Monday Night Football: Buffalo Bills @ Seattle Seahawks

[SonnyCID]

so you agree then that it was the Seahawks to blame for the loss and not the officiating?

just want to understand the rules of engagement here

Yeah. You could scour this whole board and not find one example of me complaining about bad calls or no calls against Seattles favor. That doesn't mean I don't notice them, but you'll never catch me putting a loss on them.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

lol. You have a good night just squatting here waiting on pins and needles for Seahawks fans to post about anything. Loser.

Right Skippy. However, I do enjoy watching uneducated twElves make dumb statements.

 

[packerzrule]

Yeah. You could scour this whole board and not find one example of me complaining about bad calls or no calls against Seattles favor. That doesn't mean I don't notice them, but you'll catch me putting a loss on them.

I know that sonny. Yourn one of the good uns

many of your comrades however cannot make the same claim

 

[NWPATSFAN]

This is what amazes me as he is always behind the Seahawks with is Rams logo. There must be dementia setting in is the best I can come up with. Make things look good for your best rival and stick up for them ha ha

I think it's because he feels bad for them. After all the Lambs own Seattle. They can't beat anyone else but they sure have the Hawks number.

 

[Uhsplit]

I know that sonny. Yourn one of the good uns

many of your comrades however cannot make the same claim

Many in this forum believe we are unique in that way.

 

[chf]

I'll wait on the ever present Seattle spin.

Something has to get you off.

 

[shopson67]

As I said if I saw Sherman touch the ball prior to making contact I WOULD STAND CORRECTED. This certainly negates running/roughing the kicker. It doesn't negate unsportsmanlike or unecessary roughness. Just like I said last night and still what Blandino is saying.

Does it negate it though? Blocking/deflecting the kick negates the roughing. Does touching a held ball before a kick eliminate the protection for the kicker? I wonder if that is even in the rule book, as it takes an extreme set of circumstances like this (either a VERY offside defender and/or a botched snap) to even become a possibility.

This would be similar to hitting the ball while in the punter's hands, only to have him be able to adjust and get the kick off. Is he open game to get hit because of a forced bobble?

 

[chf]

Does it negate it though? Blocking/deflecting the kick negates the roughing. Does touching a held ball before a kick eliminate the protection for the kicker? I wonder if that is even in the rule book, as it takes an extreme set of circumstances like this (either a VERY offside defender and/or a botched snap) to even become a possibility.

This would be similar to hitting the ball while in the punter's hands, only to have him be able to adjust and get the kick off. Is he open game to get hit because of a forced bobble?

Well this certainly sheds light on our discussion about hurdling the long-snapper.

 

[shopson67]

Well this certainly sheds light on our discussion about hurdling the long-snapper.

So, you don't know either?

 

[chf]

So, you don't know either?

like you, I've been going on what other people are saying about the rule, both pro and con. A quick google and here you go.

1. A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is:
   
   (a) Incidental to and after he had touched ball in flight.
   
   (b) Caused by kicker’s own motions.
   
   (c) Occurs during a quick kick, or a kick made after a run behind the line, or after kicker recovers a loose ball on the ground. Ball is loose when kicker muffs snap or snap hits ground.
   
   (d) Defender is blocked into kicker.
   
   The penalty for running into the kicker is 5 yards. For roughing the kicker: 15 yards, an automatic first down and disqualification if flagrant.

The bolded emphasis is obviously mine.

Now it seems that given the bolded, a penalty should definitely been called as the ball wasn't 'in flight.'

So, I'll eat my crow, I was wrong. Funny how none of you guys arguing the other way actually took the three minutes to look up the rule.

It'd be nice, if you'd not try to spin the language of the leaping over the longsnapper rules too.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Bottom line is it was a fucked up sequence of events, made even worse by bone headed referees not knowing how to apply stuff or manage the clock.

I have a hard time believing they called the delay penalty as they did given the loser back judge? was standing over the ball with 5 seconds to go on the clock. And why Rex Ryan wasn't able to get that penalty tossed given the fact the went from regular ball for the "spike" to the K ball for the FG and the clock is supposed to be reset to 25 seconds after that.

You would think at the very least some sort of intelligent conversation could have occurred over that.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

like you, I've been going on what other people are saying about the rule, both pro and con. A quick google and here you go.



The bolded emphasis is obviously mine.

Now it seems that given the bolded, a penalty should definitely been called as the ball wasn't 'in flight.'

So, I'll eat my crow, I was wrong. Funny how none of you guys arguing the other way actually took the three minutes to look up the rule.

It'd be nice, if you'd not try to spin the language of the leaping over the longsnapper rules too.

Most of us were saying it was an unabated foul which has zero to do with where the ball was. I do recall at least one poster mention the part of the ball in flight. I don't remember if it was this thread or a different one. I'm not going to relook 800 posts.

 

[shopson67]

like you, I've been going on what other people are saying about the rule, both pro and con. A quick google and here you go.



The bolded emphasis is obviously mine.

Now it seems that given the bolded, a penalty should definitely been called as the ball wasn't 'in flight.'

So, I'll eat my crow, I was wrong. Funny how none of you guys arguing the other way actually took the three minutes to look up the rule.

It'd be nice, if you'd not try to spin the language of the leaping over the longsnapper rules too.

I spent enough time trying to find clear language about the longsnapper rules that I figured this one wasn't in there in clear language either, as it seemed an unexpected oddity.

 

[JMR]

like you, I've been going on what other people are saying about the rule, both pro and con. A quick google and here you go.



The bolded emphasis is obviously mine.

Now it seems that given the bolded, a penalty should definitely been called as the ball wasn't 'in flight.'

So, I'll eat my crow, I was wrong. Funny how none of you guys arguing the other way actually took the three minutes to look up the rule.

It'd be nice, if you'd not try to spin the language of the leaping over the longsnapper rules too.

but if the ball wasn't in flight then it also wasn't kicked, so the conditions of that rule haven't even been met. Since Sherm got there before the ball was in flight, is he supposed to stop and wait for the guy to kick it so he can make a play? That doesnt make sense. Mike Perreira has also weighed in and said the only penalty Sherman committed on the play is the off-side.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

You do realize this was the same crew of shitbags that doesn't know how to use an air pressure gauge.....

Walt Anderson is well past his best before date......

 

[shopson67]

but if the ball wasn't in flight then it also wasn't kicked, so the conditions of that rule haven't even been met. Since Sherm got there before the ball was in flight, is he supposed to stop and wait for the guy to kick it so he can make a play? That doesnt make sense. Mike Perreira has also weighed in and said the only penalty Sherman committed on the play is the off-side.

No, he's not supposed to hit a vulnerable kicker, hence the rules. The only reason he was that early was because he was already illegally offsides. It's a roughing penalty on top of the offsides penalty, as the NFL quickly announced during the second half of the game.

 

[The Oldtimer]

but if the ball wasn't in flight then it also wasn't kicked, so the conditions of that rule haven't even been met. Since Sherm got there before the ball was in flight, is he supposed to stop and wait for the guy to kick it so he can make a play? That doesnt make sense. Mike Perreira has also weighed in and said the only penalty Sherman committed on the play is the off-side.

As for the kick itself, Sherman said he continued to the kicker when he realized the officials weren’t blowing the play dead for being offside and unabated to Carpenter, as they should have. That was the issue with the officiating mess -- they didn’t blow the whistle until Sherman was on top of the ball and kicker.

“There was no whistle,” Sherman said Wednesday. “The league goes back and hindsights everything, and says this and says that because they want to appease the fans. But I know the rule book. And I know exactly what I was doing on the play.”

Sherman believes the officials were letting Carpenter kick the ball, and had he pulled up and the ball had gone through the uprights it would have counted and his offsides foul declined by Buffalo. When Sherman didn’t hear the whistle, he kept rushing, blocking the kick while running through Carpenter, that’s when, in Sherman’s mind, the officials decided to whistle the play dead.


Read more here: Richard Sherman calls apology to him by Bills kicker’s wife “BS” on controversial field goal

 

[The Oldtimer]

No, he's not supposed to hit a vulnerable kicker, hence the rules. The only reason he was that early was because he was already illegally offsides. It's a roughing penalty on top of the offsides penalty, as the NFL quickly announced during the second half of the game.

So in your mind if there wasn't a whistle and the kicker kicks the ball through the upright, then the Bills get three points right? If the kick was good, then the Bills could have declined the offsides penalty. The bottom line is Sherman touched (blocked) the kick before he ran into the kicker. By NFL rules that "IS NOT" a penalty. Yes Sherman was offsides and that should have been the only penalty called.

 

[The Oldtimer]

No, he's not supposed to hit a vulnerable kicker, hence the rules. The only reason he was that early was because he was already illegally offsides. It's a roughing penalty on top of the offsides penalty, as the NFL quickly announced during the second half of the game.

By NFL rules, the person that announced that Sherman should have received a roughing the kicker penalty, in the second half of the game was wrong.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

By NFL rules, the person that announced that Sherman should have received a roughing the kicker penalty, in the second half of the game was wrong.

It was Blandino and he said it was unecessary roughness not roughing the kicker. Two totally different infractions.