Packers vs Bears Game Thread: Make the Bears Continue to Suck edition

[Schultz]

Did anyone else see the Bear running back move sideways before the snap and then realize he was early and stop. I was wondering if that should have been a penalty. It turned out to be a pretty important play late in the game.

 

[onionsack]

Ha, thought I'd have to venture into the Bears forum to enjoy the sound of their fans squealing like little girls after yet another humiliating loss. Had no idea they'd be so daft as to serve it up here for our enjoyment. Bless!

 

[gopkrs]

Did anyone else see the Bear running back move sideways before the snap and then realize he was early and stop. I was wondering if that should have been a penalty. It turned out to be a pretty important play late in the game.

Yeah, it should have been called. The RB made it funny at least.

 

[Magooch]

Did anyone else see the Bear running back move sideways before the snap and then realize he was early and stop. I was wondering if that should have been a penalty. It turned out to be a pretty important play late in the game.

Yes, if it's the play I'm thinking of I'm pretty sure he even looked right at the ref as though he was expecting a whistle, lol

And like I said earlier, let's not forget Caleb's 10/10 job of selling a trip as unnecessary roughness/late hit

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Once again: read the rulebook and get back to me. Did Bruschi say which rule was broken? Somehow I doubt it.
The only remotely debatable aspect here is whether or not one second elapsed between when the ball was snapped and the long snapper was engaged. The rest of it is perfectly legal. Pushing and “lifting” a fellow defender are not illegal.

Is there a reason you’re so opposed to actually showing me the rule that says otherwise? The rulebook is free and easy to find. I’ll even help you out:

See, wasn’t that easy?

(This is also a good reminder that AI is not infallible. If you actually took the time to look at the sources it used to generate that answer, you’d notice that they all refer specifically to circumstances involving aiding the ball carrier on offense, nothing to do with defenders.)

Yeah, he did. If you would listen to Teddy brewski like I told you you could stop making dumb statements.

 

[Calebs Revenge]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Once again: read the rulebook and get back to me. Did Bruschi say which rule was broken? Somehow I doubt it.
The only remotely debatable aspect here is whether or not one second elapsed between when the ball was snapped and the long snapper was engaged. The rest of it is perfectly legal. Pushing and “lifting” a fellow defender are not illegal.

Is there a reason you’re so opposed to actually showing me the rule that says otherwise? The rulebook is free and easy to find. I’ll even help you out:

See, wasn’t that easy?

(This is also a good reminder that AI is not infallible. If you actually took the time to look at the sources it used to generate that answer, you’d notice that they all refer specifically to circumstances involving aiding the ball carrier on offense, nothing to do with defenders.)

look above smart guy. 5 Seconds on Google and another 60 seconds on YouTube and you can listen to Teddy and if you can read look above and find out why the play that you guys did was illegal.

 

[Magooch]

look above smart guy. 5 Seconds on Google and another 60 seconds on YouTube and you can listen to Teddy and if you can read look above and find out why the play that you guys did was illegal.

Are you even reading what I've said? The AI summary you keep linking is literally referencing aiding the offensive player.

Show me which rule you're citing. I'll wait. (I suspect it'll be a while)

 

[Calebs Revenge]

? What are you talking about aiding an offensive player it literally says verbatim "opposing defenders cannot lift or push their fellow defenders"
What is there to not understand?

 

[Magooch]

? What are you talking about aiding an offensive player it literally says verbatim "opposing defenders cannot lift or push their fellow defenders"
What is there to not understand?

Ok, so either you don't understand the NFL rulebook or you don't understand how AI works, or both, I guess.

You're gonna want to click the little link shown there. That's the source that Google's AI summary is drawing from and it's specifically speaking towards *offensive* players. The fact that the AI-generated answer didn't deem it necessary to include that bit of sourcing doesn't make it less true. I can't believe I'm actually getting drawn into an argument here with someone who apparently thinks AI is completely infallible and incapable of generating an incomplete, misleading, or incorrect answer/summary. Sheesh.

 

[Magooch]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Here's the three sources Google's AI cited to arrive at that conclusion:

First is a random post from a University of Virginia football message board.

Second is the NFL's rules regarding roughing/running into the kicker. (???)

And third is the BBC referencing "association football" (soccer) rules.

Thank you, AI.

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Ok, so either you don't understand the NFL rulebook or you don't understand how AI works, or both, I guess.

You're gonna want to click the little link shown there. That's the source that Google's AI summary is drawing from and it's specifically speaking towards *offensive* players. The fact that the AI-generated answer didn't deem it necessary to include that bit of sourcing doesn't make it less true. I can't believe I'm actually getting drawn into an argument here with someone who apparently thinks AI is completely infallible and incapable of generating an incomplete, misleading, or incorrect answer/summary. Sheesh.

I mean lol...... ok bro. One of us here is wrong and I guess it's a good thing that we both know who it is.

 

[Magooch]

I mean lol...... ok bro. One of us here is wrong and I guess it's a good thing that we both know who it is.

I've already linked the rulebook for you. Like I said, if you can point to which specific rule you keep citing as "literally says it's illegal," I'd be happy to take a look at it and concede if I've got it wrong. Rule, section, article, and item. But something tells me I'll be waiting a while for that one.

 

[OldSchool101]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Is this legal to wrap your fist around a players Jersey? and hold them down so they cannot attempt a jump?

Let me simplify that ?
Is Holding legal on FG attempts?

Maybe the Bears player is “lifting” him up to help? His hand with a fist full of jersey is just a mirage?

 

[Calebs Revenge]

I've already linked the rulebook for you. Like I said, if you can point to which specific rule you keep citing as "literally says it's illegal," I'd be happy to take a look at it and concede if I've got it wrong. Rule, section, article, and item. But something tells me I'll be waiting a while for that one.

Rule 12
Section 3
Article 1
Part O
Your welcome.

 

[Calebs Revenge]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Done and done. Later. Going to start painting the Ben Johnson mural in my man cave.

 

[Calebs Revenge]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Is this legal to wrap your fist around a players Jersey? and hold them down so they cannot attempt a jump?

Let me simplify that ?
Is Holding legal on FG attempts?

Maybe the Bears player is “lifting” him up to help? His hand with a fist full of jersey is just a mirage?

Is a Packers fan really gonna talk to anybody about holding?

 

[Magooch]

Rule 12
Section 3
Article 1
Part O
Your welcome.

Yes, that is the "leverage" ruling. The application has always been interpreted to mean when a player places *their own* hand/s on another player to gain an advantage for *themselves*. If Van Ness had planted his hands on Brooks' shoulders and used that to vault himself higher into the air, you'd have a case, but that is obviously not what happened here. Getting hands on a teammate (again, after they are already engaged with a block and after the ball has been snapped) who jumps of their own volition while your hands are on them is not a "leverage" foul. Again, if you wanted to claim this is "leverage" then you'd need to call a foul on literally every single field goal attempt of every game.

(And strictly by-the-book I think you'd have a hard time to make a case that LVN did anything to provide Brooks with "additional height" in any case. You're wildly overstating his role in things, and, for the millionth time - still not what the Bears' appeal is remotely about)

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Yes, that is the "leverage" ruling. The application has always been interpreted to mean when a player places *their own* hand/s on another player to gain an advantage for *themselves*. If Van Ness had planted his hands on Brooks' shoulders and used that to vault himself higher into the air, you'd have a case, but that is obviously not what happened here. Getting hands on a teammate (again, after they are already engaged with a block and after the ball has been snapped) who jumps of their own volition while your hands are on them is not a "leverage" foul. Again, if you wanted to claim this is "leverage" then you'd need to call a foul on literally every single field goal attempt of every game.

(And strictly by-the-book I think you'd have a hard time to make a case that LVN did anything to provide Brooks with "additional height" in any case. You're wildly overstating his role in things, and, for the millionth time - still not what the Bears' appeal is remotely about)

I don't even know what to say to you, bro. It's in plain English. You're trying to say that Lucas can't vault himself onto someone else's shoulders, but if he picks up somebody else, it's cool.
Hahahahaha
Again, one of us is wrong here and I'm glad we both know who it is. I'm really done talking about this game. We can just talk about how San Francisco is gonna absolutely annihilate you guys.
Still love y'all

 

[Calebs Revenge]

Score prediction ( I know wrong thread)
49ers- 503
Packers- -13
Da Bearssssssssssssss

 

[Magooch]

I don't even know what to say to you, bro. It's in plain English. You're trying to say that Lucas can't vault himself onto someone else's shoulders

True

but if he picks up somebody else, it's cool.

I didn't say this. In fact the rules clearly say "picking up" your teammate is prohibited. But Van Ness did not "pick up" Brooks. Watch the frame-by-frame replay from the back angle. If you think LVN getting his hands on Brooks' backside *while Brooks has already himself jumped into the air* means Van Ness "picked him up" then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[gopkrs]

Maybe we could make another category to put bear field goal attempt.

 

[DoURant]

Maybe we could make another category to put bear field goal attempt.

Maybe we could have a Bears crying about blocked FG thread opened up. Asking for a friend, because I.... I mean my friend wants to mute it.

 

[Krabs]

I see a lot of discussion on the rules of kicking FG's. Specifically, the "Defenseless Player" rule and the "Leverage" rule. I think if you're on the losing side of the block you're going to have a bias and likewise on the winning team. I've always been in the camp that refs make bad calls for both teams. The Packers have certainly had their share of bad calls through the years as have every team in the NFL. However, let's break this specific situation down.

First, the alignment is completely legal. The rule is that you cannot lineup over the center. This means that you have to be outside the shoulders of the long snapper. Also, the refs do a good job of telling players before the snap if they are properly aligned. Generally speaking, they don't want to throw a flag for either team on a game winning FG. That's also why so much pass interference is ignored on a Hale Mary.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Both DL are well outside the shoulders of the center. This is all legal.

There also seems to be some confusion on hitting the long snapper. The long snapper can be hit. The actual rule reads as this, "
The long snapper is considered a defenseless player at the time of the snap, and defenders are not allowed to: Forcibly hit the long snapper's head or neck with their helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder." Long story short, anyone claiming you can't hit the long snapper is wrong. It goes back to a defenseless receiver as well. You certainly can hit a WR.

Brooks actually times it perfectly and is off the line before 79 reacts to the snap.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

It's hard to say, but I certainly do not see anyone hitting the long snapper forcefully above the head or neck. What I do see is 79 holding on the play trying to stop Brooks because he was beat off the line.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

As far as a leverage penalty goes, I see exactly zero Packers using each other to jump or stand on.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Regardless of all I've said, the play stands and the Pack win.