Roy's interception for a TD..

[Chuck 54]

depends on whom you listen to....most of the guys on espn, Ditka included, said it was a foul for leading with the helmit...blah blah blah....seemed like total BS to me, but most of the analysts saw it as a foul so I'm leaving it behind me.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

this ticks me off.. we would have won the game (come on, thats a huge momentum swing right off the bat) and it would have looked really nice on Roy's stats and his highlight videos.. the bigger issue is that had we won the game, we have a little momentum going into the playoffs and we wouldnt have to deal with the confidence issues that come with losing to the Lions at home.. that is a huge call.. I still say that they should be able to review and challenge penalty calls.. just for curiosity's sake, was Roy's run back sweet?

 

[superpunk]

this ticks me off.. we would have won the game (come on, thats a huge momentum swing right off the bat) and it would have looked really nice on Roy's stats and his highlight videos.. the bigger issue is that had we won the game, we have a little momentum going into the playoffs and we wouldnt have to deal with the confidence issues that come with losing to the Lions at home.. that is a huge call.. I still say that they should be able to review and challenge penalty calls.. just for curiosity's sake, was Roy's run back sweet?

Nothing real special. It fell in his lap and noone was there to stop him. It was a HUGE call, as we promptly went from being up 7-0 to being down 13-0. Then, instead of having a great heads-up play from Roy, we have to endure more lame-o Roy to LB? threads.

Bah.

 

[stealth]

this ticks me off.. we would have won the game (come on, thats a huge momentum swing right off the bat) and it would have looked really nice on Roy's stats and his highlight videos.. the bigger issue is that had we won the game, we have a little momentum going into the playoffs and we wouldnt have to deal with the confidence issues that come with losing to the Lions at home.. that is a huge call.. I still say that they should be able to review and challenge penalty calls.. just for curiosity's sake, was Roy's run back sweet?

I was cheering like a mad man for that play, he basically just ran straight ahead and walked into the endzone.

the analysts have jumped off our band wagon and yet again we can do no right. I saw ditka saying the crap about the helmet and he is pretty much full of it. It wasn't a lead with the helmet kinda deal and even still based on the hit newman took earlier in the year on the kick return it shouldn't have been a penalty anyways. The ball hit furrey in the hands and newmans thought he was preventing a catch. He may have. The fact that newman can cover so well and will knock the crap out of a guy makes me very happy to have him on my team.

 

[superpunk]

I was cheering like a mad man for that play, he basically just ran straight ahead and walked into the endzone.

the analysts have jumped off our band wagon and yet again we can do no right. I saw ditka saying the crap about the helmet and he is pretty much full of it. It wasn't a lead with the helmet kinda deal and even still based on the hit newman took earlier in the year on the kick return it shouldn't have been a penalty anyways. The ball hit furrey in the hands and newmans thought he was preventing a catch. He may have. The fact that newman can cover so well and will knock the crap out of a guy makes me very happy to have him on my team.

Guess Ditka didn't watch the Saints game - where, 5 minutes after Newman's hit, Fujita absolutely unloaded on Hoover in the flat on an overthrown ball.

Yeah. No flag.

 

[AbeBeta]

Another sad thing about that penalty is the officials huddled up for about 30 seconds to decide what to call after the ball was tipped???

How can you know what they were talking about? I saw the players signaling tip -- but they expected there was a PI call.

It is FAR more likely that the refs were discussing the timing of the play -- that is whether Newman hit the WR before or after Roy made the pick because that would determine possession of the ball.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

Then, instead of having a great heads-up play from Roy, we have to endure more lame-o Roy to LB? threads.

Bah.

i hear ya, man.. irritating..

 

[StanleySpadowski]

It unfortunately was the correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

Newman didn't need to lead with his helmet or even lay a particularly vicious hit on him. Newman simply needed to touch Furrey while Furrey was airborne without possible posession of the ball.

 

[TEK2000]

How can you know what they were talking about? I saw the players signaling tip -- but they expected there was a PI call.

It is FAR more likely that the refs were discussing the timing of the play -- that is whether Newman hit the WR before or after Roy made the pick because that would determine possession of the ball.

I hope that's not what they were discussing. It was a split second between the time the ball went off Furrey's fingers and when Newman made contact. Furrey hadn't even got back on the ground yet before Newman hit him.

Defensive linemen get what.. 1 step to hit the QB after the QB releases the ball. Newman was already in the air to hit Furrey when the ball arrived at Furrey's fingertips.

I'll post the video later on.

 

[stealth]

It unfortunately was the correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

Newman didn't need to lead with his helmet or even lay a particularly vicious hit on him. Newman simply needed to touch Furrey while Furrey was airborne without possible posession of the ball.

furrey got a hand on the ball, how the heck are we to say he wouldn't have caught it had it not been for the hit. Newman thought the guy was gonna make a catch so he unloaded on him, He shoulda stopped mid air paused to contimplate whether the ball was caught or not. Then based on that he should have hopped in the way back machine and never gone for the tackle?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Horrible call IMO. I did not think that Newman lead with his helmet at all. I thought he lead with his left shoulder. I thought the ball was tipped so the PI call was irrelivant. The one thing that Newman did do on that play was leave his feet to hit the WR. That is a no-no. Unfortunate because it happens all the time in the NFL but hey, one call should not have been the difference in that game. Even a call as big as that one. We should have easily handled Detroit and we didn't. Simple as that for me.

 

[AbeBeta]

I hope that's not what they were discussing. It was a split second between the time the ball went off Furrey's fingers and when Newman made contact. Furrey hadn't even got back on the ground yet before Newman hit him.

I hope that IS what they were discussing -- The flag had already been thrown -- very rarely would they pick that up. One of the refs has that call as his responsibility -- the others aren't focusing on that area so their opinions wouldn't be relevant.

The discussion likely was about the enforcement -- e.g., its an INT if the hit was after the pick and Lions ball if the INT was after the hit. It is a somewhat complex enforcement so they needed to review it.

Bad call. Hell yes. But it is a judgement call - refs don't get downgraded too badly for those - especially on a bang bang play like that. But if they enforced that call wrong? Well, bye bye playoff (for the officiating crew).

 

[AbeBeta]

Horrible call IMO. I did not think that Newman lead with his helmet at all. I thought he lead with his left shoulder. I thought the ball was tipped so the PI call was irrelivant. The one thing that Newman did do on that play was leave his feet to hit the WR. That is a no-no. Unfortunate because it happens all the time in the NFL but hey, one call should not have been the difference in that game. Even a call as big as that one. We should have easily handled Detroit and we didn't. Simple as that for me.

I don't think either leaving his feet or leading with the helmet are relevant -- the rule is that when a receiver is defenseless he can't be hit. Makes no sense to me -- but that is the rule.

But you are right -- it shouldn't have made a difference -- we should have stomped the Lions.

 

[Smashmouth24]

At the time I thought it looked pretty clear on the sole replay that they showed during the game that Newman's helmet came in contact with the receiver's. Not helmet-first, or leading with the helmet, but helmet to helmet contact. That's a 15 yard penalty when it happens to a by rule 'defenseless' receiver. Can anyone confirm whether or not their helmets came in contact at all?

 

[aikemirv]

I hope that IS what they were discussing -- The flag had already been thrown -- very rarely would they pick that up. One of the refs has that call as his responsibility -- the others aren't focusing on that area so their opinions wouldn't be relevant.

The discussion likely was about the enforcement -- e.g., its an INT if the hit was after the pick and Lions ball if the INT was after the hit. It is a somewhat complex enforcement so they needed to review it.

Bad call. Hell yes. But it is a judgement call - refs don't get downgraded too badly for those - especially on a bang bang play like that. But if they enforced that call wrong? Well, bye bye playoff (for the officiating crew).

Well, they should get downgraded for that call because the so called penalty took the playing out of the hands of the players and put it directly in the officials hands.

The "penalty" had no effect on the subsequent Int and TD and that play happens 10 times in the NFL every week and I have not seen that one called much at all this year.

I also want to know when the flag was thrown, because it was not immediate, I don't think.

 

[Smashmouth24]

I don't think either leaving his feet or leading with the helmet are relevant -- the rule is that when a receiver is defenseless he can't be hit. Makes no sense to me -- but that is the rule.

But you are right -- it shouldn't have made a difference -- we should have stomped the Lions.

That is not the rule. The rule is that you cannot lead with your helmet or make helmet-to-helmet contact on a defenseless receiver. 'Defenseless' is not so much a subjective distinction, as all players (offense or defense) who are attempting to catch a football are considered defenseless.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think either leaving his feet or leading with the helmet are relevant -- the rule is that when a receiver is defenseless he can't be hit. Makes no sense to me -- but that is the rule.

But you are right -- it shouldn't have made a difference -- we should have stomped the Lions.

I guess I'd have to see exactly how the rule is written. That would mean that any time a receiver is not looking directly at the defensive player, who delivers the blow, it's a penalty. That can not be right. I think back to KJ and the hit he took last year that caused a fumble and I can think of no better example what you are describing. No penalty was called on that and rightly so IMO. That is part of the game.

 

[TEK2000]

It unfortunately was the correct interpretation of a terrible rule.

Newman didn't need to lead with his helmet or even lay a particularly vicious hit on him. Newman simply needed to touch Furrey while Furrey was airborne without possible posession of the ball.

That is STUPID! That is absolutely freaking STUPID! A defender isn't suppose to hit recievers until AFTER they have POSSESSION of the ball?

THE RECIEVER IS FREE GAME WHEN HE TOUCHES THE BALL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Furrey TOUCHED the ball and Newman hit him a fraction of a second after that. THAT IS F-ing FOOTBALL! This is freaking two-below out there!

 

[Smashmouth24]

That is STUPID! That is absolutely freaking STUPID! A defender isn't suppose to hit recievers until AFTER they have POSSESSION of the ball?

THE RECIEVER IS FREE GAME WHEN HE TOUCHES THE BALL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Furrey TOUCHED the ball and Newman hit him a fraction of a second after that. THAT IS F-ing FOOTBALL! This is freaking two-below out there!

There is no such rule, we gotta kill this theory now. You can hit a defenseless receiver whether he touches the ball or not. It happens all of the time.

 

[aikemirv]

Defenseless WR's get hit all the time, with or without the ball, they are defenseless. The question should be, did the CB know he was or was not going to catch the ball.

Newman, in no way knew that and led with his shoulder. If Furrey catches it it would not be a penalty, so why should have it been in this case when it went off his hands?

I have seen so many WR's take that hit this year without penalty.

That was just absurd!