Why are people so down about the Ravens loss?

[Crimsoncrew]

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

Not sure I follow. Is this sarcasm?

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Not sure I follow. Is this sarcasm?

Yes. Check post #46 of this ethread.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Yes. Check post #46 of this ethread.

Ah, fair enough. Feel free to replace "penalty" with "foul" when you read it.

 

[Southern9er]

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

Priceless...

 

[MW49ers5]

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.

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.

Here is what you provided and the rest of what Mayock said.

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. ...I'm not a big believer in that call, I know technically it is correct, but he [Rachal] barely pushed him over the top"

So, it is like I said, "Even Mayock agreed the call was accurate [correct], but was, as we have all implied - ticky-tack."

For the sake of clarification, "bad" in the context of this discussion means 'unnecessary' as opposed to 'incorrect'.

Crimson, until the league comes out and publicly states the call incorrectly interpreted the rule, we can all assume the call was accurate; hell we ALL can see the call is accurate to the letter of the law.

However, I think we ALL also agree the call was unnecessary, just as some/many personal fouls are. But 'unnecessary' is not synonymous, at least not thus far, with 'incorrect'.

It's time to let it go, Crimson.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

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.

Here is what you provided and the rest of what Mayock said.

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. ...I'm not a big believer in that call, I know technically it is correct, but he [Rachal] barely pushed him over the top"

So, it is like I said, "Even Mayock agreed the call was accurate [correct], but was, as we have all implied - ticky-tack."

For the sake of clarification, "bad" in the context of this discussion means 'unnecessary' as opposed to 'incorrect'.

Crimson, until the league comes out and publicly states the call incorrectly interpreted the rule, we can all assume the call was accurate; hell we ALL can see the call is accurate to the letter of the law.

However, I think we ALL also agree the call was unnecessary, just as some/many personal fouls are. But 'unnecessary' is not synonymous, at least not thus far, with 'incorrect'.

It's time to let it go, Crimson.

Hey moron, I never said it was an incorrect call. My position, stated clearly in my first post in this thread, is that the call was technically correct but was a bad call.

You don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You're just being a bitch for the hell of it. No surprise here.

 

[MW49ers5]

Hey moron, I never said it was an incorrect call. My position, stated clearly in my first post in this thread, is that the call was technically correct but was a bad call.

You don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You're just being a bitch for the hell of it. No surprise here.

 

[MW49ers5]

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?

So, are these your entries for the dumbest questions of the year? Congratulations - you're a winner!

Crimson, answer these questions yourself and where do you end up? <jsmh>

This subject has expired - time to move on, kid.

 

[MW49ers5]

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

I agree with Southern, Priceless comment!

 

[Crimsoncrew]

So, are these your entries for the dumbest questions of the year? Congratulations - you're a winner!

Crimson, answer these questions yourself and where do you end up? <jsmh>

This subject has expired - time to move on, kid.

You're such a chickenshit. Take a stand for once and answer two simple questions. But I'll model the behavior that seems to elude you:

1) Officials should not call every foul that they see.

2) An official should not call a foul when the foul does not affect the outcome of the play and does not put a player at risk.

Now look how easy that is. You try.

Deep has effectively argued that, if an official sees a foul, he should call it. All that matters is whether it was technically correct. As said above, I think officials should and do use their discretion before flagging a given play because, as I have stated ad nauseum, there is a foul on virtually every NFL play.

You jumped in to defend Deep's position, so explain your stance and defend it. Or is that asking too much of you?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

So, are these your entries for the dumbest questions of the year? Congratulations - you're a winner!

Crimson, answer these questions yourself and where do you end up? <jsmh>

This subject has expired - time to move on, kid.

This subject expired the moment you stepped into it because you apparently never understood my position. I'm not really sure how you missed it - I stated it over, and over, and over. But I don't put anything past you these days.