We Won the Game and I'm Pissed Off

[scutterhawk]

The call that bothered me the most, for some reason, was the penalty for helmet to helmet on Garoppolo after Clowney blew up the play. Even Booger was like WTF was he supposed to do when JimmyG starts going down, then doesn't, putting his head right in the contact zone at the very last possible second.

Yeah this one really pissed me off. This call is a perfect example of a situation where if a sky judge were in play, he should overrule the call. After the sky judge buzzed down, the referee would announce, "the sky judge has ruled that the QB (or ball carrier) ducked into the hit from the defensive player who was in proper strike zone tackling position therefore there is no foul on the play".

Pretty much every subjective penalty should be like this. Games might be a little longer, but it would get rid of so much BS.

STRONG!!!!, It's not just THAT PLAY, there is no CONSISTENCY on calls/non calls from the Officiating across the entire board.
It clouds the issue on ALL the crap calls, FOR INSTANCE, the ref's call on Golden Tate's TD against GB a few years back, that set the tone for my argument on DK's behalf in this game....I think Djmb's explanation of the play that I'm hung up on, makes a lot more sense than, Just accept what I'm telling you does...I don't handle smart ass responses well.

 

[HawkStrong]

The call that bothered me the most, for some reason, was the penalty for helmet to helmet on Garoppolo after Clowney blew up the play. Even Booger was like WTF was he supposed to do when JimmyG starts going down, then doesn't, putting his head right in the contact zone at the very last possible second.

Yeah this one really pissed me off. This call is a perfect example of a situation where if a sky judge were in play, he should overrule the call. After the sky judge buzzed down, the referee would announce, "the sky judge has ruled that the QB (or ball carrier) ducked into the hit from the defensive player who was in proper strike zone tackling position therefore there is no foul on the play".

Pretty much every subjective penalty should be like this. Games might be a little longer, but it would get rid of so much BS.

STRONG!!!!, It's not just THAT PLAY, there is no CONSISTENCY on calls/non calls from the Officiating across the entire board.
It clouds the issue on ALL the crap calls, FOR INSTANCE, the ref's call on Golden Tate's TD against GB a few years back, that set the tone for my argument on DK's behalf in this game....I think Djmb's explanation of the play that I'm hung up on, makes a lot more sense than, Just accept what I'm telling you does...I don't handle smart ass responses well.

I don't disagree with your first sentence, not sure where you think I disagreed with that idea.

I knew you were conflating the two plays from the beginning, hence why I said you are confusing the rules between a congested catch and a fumble on a running play. Two completely different situations.

As for Djmb's explanation helping you to understand it, great. That said, if you couldn't understand the ruling on the play based on what was posted in this thread before that point, by me and numerous other posters, that's on you. At no point did anyone say just accept it. It was laid out clearly with textual evidence and visual evidence.

 

[DJrmb]

To be fair, I don't blame Scutterhawk for being confused by some of y'all's responses. You guys kept attacking singular points and making too many assumptions, assuming everyone knew what you were getting at by arguing possession. Communication goes two ways, and it shows a lack of maturity to blame one side or the other completely when there is a breakdown in communication. If someone isn't understanding what you're trying to communicate, a lot of times its because you are doing a poor job of communicating. For me when I find myself in that situation, it helps to step back and take a new approach and try to see things from their point of view and self evaluate my my own stance.

 

[HawkStrong]

To be fair, I don't blame Scutterhawk for being confused by some of y'all's responses. You guys kept attacking singular points and making too many assumptions, assuming everyone knew what you were getting at by arguing possession. Communication goes two ways, and it shows a lack of maturity to blame one side or the other completely when there is a breakdown in communication. If someone isn't understanding what you're trying to communicate, a lot of times its because you are doing a poor job of communicating. For me when I find myself in that situation, it helps to step back and take a new approach and try to see things from their point of view and self evaluate my my own stance.

Read the thread back through, that's not exactly how it went down. People tried to explain it every which way, scutter was being willfully obtuse.

 

[scutterhawk]

To be fair, I don't blame Scutterhawk for being confused by some of y'all's responses. You guys kept attacking singular points and making too many assumptions, assuming everyone knew what you were getting at by arguing possession. Communication goes two ways, and it shows a lack of maturity to blame one side or the other completely when there is a breakdown in communication. If someone isn't understanding what you're trying to communicate, a lot of times its because you are doing a poor job of communicating. For me when I find myself in that situation, it helps to step back and take a new approach and try to see things from their point of view and self evaluate my my own stance.

Read the thread back through, that's not exactly how it went down. People tried to explain it every which way, scutter was being willfully obtuse.

Obtuse?, you're calling me obtuse?, that's rich...Every which way?.You left holes in all your ATTEMPTED explanations, DJmb fills them in, and you want to claim the credit?..... yah, I don't think so. :roll:

 

[cymatica]

To be fair, I don't blame Scutterhawk for being confused by some of y'all's responses. You guys kept attacking singular points and making too many assumptions, assuming everyone knew what you were getting at by arguing possession. Communication goes two ways, and it shows a lack of maturity to blame one side or the other completely when there is a breakdown in communication. If someone isn't understanding what you're trying to communicate, a lot of times its because you are doing a poor job of communicating. For me when I find myself in that situation, it helps to step back and take a new approach and try to see things from their point of view and self evaluate my my own stance.

There's a photo in the thread showing lost possession, I posted the fieldgulls article showing photographic evidence and a detailed explanation. Then he sarcastically says "oh because fieldgulls said so it must be true" while trying to tell us possession isn't lost if your body touches the ball. Why should anyone step back and see things from someones point of view when they refuse to accept facts and go out of their way to walk around them? If I tell you gravity isn't real and you won't drown if you try and breathe underwater, after you show me evidence, then good luck trying look at it from my point of view

 

[HawkStrong]

To be fair, I don't blame Scutterhawk for being confused by some of y'all's responses. You guys kept attacking singular points and making too many assumptions, assuming everyone knew what you were getting at by arguing possession. Communication goes two ways, and it shows a lack of maturity to blame one side or the other completely when there is a breakdown in communication. If someone isn't understanding what you're trying to communicate, a lot of times its because you are doing a poor job of communicating. For me when I find myself in that situation, it helps to step back and take a new approach and try to see things from their point of view and self evaluate my my own stance.

Read the thread back through, that's not exactly how it went down. People tried to explain it every which way, scutter was being willfully obtuse.

Obtuse?, you're calling me obtuse?, that's rich...Every which way?.You left holes in all your ATTEMPTED explanations, DJmb fills them in, and you want to claim the credit?..... yah, I don't think so. :roll:

I'm not claiming credit anywhere other than being one the many voices that was providing factual statements. Djmb clarified a point that I thought was already pointed out clearly. Good on Djmd seeing the exact point you were confused about.