Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Nov 22, 2014 at 04:24 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 1 More Play  (Read 1914 times)
Brinker
Lennar Homes Consultant
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 2858
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,785


Mr Jack


WWW
« on: Feb 02, 2009 at 17:30 »

I did not see this brought up yet, but if they would have ruled JH down at the 1 yard line we would have gotten one more play as the half cannot end on a defensive penalty (change of posession makes Cards def team)?

Thoughts?


Brinker
Logged

"He'll just smile and be cordial out there. Then he'll kill you."
--Aaron Smith, Defensive Lineman, on Troy Polamulu
Brinker
Lennar Homes Consultant
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 2858
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,785


Mr Jack


WWW
« Reply #1 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 18:23 »

I watched a little Mike and Mike tonight and Mike Pererra...head of officials...called in and said yes they would have gotten one more play.  Now FG or go for the TD?

Brinker
Logged

"He'll just smile and be cordial out there. Then he'll kill you."
--Aaron Smith, Defensive Lineman, on Troy Polamulu
Y2Joyce
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 2549
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,861



« Reply #2 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 18:31 »

He was in the end zone clearly so this is actually pretty dumb to be talking about, but with the offensive penalty we'd move half the distance to the goal before the untimed down. If it was inside the 15 of course, still not sure how the hell anyone could think he was down on that play.

Side note: What benefit to the league does Mike Perriera provide showing up on nearly every TV show willing to give him time to highlight controversial calls? Sorry but I don't think any passion would wane from some discussion or barroom argument over a ruling because "well, Perriera said so...". He's just further magnifying things. Not sure that is what we want. It comes off to me as some guy wanting to be on TV like "this is what I would've done..."

Also, I fully expect Perreira to show up in this thread to defend himself. Provided it generates him enough publicity.
Logged

Steelers 58-15 when I am in attendance.
Brinker
Lennar Homes Consultant
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 2858
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,785


Mr Jack


WWW
« Reply #3 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 18:40 »

It was a what if scenario....Mike and Mike asked the question knowing that Perriera listens to the show and asked him to call in.  He did not appear on the air, but relayed the message.

Brinker
Logged

"He'll just smile and be cordial out there. Then he'll kill you."
--Aaron Smith, Defensive Lineman, on Troy Polamulu
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,847



WWW
« Reply #4 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 19:36 »

Agree with Y2J.  Honestly, I totally do not care about this discussion.  People keep bringing up XL, in which there was only one blatantly bad call.  I watched that game again this past week, and:  Ben was in, it was pass interference, it was a hold (although not nearly the worst one of the night).  In fact, on the hold, if they hadn't called one on the tackle, they should have easily called one on Tobeck.

This game?  Same thing.  The ref didn't see SA's celebration, obviously.  Good for him for being smart enough to turn his back.  The roughing call?  Ticky-tack, but we've seen less called on the Steelers and more on Ben ignored.  The refs could have easily called one earlier in the game on Arizona.

The replay at the end?  No reason they shouldn't have looked at it a little longer, but it wouldn't have changed anything.  There is so much discussion about whether it was a fumble or not, it never would have been overturned.  Don't know why they didn't look longer, don't care.

We won.  They lost.  Get over it.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5538
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,173


« Reply #5 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 19:45 »

Honestly, I thought that game was officiated pretty darn well.  They got most of the calls correct and the ones that were overturned were correct as well.

Were there one or two that were called one way that could've gone for or against?  Uh, sure, but every game's got 'em.

How come when every analyst talks about the Holmes celebration or the fumble call on the last play, everybody glosses over the Warner sack fumble at the beginning of the 3rd that was ruled an incomplete pass?  The only guy that I heard complain about it was Marcellus Wiley.  I don't care what anybody says, his arm was not going forward in a throwing motion.  It was moving slightly forward because the impact of the collision brought the arm forward.  That's it.

Shoulda been a fumble, Steeler recovery @ the Card 40~ish.  Instead, they end up punting and Pittsburgh has to drive the field.
Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,847



WWW
« Reply #6 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 20:00 »


Quote
How come when every analyst talks about the Holmes celebration or the fumble call on the last play, everybody glosses over the Warner sack fumble at the beginning of the 3rd that was ruled an incomplete pass?  The only guy that I heard complain about it was Marcellus Wiley.  I don't care what anybody says, his arm was not going forward in a throwing motion.  It was moving slightly forward because the impact of the collision brought the arm forward.  That's it.

John Clayton talked about that in his post-game article.  He thought that this would fall under the infamous "tuck rule," a rule that he said needs to be overturned as soon as possible.  I would have given Warner the benefit of the doubt on the first one.  On the second one?  No way. 
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
DCSteelers
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 553
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,460


WWW
« Reply #7 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 20:28 »

If it was down anywhere less than a yard to go, QB sneak it.

> 1 yard, FG.
Logged
Manimal
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 3859
Offline Offline

Posts: 538



« Reply #8 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 20:48 »

Not that I give a shit, because we are the world fucking champions, but the roughing penalty called on the hit on Ben that looked ticky-tack is actually the correct call.

One of the wrinkles added to roughing the passer two years ago (I think) has to do with the body posture of the defender hitting the QB. In this case, he lowered the shoulder and hit Ben in the back. Had he not followed through like that, had he raised his arms and tried to chest bump Ben, it wouldn't have been called.

Has to do with player safety. The NFL doesn't want defendes lowering the boom on a QB with his back to the defender.
Logged
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,847



WWW
« Reply #9 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 21:48 »

Quote
Not that I give a shit, because we are the world fucking champions, but the roughing penalty called on the hit on Ben that looked ticky-tack is actually the correct call.

I have no doubt that it was correct according to the rules.  I say ticky-tack because I think the majority of roughing penalties are bush league.  The entire rule has become overblown.  Still, by rule and in line with the way that's been called all year, it was probably the correct call.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
BleedGreen710
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 428
Offline Offline

Posts: 734


WWW
« Reply #10 on: Feb 03, 2009 at 09:47 »

Ben got injured on the same type of hit against Baltimore and it wasn't called.  It was a good call.
Logged

"Now that I'm here, I don't want to just be here, I want to be here for a long time." Hines Ward, 1998 3rd round draft pick.
Manimal
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 3859
Offline Offline

Posts: 538



« Reply #11 on: Feb 03, 2009 at 10:19 »

Quote
Not that I give a shit, because we are the world fucking champions, but the roughing penalty called on the hit on Ben that looked ticky-tack is actually the correct call.

I have no doubt that it was correct according to the rules.  I say ticky-tack because I think the majority of roughing penalties are bush league.  The entire rule has become overblown.  Still, by rule and in line with the way that's been called all year, it was probably the correct call.

I agree, Preach. I dislike a lot of the recent rules changes. In particular, I hate the anti-celebration penalties. Have these rules-makers ever played the game?
Logged
Big Virgil
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3768
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,253



« Reply #12 on: Feb 03, 2009 at 11:39 »

That anti-celebration rules are the best rules in the book.

One thing I liked about the SB was guys weren't jumping up pounding their chests and barking at a guy they tackled with the help of 2 other guys.  I was dissapointed with the TD celeb.  If that was called as a penalty, The cards start that drive at midfield or in Steeler territory.
Logged

Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,847



WWW
« Reply #13 on: Feb 03, 2009 at 12:02 »

Quote
That anti-celebration rules are the best rules in the book.

I used to hate the celebrations, and I still don't like Chad Johnson and TO "Bojanglin' " (Jason Whitlock) in the end zone.  But SA's celebration was pretty tame by comparison.  And really, it just makes those guys look like idiots when they lose.  If they want to make fools out of themselves, then let 'em.

I agree with you about the tackle celebrations, especially by ST players. 
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!