Why are people so down about the Ravens loss?

[grayghost668]

yes I was pissed about your loss to the Ravens,49ers let us down,,,,,

 

[MW49ers5]

It's technically a reverse chop, and I don't know if I've ever seen it called before this week. It was clear even in real time that Gore hit first.

For the record, Parry called it wrong by failing to refer to it as a reverse chop, so if we want to get really technical, it was definitely the wrong call.

"It's technically a reverse chop."

It is a reverse "type" of chop block, but it is still called just a chop block.


"I don't know if I've ever seen it called before this week."

Well, maybe if you watched more than 9 minutes of football per year you would see more of them. We were the beneficiary of an equally, or perhaps an even more ticky-tack chop-block in the Detroit game.


"It was clear even in real time that Gore hit first."

Excellent observation!...And your point is?


"For the record, Parry called it wrong by failing to refer to it as a reverse chop, so if we want to get really technical, it was definitely the wrong call"

For the record, you're an idiot; and, if we want to get really technical you're something even worse. The call was announced on the field correctly. It is a Personal Foul - Chop Block - Period!

Furthermore, chop blocks are a player-protection, personal-foul penalty; which, last time I checked were being called with little regard to the level of flagrance or impact on the game.

Refs have been instructed to err on the side of caution; too much caution in this case, perhaps. But, if we were on the receiving end of this penalty, YOU would be presenting all of this BS in support of why it was 'technically the right call', and yes YOU would be, so don't say otherwise.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

yes it is about right or wrong, was it a penalty or not? if you say yes, then you agree with me. this wasn't a gray area call, it was a penalty in accordance with the rules.

in other games sometimes it isn't called, but in THIS case it was so drop that argument about borderline. since it WAS called, was it a penalty or not?

Should every penalty be called, or do you agree that some penalties aren't and shouldn't be called? Look through the rule book and then find a play in which one of those rules isn't violated.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

"It's technically a reverse chop."

It is a reverse "type" of chop block, but it is still called just a chop block.


"I don't know if I've ever seen it called before this week."

Well, maybe if you watched more than 9 minutes of football per year you would see more of them. We were the beneficiary of an equally, or perhaps an even more ticky-tack chop-block in the Detroit game.


"It was clear even in real time that Gore hit first."

Excellent observation!...And your point is?


"For the record, Parry called it wrong by failing to refer to it as a reverse chop, so if we want to get really technical, it was definitely the wrong call"

For the record, you're an idiot; and, if we want to get really technical you're something even worse. The call was announced on the field correctly. It is a Personal Foul - Chop Block - Period!

Furthermore, chop blocks are a player-protection, personal-foul penalty; which, last time I checked were being called with little regard to the level of flagrance or impact on the game.

Refs have been instructed to err on the side of caution; too much caution in this case, perhaps. But, if we were on the receiving end of this penalty, YOU would be presenting all of this BS in support of why it was 'technically the right call', and yes YOU would be, so don't say otherwise.

I know you're still upset about the way I embarrassed you last week, but try not be such a bitch. If you can.

You're right, we were the beneficiary of a borderline chop several weeks ago, and I called it that way at the time. But that wasn't a reverse chop. The OL was engaged high and then the RB went low. That's a normal chop. The reason that call was borderline was because it looked like the OL broke off before the RB got there. And that call was more in keeping with the rule because the second player went low. That's the reason for the penalty, to protect a defenseless player's legs. That was a borderline call and we got lucky that it went our way. There was no danger to Pollard's legs in this case because Gore hit him head on before he was touched by Rachal.

Since you bring up the league's tighter approach to personal fouls, the NFL acknowledged that it was a bad call when it didn't fine Gore.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

I dunno. I respect your opinion, but to me it was tough to see Rachal even make contact.

Anyway, 9-2 and we move on.

Hehe. Nah, not disagree with what most people are saying. On the contrary, I agree it was a weak call even if it was "correct" (or incorrect by the technicalities of a reverse chop as Crimson pointed out.)

In real time and from where the ref was standing, I guess I have to appreciate the call by the officials for being proactive on "protecting players." On the other hand, that was a poor example of such call. Ravens played a good game though, and indeed: 9-2 and move on.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Should every penalty be called, or do you agree that some penalties aren't and shouldn't be called? Look through the rule book and then find a play in which one of those rules isn't violated.

You can't "call" penalties. You call "fouls" and "penalties" are what result from those fouls. Even the goddamned TV announcers call clipping a "penalty" instead of a "foul". Sorry, but that is another of my pet peeves; right up there with "I could care less". Please go on with your discussion.

 

[tzill]

yes I was pissed about your loss to the Ravens,49ers let us down,,,,,

You'll get your chance to do something about it soon enough, Shitsburgh fan.

 

[MW49ers5]

I know you're still upset about the way I embarrassed you last week, but try not be such a bitch. If you can.

You're right, we were the beneficiary of a borderline chop several weeks ago, and I called it that way at the time. But that wasn't a reverse chop. The OL was engaged high and then the RB went low. That's a normal chop. The reason that call was borderline was because it looked like the OL broke off before the RB got there. And that call was more in keeping with the rule because the second player went low. That's the reason for the penalty, to protect a defenseless player's legs. That was a borderline call and we got lucky that it went our way. There was no danger to Pollard's legs in this case because Gore hit him head on before he was touched by Rachal.

Since you bring up the league's tighter approach to personal fouls, the NFL acknowledged that it was a bad call when it didn't fine Gore.

First, I must apologize for being absent from my own ass kicking. So, did I concede with an "uncle", did I throw in a white towel or did you just slay me like a Dragon?

Not that it matters. Congratulations on your first victory, it must feel good! (Just for the sake of curiosity, exactly when and where did this ass-kicking take place???)


"But that wasn't a reverse chop. The OL was engaged high and then the RB went low. That's a normal chop."

Clearly the antenna's on your tin-foil hat need to be adjusted; lets try this again, shall we.

The Chop Block is a singular penalty. You are confusing circumstantial and method of engagement definitions with the actual fouls. There is NO Reverse Chop Block Foul or Lure Chop Block Foul or Normal Chop Block Foul. There is only a Chop Block Foul - Period.

There is absolutely zero difference in the penalty for all 10 differently described chop blocks. In fact, the section which describes the different circumstances and methods of chop blocks concludes with:

PENALTY: For Chop Block: 15 Yards.

NOT:

PENALTY: For Normal Chop Block; or,
PENALTY: For Reverse Chop Block; or,
PENALTY: For Lure Chop Block, etc.

I will just assume this explanation has flown wildly over your head and crashed violently into the concrete wall of your parents basement. So, I'll just wait for you to post back with something incredibly ridiculous, like:

"But that wasn't a reverse chop. The OL was engaged high and then the RB went low. That's a normal chop."

Oh, wait...


"The reason that call was borderline was because it looked like the OL broke off before the RB got there. And that call was more in keeping with the rule because the second player went low. That's the reason for the penalty, to protect a defenseless player's legs."

The Detroit penalty was a classic subsection (2) chop block committed by the OL & TE not the OL & RB. Was it borderline? Who cares? You are trying to argue, as if you are an authority on what chop blocks should or should not be called when you don't even know what a chop block is. <jsmh>!


"...the NFL acknowledged that it was a bad call when it didn't fine Gore."

This is plausible, but do you have any proof of this or are you just presuming this to be true?

Here are a few thoughts.

First, Gore, when asked if the absence of a fine was tantamount to vindication, would neither confirm nor deny the question.

Second, one implication of your claim is that the fine for a chop block is mandatory. If this is true and point three is not possible, then I would agree with your statement. If the fine is not mandatory then it is equally as plausible that the call was accurate but did not warrant a fine. I cannot find anything to suggest whether the fine is mandatory or not.

Third, is it possible that the penalty should have been called on Rachal and not Gore? As you know Gore's block was legal, the chop block foul was not committed until Rachal engaged the player. If this is true, then the question becomes whether the league can fine a player not charged with committing a foul.

 

[MW49ers5]

The Niners had every opportunity to win the game, regardless of the officials. But the chop block call was a bad one - maybe technically a violation, but a technical rule violation occurs on just about every NFL play - and that TD changes the nature of that game. No way to say who would have won if it stood, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would have made a big difference.

"The Niners had every opportunity to win the game, regardless of the officials."

This is correct and since the 49ers had every opportunity to win BEFORE those calls and every opportunity to win AFTER those calls, then it can be conclusively determined that the nature of the game did not change one bit because of those calls; and, those calls no doubt made exactly zero difference.


"…that TD changes the nature of that game."

"Changes the nature of the game??? Are you insane? It changes the score and that is all. It was the fourth play of the 2nd quarter for fuck sake and would have put us up 10-3.

John Harbaugh is not going to huddle up with his coordinators down by 7 with 44 minutes left and start designing a new game plan, that's just dumb. It changes nothing at that stage in the game.


"…but there's absolutely no doubt that it would have made a big difference."

A big difference? The exact difference that TD would have made is that we would have gone from being tied 3-3 with 43:56 left to being ahead 10-3 with 43:55 left, with the reciprocal being true for the Ravens. I can agree that 7 points in a game such as that CAN be a big difference, but not with 44 minutes left. This statement, the one above, as with ~90% of all your statements are just gross exaggerations.

If you want to bitch about missed opportunities, why not bitch about Smiths colossal fuck-up for not hitting DWalk for 6 on a wide open seam on our first offensive play of the game?

 

[MW49ers5]

I agree with much of this. Re: the part in bold, I heard four or five sports personalities bemoan the call as ridiculous, including Mayock who was announcing the game. I haven't heard anyone say it was a clear penalty and the right call.

I think most personal fouls are bemoaned these days...

Here is Harbaugh's quote:

"It was a bang-bang play for Chilo," Harbaugh said. "He really just got his hands on him. I wish he could have seen that and not put his hands on him. It was certainly a chop block, and it was a good call. You had one guy going low, and then Chilo put his hands on the defender, which turned it into a chop block."

Even Mayock agreed the call was accurate, but was, as we have all implied - ticky-tack.

 

[grayghost668]

You'll get your chance to do something about it soon enough, Shitsburgh fan.

YOU ARE an asshole,but I'm sure you already know that

 

[Southern9er]

Why is everyone upset about the Ravens loss?

Because we have wonderfully short memories and have forgotten what it feels like to lose.

Because this loss exposed nearly all the weaknesses we saw in the pre-season and early in the regular season, the kind of stuff that had most of us holding our breath.

But the good thing is this is a staff and team that believes in itself and CAN correct these problems in short order. Another meeting with the Ravens would not go well for them in my opinion...and that is faith in this coach and these players to adjust.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

First, I must apologize for being absent from my own ass kicking. So, did I concede with an "uncle", did I throw in a white towel or did you just slay me like a Dragon?

Oh, you were there. You're just to dumb to realize you were embarrassed yet again. Not quite as bad as the hissy fit you threw at Imac a few months back, but still good and embarrassing. Btw, you never mentioned why you think Ted Ginn Jr. is "on a level equal to or above that of Crabtree" as a WR.

Not that it matters. Congratulations on your first victory, it must feel good! (Just for the sake of curiosity, exactly when and where did this ass-kicking take place???)

Do you really want me to dredge it back up? I think everyone else on the board is tired of your refusal to actually support your claim that Ginn, Williams, and Walker are all as good or better than Crabtree.

"But that wasn't a reverse chop. The OL was engaged high and then the RB went low. That's a normal chop."

Clearly the antenna's on your tin-foil hat need to be adjusted; lets try this again, shall we.

The Chop Block is a singular penalty. You are confusing circumstantial and method of engagement definitions with the actual fouls. There is NO Reverse Chop Block Foul or Lure Chop Block Foul or Normal Chop Block Foul. There is only a Chop Block Foul - Period.

There is absolutely zero difference in the penalty for all 10 differently described chop blocks. In fact, the section which describes the different circumstances and methods of chop blocks concludes with:

PENALTY: For Chop Block: 15 Yards.

NOT:

PENALTY: For Normal Chop Block; or,
PENALTY: For Reverse Chop Block; or,
PENALTY: For Lure Chop Block, etc.

I will just assume this explanation has flown wildly over your head and crashed violently into the concrete wall of your parents basement. So, I'll just wait for you to post back with something incredibly ridiculous, like:

"But that wasn't a reverse chop. The OL was engaged high and then the RB went low. That's a normal chop."

Oh, wait...

You're right and I was mistaken. The call should have been chop block regardless. But I was talking about the type of chop above, not what the official called. And the type of chop matters. The penalty, as has been discussed, exists because of the danger to the targeted player. The danger arises from hits to the legs. As such, a reverse chop in most situations is a much less dangerous situation than a normal chop. I would think this is fairly obvious.

"The reason that call was borderline was because it looked like the OL broke off before the RB got there. And that call was more in keeping with the rule because the second player went low. That's the reason for the penalty, to protect a defenseless player's legs."

The Detroit penalty was a classic subsection (2) chop block committed by the OL & TE not the OL & RB. Was it borderline? Who cares? You are trying to argue, as if you are an authority on what chop blocks should or should not be called when you don't even know what a chop block is. <jsmh>!

As you acknowledge, they were different types of chop blocks. Officials have and use discretion to make calls or let them slide. I have never seen a reverse-style chop block called. Certainly not when the defensive player is already going to the ground anyway.

"...the NFL acknowledged that it was a bad call when it didn't fine Gore."

This is plausible, but do you have any proof of this or are you just presuming this to be true?

Here are a few thoughts.

First, Gore, when asked if the absence of a fine was tantamount to vindication, would neither confirm nor deny the question.

Second, one implication of your claim is that the fine for a chop block is mandatory. If this is true and point three is not possible, then I would agree with your statement. If the fine is not mandatory then it is equally as plausible that the call was accurate but did not warrant a fine. I cannot find anything to suggest whether the fine is mandatory or not.

Third, is it possible that the penalty should have been called on Rachal and not Gore? As you know Gore's block was legal, the chop block foul was not committed until Rachal engaged the player. If this is true, then the question becomes whether the league can fine a player not charged with committing a foul.

I am making a reasonable inference. The league fines personal foul penalties when they are correct. They don't when they were clean hits. The fact the penalty was called on Gore rather than Rachal only furthers the argument that Parry mistakenly believed that it was a normal chop block instead of a reverse chop.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

"The Niners had every opportunity to win the game, regardless of the officials."

This is correct and since the 49ers had every opportunity to win BEFORE those calls and every opportunity to win AFTER those calls, then it can be conclusively determined that the nature of the game did not change one bit because of those calls; and, those calls no doubt made exactly zero difference.

The play makes some difference no matter what. Every play changes the likelihood of an outcome, some more than others. There is no doubt this play would have changed the game significantly at that time.

"…that TD changes the nature of that game."

"Changes the nature of the game??? Are you insane? It changes the score and that is all. It was the fourth play of the 2nd quarter for fuck sake and would have put us up 10-3.

John Harbaugh is not going to huddle up with his coordinators down by 7 with 44 minutes left and start designing a new game plan, that's just dumb. It changes nothing at that stage in the game.

In a game like this, a seven point lead is huge. Assuming you are right, and the rest of that half continued the way it did, the Niners would have been up 10 points after their first drive in the second half. It is very likely, in that case, that the Ravens would have been more aggressive. That in turn, would have made them more likely to make mistakes. Nothing is certain, but we're talking about probabilities, not certainties.

"…but there's absolutely no doubt that it would have made a big difference."

A big difference? The exact difference that TD would have made is that we would have gone from being tied 3-3 with 43:56 left to being ahead 10-3 with 43:55 left, with the reciprocal being true for the Ravens. I can agree that 7 points in a game such as that CAN be a big difference, but not with 44 minutes left. This statement, the one above, as with ~90% of all your statements are just gross exaggerations.

As said above, in that game, a 10-3 lead is a big difference. I'm not sure how any legitimate football fan could argue that in that game, a 10-3 lead versus a 3-3 tie wasn't significant to the outcome.

If you want to bitch about missed opportunities, why not bitch about Smiths colossal fuck-up for not hitting DWalk for 6 on a wide open seam on our first offensive play of the game?

The missed pass to Walker was a bad play. This was a bad call. One was in our hands. The other was largely in the officials hands.

 

[tzill]

YOU ARE an asshole,but I'm sure you already know that

I've been called much worse by much better. Now beat it over to the Shitsburgh board.

 

[tzill]

FWIW, from Mike Sando's blog:

Gore's chop unpunished: Coach Jim Harbaugh was right when he used the word "unlucky" to describe the chop-block penalty against Frank Gore during the San Francisco 49ers' 16-6 defeat at Baltimore. This was the first time Gore had been penalized for a chop block. The league did not fine him. That was the right call. Gore blocked low before guard Chilo Rachal made contact with the defender's upper body. This penalty flag was thrown unnecessarily. The absence of a fine supports that line of thinking. The penalty wiped out a 75-yard touchdown reception that would have changed how the game unfolded, at least to some degree.

 

[Flyingiguana]

it wasn't a chop block because everyone knows rachel never blocks anyone

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I think most personal fouls are bemoaned these days...

Here is Harbaugh's quote:

"It was a bang-bang play for Chilo," Harbaugh said. "He really just got his hands on him. I wish he could have seen that and not put his hands on him. It was certainly a chop block, and it was a good call. You had one guy going low, and then Chilo put his hands on the defender, which turned it into a chop block."

Even Mayock agreed the call was accurate, but was, as we have all implied - ticky-tack.

Mayock didn't say the call was accurate, at least not during the game. Go to 1:25 here:

NFL Videos: Sound FX: 49ers miscues

Not sure who it is, clearly not Mayock and seemingly not Nessler, but first color comment: "And it's a bad call."

Mayock: "Chop block is high-low. You can't go high-low. Now, look at Gore on the safety.... Now, all [Rachal] did was push him over the top."

It's an inference, but it certainly seems that Mayock is agreeing that it was a bad call. I don't know if he said something after the game that indicated otherwise. I believe it was Marshall Faulk who also criticized the call at half, as did the other commentators who weighed in. No one is arguing that the call wasn't technically correct, but IMO that penalty should not be called in an NFL game.

And since you asked, the NFL can and does fine players who were not assessed a penalty. Early Doucet was fined for the late hit that led to Goldson's ejection, for instance. The lack of a fine on Gore or Rachal is a sign that the league didn't believe the action was dangerous.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Two questions for Deep and MW:

1) Do you believe that NFL officials should call every technical penalty they observe?

2) If not, when is it ok for an official not to call a penalty?

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Two questions for Deep and MW:

1) Do you believe that NFL officials should call every technical penalty they observe?

2) If not, when is it ok for an official not to call a penalty?

We've been over this; both 1 and 2 above are impossible.