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

[crazytown41]

Originally Posted by Supercowboy1986

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

Uhhh I'll assume you didn't watch the game and just looked at the sports ticker

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by wileedog

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

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

Wouldn't the flag have carried over onto the kickoff?

Kicking from the 10 instead of the 20?

[Apollo Creed]

Originally Posted by Gameover

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

The Ravens are a great organization and team, always thought his success is a byproduct of that.

But this postseason he played perfect football and personally etched his name in history because of that.

[TheFinisher]

Originally Posted by Apollo Creed

The Ravens are a great organization and team, always thought his success is a byproduct of that.

But this postseason he played perfect football and personally etched his name in history because of that.

Yea, he just put together an all time great postseason run.

11 TDs (NFL postseason record), 0 INTs, 117.2 QB rating.

Then diced up the NFL's best defense in the biggest game of the year.

That's big time

[bkight13]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

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?
[View Full Quote]
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.

It was very similar to the play earlier in the game when Ray Rice caught the ball, quickly turned upfield and was stripped. They called that one a fumble and I think Crabtree fumbled as well. He took 2 steps and turned upfield right before getting hit. I have seen that play penalized before and it was a close call either way.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Tezz

Jimmy Smith had Crabtree in almost a bear hug that would be a penalty on the defense on most occasions. I dont think you will ever see offensive pass interference called in that instance as Jimmy Smith impeded Crabtree and didn't try to play the ball.

9ers should've let Kaep run it, it works quite well with the running QBs near the goalline

Here's an interesting frame by frame breakdown of that play. Looks more like OPI, to me.

[Tezz]

If Crabtree didn't try to fight through the contact and sold the call I felt like he would've gotten it or if the pass was a little closer. From image 5 Smith was going straight for a hug and he had it on Crabtree until the end of the play. Crabtree wasn't going to even have a shot at moving if he didn't push off since he was bear hugged. Crabtree's arms were never fully extended though which I think is the main indicator where you would see an offensive PI. We shall disagree on this I stand by my statement that I doubt you will ever see offensive pass interference in that instance and a defensive flag would be thrown on most occasions especially since the game is geared for receivers.

If the Cowboys were part of that no call at the end of the game you better believe there would be like 50 threads here complaining and it would be valid. This could be applied to any team Ravens included.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Tezz

If Crabtree didn't try to fight through the contact and sold the call I felt like he would've gotten it or if the pass was a little closer. From image 5 Smith was going straight for a hug and he had it on Crabtree until the very end of the play. Crabtree wasn't going to even have a shot at moving if he didn't push off since he was bear hugged. We shall disagree on this I stand by my statement that I doubt you will ever see offensive pass interference in that instance and a defensive flag would be thrown on most occasions...

If the Cowboys were part of that no call at the end of the game you better believe there would be like 50 threads here complaining and it would be valid. This could be applied to any team Ravens included.

I agree you'd never call OPI on that one. I disagree that DPI would usually get called. Not with the defender looking for the ball and his head getting bent backward by the pushoff.

I'll also agree that, if this were on the Cowboys, some of our fans would be howling. But we've still got fans howling about 'icing our own kicker', so, there's that.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by bkight13

It was very similar to the play earlier in the game when Ray Rice caught the ball, quickly turned upfield and was stripped. They called that one a fumble and I think Crabtree fumbled as well. He took 2 steps and turned upfield right before getting hit. I have seen that play penalized before and it was a close call either way.

There's a key difference with the play with Rice in that Rice was clearly able to defend himself. He was stiff-arming the guy. On top of that, the spin move he did is a move that is common to the game. He attempted 2 moves to ward off the impending contact.

Crabtree did not. He was not in a position to ward off the contact at all. Not that it makes a difference in the rule but I'm not sure how you can call that two steps. His first foot was nearly on the ground when he caught it. The aspect that matters, as you said in your initial reply, is the ability to defend himself. He didn't have enough time to perform an act that is common to the game and didn't even complete two full strides. Looking up field after reaching back for a pass doesn't cut it. If it was, there essentially would never be a time a player is defenseless because nearly every player starts to look upfield after catching the ball. It's the ability to avoid contact or ward off the impending hit that is the key and Crabtree clearly couldn't do it.