Super Bowl XLVII - 49ers vs. Ravens Game Thread..

[whynot]

Originally Posted by wileedog

I also thought the running into the kicker call was terrible, so that's 3 points less the Niners would have and the Raven's in great field position.

That's the point though, bad calls tend to even out, unless you're the Steelers...

Exactly, it went both ways and was fair. Doesn't matter if it was inconsistent to the rest of the season (who's to say it was inconsistent with 500+ games) the point is that it was consistent for both teams in the game today.

And as a result the better team won.

[ufcrules1]

Originally Posted by wileedog

What's the difference? Play wouldn't be called dead on a holding call and the result would have been a safety.

Should have thrown the flag I suppose, but didn't really change anything.

You don't just not throw a flag just because it might not change the outcome. You think the refs were thinking that during a live play? They didn't throw it because they were being purposely conservative the whole game. Again, I don't mind them being conservative but it should be that way all season and playoffs too.. not just the superbowl. Unless they went and told both teams.. "Hey, were are going to let you guys play out there, we are going to be very conservative with the penalties tonight".

[wileedog]

Originally Posted by ufcrules1

You don't just not throw a flag just because it might not change the outcome. You think the refs were thinking that during a live play? They didn't throw it because they were being purposely conservative the whole game. Again, I don't mind them being conservative but it should be that way all season and playoffs too.. not just the superbowl. Unless they went and told both teams.. "Hey, were are going to let you guys play out there, we are going to be very conservative with the penalties tonight".

The flag during the safety was utterly, completely meaningless. It does not stop the play, so it wouldn't save any time on the clock. The result of the flag is a safety. This is purely a procedural issue.

Yeah, ok, they should have thrown it. So what?

[REDVOLUTION]

Originally Posted by Supercowboy1986

does anyone else have a problem with flacco getting a ring?

You mean the QB that played a flawless, errorless game and got MVP for it?


Flacco could have won MVP in a loss tonight.

[bkight13]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

Still not sure how this one went unpenalized.

Once the WR becomes a runner and can defend himself, the helmet to helmet rule doesn't apply. It was closer to a fumble than a penalty.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Fastphilly

Flacco was at that point a runner once he left the pocket. Contact was made prior to him going out of bounds and the defender just followed through on the tackle.

I had to revisit this because I just watched the replay again. The fact that Flacco was a runner has nothing to do with it. Anytime the ball carrier (no matter who it is) gets hit late out of bounds it is a penalty. The contact clearly STARTED out of bounds.

[Beast_from_East]

Good game, really liked the Niners coming oh so close to the biggest comeback in SB history and then choking like a dog on the last series.


Was Crabtree held?......................yea, looked like he was.

Was Flacco hit out of bounds..........yea, looked like he was.

Was Torry Smith grabed in the 1st Q that prevented a TD.........yea, looked like he was.


This is what they call a "let them play" game folks, the league didnt want a flag fest for the SB so they told the refs to look the other way. Some fans like this, some fans dont............either way, it is what it is so no use crying about it.

[brucekr]

I appreciated how the refs called the game, honestly. There were a helluva lot more penalties than single offsetting personal fouls on that Ed Reed pick. I just remember the refs causing the outcome in my opinion of the Seattle/Pittsburgh superbowl and would rather have them call it conservative and let the players play.

[bkight13]

Originally Posted by brucekr

I appreciated how the refs called the game, honestly. There were a helluva lot more penalties than single offsetting personal fouls on that Ed Reed pick. I just remember the refs causing the outcome in my opinion of the Seattle/Pittsburgh superbowl and would rather have them call it conservative and let the players play.

I don't care what anyone thinks, the game is so much better without a flag on every play. Let 'em play and start getting away from "lawyer" ball, where the refs have to huddle all game.

[Supercowboy1986]

Why did SF go for it on 4 th down? Why not a Fg for a tie

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Supercowboy1986

Why did SF go for it on 4 th down? Why not a Fg for a tie

Because a FG isn't worth 5 points?

[Supercowboy1986]

It was 34 31 during the goal line stand wasn't it?

[DOUBLE WING]

Originally Posted by Supercowboy1986

It was 34 31 during the goal line stand wasn't it?

34-29. Then the Ravens took the safety to make it 34-31.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by bkight13

Once the WR becomes a runner and can defend himself, the helmet to helmet rule doesn't apply. It was closer to a fumble than a penalty.

I realize that but I don't think he established possession as a runner or can be viewed as beyond the "defenseless" aspect.

The fact that it was ruled incomplete means that he didn't have possession long enough to be considered a runner.

I'm not sure where they would actually draw the line in this particular play but if the WR doesn't have time to establish possession, I don't see how he can have enough time to actually be considered beyond the defenseless aspect.

I think you bring up a good point about the fumble aspect of it.

IMO, with the way the rules are set I don't see how it can't be either a fumble or penalty.

If we say he established possession and therefore a penalty is not in play, it's a fumble.

If it's not a fumble because he didn't establish possession, and in this case without bobbling it at all which means he didn't have time to make a football move, how is not a penalty?

The only reasonable explanation is that there's some ridiculously small amount of time between losing the protection of being defenseless and having the ball long enough to be considered in possession and Crabtree was hit in that window.

Honestly though, how big could this window possibly be? Hundredths of a second? I think that's a bit much to ask officials to differentiate. With the emphasis on safety, we're expecting these guys to distinguish between hits to that sort of degree?

Here's the defenseless receiver description in the rulebook.



"Has not clearly become a runner"

I just don't see how it could be neither. If he had clearly become a runner, that's a fumble. But since it was ruled incomplete, obviously they didn't think that was the case which pretty much has to mean it's a penalty. The contact to the head is as blatant as it gets.

I think it was a penalty. Whether or not it wasn't might be up for debate but looking at the rules I don't see how anyone can say the right call was made. It doesn't seem possible for it not to be a fumble or a penalty.

[Gameover]

Flacco is 54-26 in regular season, 102 TDs 56 INTs. 8-4 Playoffs, 1 Ring.