Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Just saw the non-pick 6

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Just saw the non-pick 6
Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:42 pm
  • Watched the NFL GameDay condensed game. Well, up to the first Packers' series. They didn't really show anything for the Lane penalty, but he Avril penalty? Seriously, that was bad. I thought it was going to be one of those kind of hitting the QB unnecessarily but it was barely a tap and it most likely from the side anyway (though the angle the two were going put Avril's head behind Rodgers).

    Holy crap what a horrible call.

    Maybe some time I'll get to the point of watching the Graham mugging but this was enough for tonight.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105019
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:11 pm
  • Adams is running ahead of Lane, he turns back, grabs Jeremy by the face mask and yanks his head forward and down. Lane goes to the ground, landing partially on Davante.

    They eject Jeremy Lane for trying to defend himself.

    Cliff Avril gets his right hand on Rodgers right shoulder, while Cliffs left hand is on Aaron's right arm. Avril's right hand slides off Rodger's shoulder pad and across his back.

    Cliff is penalized for a phantom block in the back.

    Seattle's game altering touchdown is taken off the board, and their 7-0 lead is negated.



    Both Buck and Aikman said they were bad calls.

    Joe Buck: I didn't see a punch.

    Troy Aikman: Me either

    Joe Buck: We just talked to Mike Pereira, and he didn't like either one of those calls.


    Dean Blandino: Those were bad calls.

    Packer fans: Stop complaining about bad calls! Except for Golden Tate's fall Mary.

    Atlanta fans: I know, right? Why complain...well except for missed pass interference. And only when it butt hurts our team.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 16325
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:20 pm
  • HawkGA wrote:Watched the NFL GameDay condensed game. Well, up to the first Packers' series. They didn't really show anything for the Lane penalty, but he Avril penalty? Seriously, that was bad. I thought it was going to be one of those kind of hitting the QB unnecessarily but it was barely a tap and it most likely from the side anyway (though the angle the two were going put Avril's head behind Rodgers).

    Holy crap what a horrible call.

    Maybe some time I'll get to the point of watching the Graham mugging but this was enough for tonight.


    Well if you think the Avril penalty was bad than when you see the next two you will be at a loss for words. At least with Avril's penalty one could say, he shouldn't have touched Rodgers, it only gave the refs an opportunity to throw the flag.
    The other two are unbelievable.

    I hope someone out there is collecting a log of tyranny of refereeing against the Seahawks. I often wonder if it is because I am a fan of Seattle and have bias but I watch other games because I like to watch good football. That said, I can not think of other games were at the very most I have said to myself, "that was a bad call". I've said it with teams playing us.

    Never seen anything that would amount to the level that our team has seen, multiple times in a game, for multiple games. The history is evident. Don't know or pretend to understand the motivation. Have no evidence of a motivation but I know the discrepancy is there.
    User avatar
    seahawkfreak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3485
    Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:36 pm
    Location: Aiken , SC


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:48 pm
  • If this is what it takes to make the supposed "Fail Mary" crybaby train stop, I'm OK with it. A week one loss isn't such a huge deal. We'll rebound.
    User avatar
    schkoot
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 87
    Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:27 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:39 am
  • Rodgers was actually giving chase though, it's not like he pushed a QB who was cowering.

    Well, it's not as bad as the penalty against Hass in the Super Bowl, so it has that going for it.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105019
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:44 am
  • The non-PI call on Graham in the endzone was also stunningly bad.
    User avatar
    Eltagi
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 5
    Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:26 am
    Location: Darkest Cheshire...


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:07 am
  • HawkGA wrote:Rodgers was actually giving chase though, it's not like he pushed a QB who was cowering.


    Basically how I feel.

    The Lane call was indisputably atrocious.

    The no call on Graham was very bad too.

    Rodgers was giving chase and got very clearly pushed in the back which very clearly altered the trajectory of where he was running. That gets called all the time on long returns.

    If it's way off the ball and 30 yards away I thinks refs usually give the guy a reminder instead of a penalty, but if you can see it happen in the frame while following the ball carrier that's getting called.

    We usually see that call made on kick and punt returns (because long turnover returns just don't happen that frequently), but there's so many penalties on kick and punt returns for precisely this reason and this situation.

    I've always been confused by that, as players get routinely yelled at by their coaches for doing that exact thing starting in high school freshman football, if not even earlier.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4339
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:48 am
  • 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
    User avatar
    Ambrose83
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 638
    Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:54 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:19 am
  • Ambrose83 wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4339
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:26 am
  • Pathetic calls on that one and the Graham. But I guess it's no big deal if it happens to the Seahawks. Other way around, there would be media freaking out 24/7
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6643
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:37 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Ambrose83 wrote: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.

    Image

    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/
    User avatar
    hawknation2017
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 724
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:44 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:39 am
  • If that was Wilson, guaranteed they don't call the clip, period.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6643
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:50 am
  • It's really weird how Rodgers went sideways on that push in the back.
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4124
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:04 am
  • funny how that works, he pushed him in his shoulder back
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6643
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:33 am

Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:39 am
  • ptisme wrote: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.
    User avatar
    hawknation2017
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 724
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:44 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:47 am
  • There was a second no call PI before the Graham one. I want to say it was Richardson(?) where Paul was going deep and the DB just stepped in front of him and stopped him cold. The ball went sailing overhead un-catchable once he was stopped, but I was thinking, "He would have caught that in stride. Why isn't he pitching a fit for a flag right now?"
    Own The West
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 116
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:20 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:51 am
  • Is anyone keeping track of poor calls against any team in the league? The answer is no. No one cares.

    Were there bad calls? Yes. The game counts, we lost, moving on to game 2.
    "Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion...man." - The Dude
    User avatar
    CHawkTailGator
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 817
    Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:18 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:05 am
  • 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.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3692
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:05 am
  • hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote: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.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:09 am
  • ptisme wrote: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).
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4339
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:10 am
  • ptisme wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote: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 [b][b]from behind[/b] in a manner that affects his movement[/b], 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.
    Last edited by hawknation2017 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
    User avatar
    hawknation2017
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 724
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:44 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:11 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    ptisme wrote: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
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4124
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:12 am
  • hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote: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 [b][b]from behind[/b] in a manner that affects his movement[/b], 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.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3692
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:16 am
  • Tical21 wrote: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.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105019
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:42 am
  • 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
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6742
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:43 am
  • hawknation2017 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    Ambrose83 wrote: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.

    Image

    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.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6213
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:51 am
  • hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote: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 [b][b]from behind[/b] in a manner that affects his movement[/b], 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)...
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:53 am
  • Tical21 wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    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 [b][b]from behind[/b] in a manner that affects his movement[/b], 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:
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6213
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:54 am
  • scutterhawk wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    Ambrose83 wrote: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.

    Image

    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...
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:55 am
  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    ptisme wrote: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 [b][b]from behind[/b] in a manner that affects his movement[/b], 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"
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:58 am
  • Clearly a push in the back? ok......
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6643
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:01 am
  • ptisme wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    hawknation2017 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    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.

    Image

    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.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6213
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:07 am
  • Smellyman wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4339
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:27 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Smellyman wrote: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
    AAR - CJ Prosise RB/WR/??? - Notre Dame
    User avatar
    TriCHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1600
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:52 pm
    Location: CtPa Town


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:56 pm
  • Rodgers is so effing coddled by the league.
    Ilinoiseyhawk
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:12 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:19 pm
  • TriCHawk wrote: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.

    TriCHawk wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2067
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:17 pm
  • Eltagi wrote: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.
    Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!
    GO 'HAWKS!!
    User avatar
    WmHBonney
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 996
    Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:11 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:54 pm
  • Next time Avril should take the qb out. If they going to give a penalty might as well get his money's worth.
    User avatar
    UK_Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2408
    Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:08 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:23 am
  • TriCHawk wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    Smellyman wrote: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.
    User avatar
    ptisme
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 773
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:22 am


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:33 pm
  • Cliff Avril made a stupid mistake. No way the QB was going to catch the guy. As for the ejection there didnt seem to be a punch but definitely an arm bar to the throat which is pretty lethal. Both players should have got personal fouls and no ejections. I think the ref was reacting to the earlier scuffle on the sidelines and may have warned the players to cut the crap or they are going to get tossed. That was a new rules committe point of emphasis going into the season. I dont think it would have made much of a difference because the Packers were able to move the ball and the Hawks offense shit themselves all day long. The player that replaced the ejected DB really played much better than the guy he replaced. time to move on to the Niners. The NFL will send a letter later in the week saying we made a mistake and we are sorry but the result of the game will not be changed. Thats why you just need to concentrate on beating the Niners. Everyone is expecting a blowout but this is one of those games you really need to be careful with. Niners have an impressive DL and gave Carolina some trouble. I dont think their offense will score points but this is one of those sandwich games as the team is facing a tough road test in the Titans. Is it too early to say this is a MUST WIN game?
    Cc5674
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 63
    Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:03 pm


Re: Just saw the non-pick 6
Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:46 pm
  • Eltagi wrote:The non-PI call on Graham in the endzone was also stunningly bad.


    I hated that call, but at least there was some sort of reasoning for that: they claimed it was uncatchable. Which it was, for literally everyone except Graham.

    That said, they should've called illegal contact. Because the ball doesn't need to be catchable for that and the first Packer's defender was not only not looking back, but he had his hand on Graham's face mask.

    Seriously, at what point do they have to call it ?
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7438
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm




It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:49 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information