D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I didn´t see McGinn mentioning that in one of his articles, got a link???
The defense having a dominant game hasn´t anything to do with Michael being on the roster.
Next UP: Sleepless about Seattle
- Thread starter GB2016
- Start date
I didn´t see McGinn mentioning that in one of his articles, got a link???
The defense having a dominant game hasn´t anything to do with Michael being on the roster.
Packerlover
Cheesehead
Packerlover
Cheesehead
The Lions will lose both games.. at New York and at Dallas, the Pack will win out and win the division.. shades of 2010
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Not sure how you are doing this, but your predictions have been spot on most of the year, if we all need to rub your head to keep the magic going, just let us know!
Studette: Packerlover for her positive and eerily correct predictions.
There are a lot of people, and not just Seahawks fans or Packer haters who think the fail Mary was the correct call. Whether we care to admit it or not our opinions are somewhat biased. Its one of those calls that are always going to generate controversy and from the moment it happened people's opinions were made and no amount of discussion was going to change anyone's mind. Some see it one way others see it another and each one is convinced that they are right. Here is where I would say something like "who is to say who is right" but it would be pointless because the same people would all say the same thing "I am right"
I think if there were more to the whole "he knows their playbook" thing we would see it happening more often. If it was a big advantage I'm sure there would be someone on the bottom of the roster a team could cut to make room for a castoff from another team.
All true, except that the people that see it any way other than the way I see it are wrong lol.
I don't think it was a terrible challenge. It was worth a shot. I think it was similar to his TD a few weeks ago and by the wording of the rules, it wasn't idiotic. At least not to me. it would have been a pretty substantial play at the time. Turns out we didn't need it, but a nice catch for a 1st down, why not?
I always thought if you were going to the ground, you had to maintain possession. I've seen it always interpreted as going to the ground in the process of making a catch, which was the big hang up with the Dez catch a couple years ago. Did he have possession, make a football move? was he going to the ground on his own? contacted? football move? Jordy clearly caught the ball, and got both feet down, clearly standing upright, then was tackled and brought to the ground where the ball popped out. Had he been diving, or reaching out and started any motion towards the ground, i'd say it would have been a no brainer, he lost it when he hit the ground. no catch.
I know the endzone is treated a little differently. I wonder what the call would have been if this happened in the endzone and not on the sidelines?
I'm not upset this wasn't ruled a catch, i think they should have to hang on longer, but i can see how interpretting the rules could result in this being called a catch at some point.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
or in the middle of the field; catch, turn, tackled and after knee hits the ground, the ball pops out as player hits the ground.
GBkrzygrl
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Messages
- 841
- Reaction score
- 293
Yumo that crow tastes really good and I am happily chomping down on it.
Never expected that kind of game. Sorry, can't help myself - I was dancing with glee especially when Wilson threw all those interceptions.
The receivers really stepped up to the plate. It was nice to see them utilize all of the receivers. Montgomery, Adams and Nelson were particularly outstanding.
Wonder how hurt Rodgers is. Man, he looked to be in a lot of pain before MM pulled him out.
Defense - it was great to see that when the interceptions were there they made the most of their chances and actually caught them. Lowrey may turn into a good pass rusher.
I have no idea what will happen moving forward but that was a great game. Oh, I almost forgot MM actually kept the pedal to the metal and kept running up the score. Doing the Happy Dance.
Never expected that kind of game. Sorry, can't help myself - I was dancing with glee especially when Wilson threw all those interceptions.
The receivers really stepped up to the plate. It was nice to see them utilize all of the receivers. Montgomery, Adams and Nelson were particularly outstanding.
Wonder how hurt Rodgers is. Man, he looked to be in a lot of pain before MM pulled him out.
Defense - it was great to see that when the interceptions were there they made the most of their chances and actually caught them. Lowrey may turn into a good pass rusher.
I have no idea what will happen moving forward but that was a great game. Oh, I almost forgot MM actually kept the pedal to the metal and kept running up the score. Doing the Happy Dance.
as long as they aren't falling to the ground in that process, I'd say catch. Once 2 feet are on the ground and you're a runner, it's a catch, unless of course you're stretching out and going to the ground while that is happening. I thought Nelson was clearly up and down, and then contacted. My interpretation was obviously wrong 
PackerFanLV
Cheesehead
LOL dude your so funny. Keep thinking Michaels wasn't a factor in MM game plan. Dom capers looked like a hero, how often does that happen?
Last edited:
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
No matter how they change the rule there will always be a gray area. It is impossible to define a catch that will not have some level of ambiguity in it. There will always be a level of subjective human perception. Change the rule to fit one unusual circumstance that "feels wrong" and the next season you will have another catch that "feels wrong" based on the new definition.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
as long as they aren't falling to the ground in that process, I'd say catch. Once 2 feet are on the ground and you're a runner, it's a catch, unless of course you're stretching out and going to the ground while that is happening. I thought Nelson was clearly up and down, and then contacted. My interpretation was obviously wrong
I would be curious to know what camera replays the coaches in the booth are getting to view as well as how fast they are available to them before having to call down to MM concerning a challenge. That play happened right in front of me and it looked good live as well as on the scoreboard replays. If all the coaches have to go by is what is being shown on the scoreboards and not what viewers are seeing at home, that should change. I would guess they have everything that the networks have access to.
this is true. I'm ok with however they want to call it and be as consistent as possible.
while true.... to me at least, a catch is about "catching the ball"... not football moves... how many steps you take ... can you keep it in your hands after catching it when hitting the ground etc... Yes you will still have to rely on the subjectivity of the official, but adding all the other nonsense just complicates matters...
broguy
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 22
A lot of people tend to forget that part of the Fail Mary play was a terribly obvious offensive pass interference that the refs missed. The NFL pointed out the missed call in their official statement on the game, noting that the refs should have thrown a flag, which would have resulted in a Packers win. So whichever way you want to look at it (catch vs. interception), there's no doubt that the Packers should have won that game regardless...and most likely would have, with competent officials.
As an aside, the NFL also ruled that the refs made the correct decision in upholding the call upon review. This may be a little too conspiratorial for some, but I'd bet a lot of money that they decided to back the ruling because they didn't want to be faced with even more calls to overturn the outcome of the game. I think pointing out the missed penalty was a nod to the Packers having been deserving of the win. But refs miss calls all the time, and penalties aren't reviewable, so there would be no precedent or large outcry to award the Packers a win after the fact. On the other hand, if the league ruled that the review that took place on the last play of the game was incorrect, it would have been logical to argue that the Packers should be awarded the win (and there would have been a lot of outcry from the other side if that happened). I think at that point they just wanted to avoid any more controversy, take their medicine, and move on.
P.S. While this post might indicate otherwise, I'm totally over that game. I obviously thought they blew the call, but it was a regular season game that ended up having no impact on our final playoff seed. I was over that one within a week or two. Still haven't fully recovered from the 2014 NFC championship game though, and not sure I ever will. At least that one was self-inflicted.
I was waaaayy wrong in my prediction on this game. And I'm quite happy I was! 
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Then define what a 'catch' is in your eyes.
pretty simple actually did the ball stop moving autonomously after making contact with the receiver? as soon as that happens ... it is a catch. if it is subsequently dropped... that is a fumble. Yes, that can sometimes be difficult to determine in real time but the current rules are illogical and ridiculous. If the receiver catches the ball according to the above rule and attempts to change his grip on the ball... such as securing it against his body etc... and drops it .... fumble plain and simple. There is no what if you can throw at this that changes these simple facts... The difficulty lies in determining if and when the ball's autonomous motion has been controlled.... so what....
If you want to add another layer of subjectivity to it you could say did the ball come out on its own or did he let go of the ball. I think the Calvin Johnson TD that wasn't should have been because, if I recall correctly, when CJ came down with the ball he had possession and, thinking it was a TD, he let go of it as he came up. I don't think that was the case with Dez's non catch and I don't think that was the case with Jordy's non catch yesterday. Basically, if you don't get up off the turf with the ball or you don't give up the ball under your own control (lying on your back and tossing it to a ref for instance) its not a catch.
Still, I'm with Mondio 100% whatever you decide to call I don't really care just call it the same.
Still, I'm with Mondio 100% whatever you decide to call I don't really care just call it the same.
PFanCan
That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Back in 2010, we had Kitten with her never-quit attitude and positive outlook.
This year, we have you. Keep it coming!
I was waaaayy wrong in my prediction on this game. And I'm quite happy I was!
Me also, I was just hoping to be close. I was only able to see the 2nd half but we looked like a contender.
Packerlover
Cheesehead
I shall!
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
It´s ludicrous to think that Wilson throwing five interceptions had anything to do with Michael knowing the Seahawks playbook.
Similar threads
Members online
No members online now.
