An explanation of the calls by the refs in the Packer/Lion's game

[Wazmankg]

Booger is a former defensive lineman who sees the game almost exclusively from a defensive lineman's perspective. If anything happens outside of that perspective, it is outside of his analysis scope and he therefore spits brainless cliches or nauseating player cheerleading as "analysis" filler. It was just as nauseating that he wouldn't shut up about the "positive impact of the Packers' two new Smiths" as it was about him emphatically repeating himself that a fellow defensive lineman got screwed by a penalty - twice.

Booger's defensive lineman mindset emphatically went off on the "injustice" and triggered an entire fan base and unattached football fans watching the game into a frenzy. If it was Joe Thomas or Ed Hochuli sitting in the booth with the mic instead of Booger, you can bet the analysis would've been much different and this thread would not exist.

Wait.. you think the only reason such a big deal was made out of this is because Booger was so vocal about it ? I disagree with that. Nearly every big penalty is replayed and there was nothing there for either of those calls. I think that would have been mentioned regardless of who was in the booth.

 

[RP-29]

Wait.. you think the only reason such a big deal was made out of this is because Booger was so vocal about it ? I disagree with that. Nearly every big penalty is replayed and there was nothing there for either of those calls. I think that would have been mentioned regardless of who was in the booth.

No, but Booger's reaction to the penalties was absolutely a catalyst that whipped the masses into a frenzy about it.

 

[Mebert]

No, but Booger's reaction to the penalties was absolutely a catalyst that whipped the masses into a frenzy about it.

I honestly did not feel this weeks game was any more lopsided than the Chiefs game. I was surprised by all the outrage.

 

[RP-29]

I honestly did not feel this weeks game was any more lopsided than the Chiefs game. I was surprised by all the outrage.

It's always tough to eat a loss with a controversial penalty in the mix, but with every controversial penalty that occurs throughout a game, there are ten times more mistakes/failures by the losing team that would've changed the outcome of the game had they executed properly.

Maybe I'm the exception, but when the Packers lost to the Seahawks on the "Fail Mary", I wasn't focused on the controversial call at the end, I was focused on all the self-inflicted blunders that got the game to that point.

 

[Mebert]

It's always tough to eat a loss with a controversial penalty in the mix, but with every controversial penalty that occurs throughout a game, there are ten times more mistakes/failures by the losing team that would've changed the outcome of the game had they executed properly.

Maybe I'm the exception, but when the Packers lost to the Seahawks on the "Fail Mary", I wasn't focused on the controversial call at the end, I was focused on all the self-inflicted blunders that got the game to that point.

For sure it is easy to point to an errant call in a close game, but if this game leads to them changing the rules to make everything reviewable like has been discussed, then this is the 3rd time in a decade the NFL would have changed the rules to make sure nobody gets screwed over like the Lions.

It is easy to see why a fan base is quicker to be outraged when calls are so outrageous that the NFL has to change the rules.

Lions have a long history of being a joke, but recently have been better run, but it feels like they get calls based on what they used to be.

 

[Manster7588]

The first one was BS too and I haven't heard a decent explanation for why they now claim that it wasn't. Maybe they need to change the rule for clarity. What exactly encompasses is "the neck area" anyway ? His hand seemed to clearly be on his shoulder pad in both cases.

Not addressing it doesn't mean the NFL is saying it was a good call.

The NFL admitted A call was wrong, do you really think they want to say the Refs were wrong on
1. Unnecessary Roughness, 2. Hands to the Face, 3. missed DPI, and 4. Hands to the Face?

All this in a span of a out 20 minutes of playing time. I will not claim any kind of fix or conspiracy but it was a very bad look for the NFL.

 

[Manster7588]

No, but Booger's reaction to the penalties was absolutely a catalyst that whipped the masses into a frenzy about it.

His reaction had absolutely no bearing on me seeing the BS by the refs on display.

 

[Manster7588]

It's always tough to eat a loss with a controversial penalty in the mix, but with every controversial penalty that occurs throughout a game, there are ten times more mistakes/failures by the losing team that would've changed the outcome of the game had they executed properly.

Maybe I'm the exception, but when the Packers lost to the Seahawks on the "Fail Mary", I wasn't focused on the controversial call at the end, I was focused on all the self-inflicted blunders that got the game to that point.

You seem to be downplaying this a little bit.

Shouldnt you have said "with some controversial penalties"?

 

[RP-29]

For sure it is easy to point to an errant call in a close game, but if this game leads to them changing the rules to make everything reviewable like has been discussed, then this is the 3rd time in a decade the NFL would have changed the rules to make sure nobody gets screwed over like the Lions.

It is easy to see why a fan base is quicker to be outraged when calls are so outrageous that the NFL has to change the rules.

Lions have a long history of being a joke, but recently have been better run, but it feels like they get calls based on what they used to be.

I REALLY hope the NFL doesn't make everything reviewable because of this. That would be awful! Reviewing PIs because of the Saints-Rams game last year is already atrocious.

I would much prefer having a trio of referees in a press box watching the game that are an extension of the team on the field. The refs above can aide the team on the field and are capable of initiating blatant penalties that are missed. No reviews on penalties - ever; the team upstairs can help make a snap consultation decision that does not cripple the flow of the game. If it's not blatantly obvious after one replay, the call on the field stands and we move onto the next play within a few seconds.

 

[Manster7588]

I REALLY hope the NFL doesn't make everything reviewable because of this. That would be awful! Reviewing PIs because of the Saints-Rams game last year is already atrocious.

I would much prefer having a trio of referees in a press box watching the game that are an extension of the team on the field. The refs above can aide the team on the field and are capable of initiating blatant penalties that are missed. No reviews on penalties - ever; the team upstairs can help make a snap consultation decision that does not cripple the flow of the game. If it's not blatantly obvious after one replay, the call on the field stands and we move onto the next play within a few seconds.

If they are going to allow coaches to challenge then no play should be off the table.

A guy at work suggested they remove the time out requirement too, just if a challenge isn't won penalize the team 15 yards. I like this idea, but 15 yards might be a bit much.

 

[Mebert]

I REALLY hope the NFL doesn't make everything reviewable because of this. That would be awful! Reviewing PIs because of the Saints-Rams game last year is already atrocious.

I would much prefer having a trio of referees in a press box watching the game that are an extension of the team on the field. The refs above can aide the team on the field and are capable of initiating blatant penalties that are missed. No reviews on penalties - ever; the team upstairs can help make a snap consultation decision that does not cripple the flow of the game. If it's not blatantly obvious after one replay, the call on the field stands and we move onto the next play within a few seconds.

The response to making PI's reviewable was to just stop calling them when they are blatant, and then still not overturning them anyway,

 

[RP-29]

His reaction had absolutely no bearing on me seeing the BS by the refs on display.

Put yourself in the ref's shoes for a moment... He doesn't have the benefit of 1000 cameras pointed at every square inch of the field at all different angles that can slow and pause time. He sees Flowers hands pushing up AT Bahktiari's face/neck and Bahktiari's head forced back... ...at full speed. ...from one perspective.

...That's not "BS", that's human perception proven inaccurate. I wish refs would wear GoPros on the field so fans watching at home can see replays of what the ref sees when he makes a call.

 

[Manster7588]

If they are going to allow coaches to challenge then no play should be off the table.

A guy at work suggested they remove the time out requirement too, just if a challenge isn't won penalize the team 15 yards. I like this idea, but 15 yards might be a bit much.

EDIT:: Limits on non calls should be limited as Offensive Holding can be called on almost every play. With this in mind every yellow flag should be challengable. Non calls keep it limited to the current rule.

 

[Manster7588]

Put yourself in the ref's shoes for a moment... He doesn't have the benefit of 1000 cameras pointed at every square inch of the field at all different angles that can slow and pause time. He sees Flowers hands pushing up AT Bahktiari's face/neck and Bahktiari's head forced back... ...at full speed. ...from one perspective.

...That's not "BS", that's human perception proven inaccurate. I wish refs would wear GoPros on the field so fans watching at home can see replays of what the ref sees when he makes a call.

Problem in the hands were NOT on the face, neck or face mask. The official rule says contract must be to one of these areas, NOT near them.
You can lie to yourself all you want but it doesn't change the fact the call was BS.

 

[RP-29]

If they are going to allow coaches to challenge then no play should be off the table.

A guy at work suggested they remove the time out requirement too, just if a challenge isn't won penalize the team 15 yards. I like this idea, but 15 yards might be a bit much.

The NHL just enacted that "penalty" rule for failed challenges and it has worked out pretty well thus far for them. If you're going to create a rule where anything is on the table for review, you need a strong deterrent to ensure the coaches aren't slowing the game down or gaining advantages with a constant barrage of reviews on every close play. I think 15 yards and an automatic first down would be appropriate for failed challenges. Or maybe with every failed challenge, one player from the team has to sit in the penalty box while their team plays with 10 players through the remainder of the drive.

 

[packerzrule]

Problem in the hands were NOT on the face, neck or face mask. The official rule says contract must be to one of these areas, NOT near them.
You can lie to yourself all you want but it doesn't change the fact the call was BS.

With the benefit of slow motion and different camera angles, yes it was BS

During real time in the eyes of the ref, it was legit

 

[dtgold88]

The league makes millions off people's bets lol also other things, just a weird fetish they have

The league makes millions off bets? So the answer is you have no clue and just made it up? Truth be told I knew that.

 

[dtgold88]

It's always tough to eat a loss with a controversial penalty in the mix, but with every controversial penalty that occurs throughout a game, there are ten times more mistakes/failures by the losing team that would've changed the outcome of the game had they executed properly.

Maybe I'm the exception, but when the Packers lost to the Seahawks on the "Fail Mary", I wasn't focused on the controversial call at the end, I was focused on all the self-inflicted blunders that got the game to that point.

No doubt this is true...Take the awful call in NFC title game. Saints were still allowed to stop LA after the call. Had the ball in OT and were allowed to score and win. when they didn't they were allowed to stop LA from scoring again.

 

[RP-29]

Problem in the hands were NOT on the face, neck or face mask. The official rule says contract must be to one of these areas, NOT near them.
You can lie to yourself all you want but it doesn't change the fact the call was BS.

Hindsight. The ref saw it differently in the moment it happened.

BS would mean that he saw that it wasn't illegal hands to the face in the moment and threw the flag to shit on the Flowers and the Lions. I find that very difficult to believe is the case.

 

[NCChiFan]

I guess according to this it does not have to be hands to the face to be a penalty

NFL Refs Explain Controversial Calls Late in Lions’ Loss | Heavy.com

A pool report interview with NFL referee Clete Blakeman in the postgame shed some more light on the controversial calls, but the insights didn’t exactly do much to alleviate the frustrations. Here is Blakeman’s full response when asked what the crew discussed and saw on the calls:

“The umpire threw both of them. The last one was really the only one I’ve discussed with him. Basically, it’s for illegal use of hands, hands-to-the-face foul. To be a foul, we basically need some forceful contact that’s prolonged to the head and neck area of the defender. So, in his mind he had pinned him back, it was prolonged, and that’s what created the foul.”

NFL referee Clete Blakeman in Monday night’s referee pool report.

Moral of the story, O line men, wear your shoulder pads loose so that they immediately slide up into the neck area on contact.