beginning of the play?????

 

[Sports Hernia]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TheMikeSalk/status/796031145527783424[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guga31bb/status/795854646048858112[/tweet]

So who were those arguing that the whistle blew at the beginning of the play?????

The Drunk head of officiating Deano for one on a tweet.

 

[TorontoHawk]

So funny this place. When the reffs miss calls on the Hawks they is a great conspiracy or some plan by the NFL to get the Seahawk, but when the other team receives a bad call you can somehow justify it. Last night there were a lot on bad calls(two on the FG at the end of the half) and a few non-calls which I don't mind as long as they go both ways and let them play.

 

[a_gumbel]

While I am happy it was called as it was, I am no longer sure after seeing a few pictures in here that it was the correct call. I believe the rule actually says "if the ball is touched in the air"...and it appears in the picture that RS touched the ball before it was kicked while it was still on the ground in the holder's grasp. Subtle difference, but possibly significant?

You're still not allowed to rough the kicker intentionally, even if you tip the ball. So the judgement call for the refs was did Sherman purposefully try to run into Carpenter and hurt him.

Idk, I get what Sherman was doing, he's allowed to continue the play even if he knows he was offsides until he hears the whistle. But if he ran into Carpenter on purpose to hurt him, then that's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

If I was Ryan, I'd be WAY more pissed that the refs didn't restart the play clock when the held the ball with 5 seconds and caused the delay of game. IMO far more egregious on the refs part than a judgement call like Sherman's play.

Thanks you for an objective stance
I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

 

[JustTheTip]

While I am happy it was called as it was, I am no longer sure after seeing a few pictures in here that it was the correct call. I believe the rule actually says "if the ball is touched in the air"...and it appears in the picture that RS touched the ball before it was kicked while it was still on the ground in the holder's grasp. Subtle difference, but possibly significant?

You're still not allowed to rough the kicker intentionally, even if you tip the ball. So the judgement call for the refs was did Sherman purposefully try to run into Carpenter and hurt him.

Idk, I get what Sherman was doing, he's allowed to continue the play even if he knows he was offsides until he hears the whistle. But if he ran into Carpenter on purpose to hurt him, then that's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

If I was Ryan, I'd be WAY more pissed that the refs didn't restart the play clock when the held the ball with 5 seconds and caused the delay of game. IMO far more egregious on the refs part than a judgement call like Sherman's play.

Thanks you for an objective stance
I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

Though in that case one could easily argue that they didn't blow their whistles to give the Bills two chances to make the field goal. If you think about it logically, without knowing the outcome, who does it really benefit for the whistle no to be blown as soon as Sherman jumps offsides?

 

[Hawkpower]

So funny this place. When the reffs miss calls on the Hawks they is a great conspiracy or some plan by the NFL to get the Seahawk, but when the other team receives a bad call you can somehow justify it. Last night there were a lot on bad calls(two on the FG at the end of the half) and a few non-calls which I don't mind as long as they go both ways and let them play.

Plenty of people have acknowledged there were some mistakes by the crew, just not willing to concede that it should have been a personal foul.

And they are right.

Keep preaching from your perch though. Opposing fans are proud of your perspective. :roll:

 

[ivotuk]

So funny this place. When the reffs miss calls on the Hawks they is a great conspiracy or some plan by the NFL to get the Seahawk, but when the other team receives a bad call you can somehow justify it. Last night there were a lot on bad calls(two on the FG at the end of the half) and a few non-calls which I don't mind as long as they go both ways and let them play.

There is no justification. Just clarification. People are saying the whistle blew and Sherman carried on anyway. Not true.

The whistle did not blow, Sherman touched the ball, which makes it difficult to say for sure one way or another that it should have been a personal foul.

If touching the ball on a blocked kick attempt negates roughing the kicker, does the rule apply the same here?

That is the question.

The title of the thread is misleading.

 

[McGruff]

The refs made 2 errors:

Didn't blow the whistle before Sherman got in to touch the hall. He wasn't going after the kicker like their drunken coach believed.

The refs not resetting the playclock when switching to the kicking ball.

The game is over, buffalo didn't capitalize at the end to win.

I'm glad you get this, I don't think this changed the outcome of the game, I.just thought t was shoddy ref work the benefitted SEA. Any objective fan who thinks.otherwise is crazy.

That instance benefited Seattle (maybe, depending on the outcome of the subsequent kick). Other calls benefited the Bills. I thought this game was fairly equally unfairly called.

 

[seahawksny]

I can't believe how many people seem to forget the touching ball rule. It's not like it's new.

Because it rarely happens
You can't expect fans to know the rulebook that seems to change from game to game and has no rhyme or reason to anything. One Reason why people are repulsed by the Nfl. NOBODY knows what the hell is going on, including the refs, and as a result, they waste our time with endless reviews

I wouldn't say it rarely happens. It was an issue when Kam jumped over the Panthers on their field goal attempt. Somehow he missed the ball but it was well discussed that if he had touched it there wouldn't have been a foul. Every time there is a running into the kicker penalty, the question is asked if the person made contact with the ball. This is not obscure.

Don't even attempt this argument. The large majority of fans don't watch any games outside of their team, and don't have reference points for this type of stuff.

I beg to differ.
When was last time a defender knocked ball out of holders hand before kick. I've never seen it happen. Doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, but I've never seen it. I think the fact that he jumped so early is an indication that it doesn't happen often